I think the author is making a mistake here by conflating parliamentary systems that have single-member constituencies with those that have multi-member constituencies and proportional representation (And obviously there's also a spectrum in between, with mixed systems where much larger coalitions form in parliamentary systems, depending on the electoral system that's chosen.)
For instance, the UK's single-member constituencies can result in governments with large majorities without getting majority support, whilst Israel's proportional representation creates coalition governments with broad support (among the enfranchised at least).
I feel like this is a double-edged sword situation. Stimulants do make you more focused and obsessive, but on a smaller scale, they make me less likely to adapt. For example, it becomes much harder to change my daily priorities when necessary. On the other hand, they allow me to engage with arguments far more deeply than I would otherwise be able to, which has led to a few significantly larger updates over time.
It seems you need MitID (Denmarks national login system) to sign up online, so this seems very unlikely. If it happens, you have a far bigger problem.
Also, a system with a few false positives still sounds far better than the current situation.
This is an excellent summary of selectorate theory, but on parliamentary versus presidential systems there's an important distinction that gets lost in translation from the academic work. The post conflates parliamentary systems with single-member constituencies (like the UK) with those using proportional representation (like Israel), particularly when discussing coalition sizes.
The original authors acknowledge this limitation in their academic work whenever they distinguish between parliamentary and presidential systems, but this nuance isn't captured here. The UK's parliamentary system can produce governments with large majorities on 35% of votes, creating a smaller effective winning coalition. Israel's PR system requires genuine majority support (among the enfranchised at least). Parliamentary systems with PR tend towards broader coalitions and different dynamics than those with single-member constituencies, despite both being "parliamentary", and the difference disappears when you correct for these.