this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
120 points (98.4% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
38882 readers
5756 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, a fragmented parliament is a good thing. It means there's lots of parties, each representing different people's needs, instead of forcing people to choose from two parties, usually based on a single, key issue.
With multiple parties, you get coalitions where each party gets their say, but also has to compromise. And what's a better outcome for democracy than a compromise that everyone finds acceptable, yet everyone is equally unhappy about? That's proper equality.
Obviously certain issues can't easily fall into that simplistic approach, but in most non-extreme topics, the ability to agree to an outcome even if it's not wholly your preferred one. Why? Because such approach leads to communications, and amicability to another's point of view. It's usually the inability or unwillingness to understand one another is what leads to extremism.
There's a balance to strike though. As long as there are enough parties willing to collaborate that you get a kind of semi-stable majority coalition, all is good. There have been situations though (e.g. recently in Belgium I think?) where no-one is able to build any kind of stable coalition, and you just end up with a government that's unable to get anything done.
The Danes have a long history of having very many parties in their parliament (I think their cutoff for "equalisation mandates" is at 2 %), so their politicians are generally quite good at finding compromises and building coalitions. I think that long-term, having this kind of parliament is healthier for the political climate, since it forces everyone to compromise much more often, as well as making it easier for voters to express more nuanced opinions, and forcing voters to consider a broader spectrum of options.
For my own part (Norwegian), I've only ever voted for left-wing parties, but which of the parties I vote for can change between elections. I know that these parties will typically collaborate on most topics, so I can use my vote to push that block in the direction I want. It also becomes easier to get cross-block collaborations, because you can have cases where e.g. the "environmentalist" party on the left and right collaborate, or where the more centre-leaning parties of one block collaborate on certain issues with the other block.
Here in Sweden it used to be praxis for parties in parliament to abstain rather than voting no if they opposed a proposed government for whom they had no better alternative.
Then the nazis came into parliament and threw that praxis out the window and thus ruined a system that had worked great for over half a century.
in the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is constant gridlock
The worst case scenario also being the most common.
Okay, but it's Denmark, one of the most efficiently run countries in the world.
In fact, the top rankings of global economies by living standards are completely dominated by multi-party democracies, while two-party semi-democracies and dictatorships find it much more difficult to pass effective legislation.
Then Hopefully it will go well.
Out of curiosity, I understand it was set up by the party in charge to cement their power due to the us antagonism over Greenland, did they succeed?
Not really though. The USA issue wasn't discussed much if at all during the election campaigns, because parties from both sides are in agreement on this. It wouldn't have moved any votes.
Also, the foreign minister who managed the issue well is not from the party in charge. Perhaps he personally benefitted from it, but all the parties in the previous coalition (including his) lost votes, mainly because voters didn't like the unusual coalition. They're going to do it again though. She surely didn't call the election for his sake.
The timing probably had more to do with local news than international. The topics of water pollution, animal welfare, climate and food prices were already recently present before she called the election. It made sense that way.
The social democrats were leading a coalition in the previous government. Their leader called an early election in the hopes of capitalizing on the Greenland issue. They perhaps did not perform as well in the recent election as they hoped, but they are poised to lead the next coalition government nonetheless.
seems like an OK outcome, thank you for clarifying, and understanding the shitty way I posted that question.
I was thinking rather similarly. While I'm definitely not happy seeing far right parties emerge this vehemently, I'd rather have something like this than the quasi two-party system we have in my country where you either vote for pure corruption and Orwellian shit, or the only other option which might be somewhat ~~better~~ less shit (or the other few parties under 5%, potentially decreasing the less shit party's chance to finally take control from the authoritarian crap).
However, in my experience, these situations usually gravitate toward another quasi two-party system, but it might be just a local thing.