No, the executive is compartmentalized and voted for separately, so there’s no dissolution of parliament, negotiations over forming a government, etc. Seems like a small difference, but structurally it’s a large and impactful distinction.
I know and understand the difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism, but I am not talking about the election of presidents exclusively, I am talking about the political system of the country in general. If 20~30% of the chambers are in the hands of a third party, the country becomes more plural and public debates better represent opinions and I don’t understand why that is not possible.
I understand, but how is it viable, from the standpoint of the opposition, to be anything other than a unified party in opposition if there’s no chance to bargain for a position in a coalition government, to form a coalition to win an election to make a new government, etc? That doesn’t make any sense, why would anyone split like that?
Yes, after all the answers I think I am beginning to see the problem, it is not the electoral system but your vision of it. That is why time and time again the answers are about the position of president and not about the system as a whole. You don’t care, you don’t understand that the present is the most powerful individual person, but the presidency is not the most powerful institution, the Congress and the Senate have much more power, being powerful there is much more important than putting a person in office. Not to mention the number of laws, measures and issues that do not even reach the federal level.
