Should the United States change its government to be parliamentary?

I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I do like the idea of being able to express no confidence or recall a sitting president (or Congress). It would probably be disastrous in the current system, being used constantly for political means rather than being an effective tool. But if we had three or four strong parties that had to form coalitions, I could see it being okay.

I don't know.

Didn't we make the constitutional republic specifically because we didn't want a parliamentary system? Or am I lying?
Either way, I dunno.

I don't know. I'm not sure it's necessary, although we might need to do something about the electoral system.

No, I don't think the benefits outweight the cons. However, getting rid of the electoral college would be a plus.

I'm not sure.

Yes. I'm under the impression that the parliamentary is a more-advanced form of government that compensates for some of the problems we have with ours.

No, I'd prefer to stick with the separation of powers. Though I wish congress would grow some balls and not let the executive branch take so many powers to itself. That's not a healthy direction.

I do like, however, how parliamentary systems seem to allow a little more voice to less mainstream parties and positions. So I'd rather see voting changed to be done either by approval or rating. In approval voting you vote for all candidates who you'd approve of in that office and in rating voting you give each candidate a rating, say from 1 to 10.

Not sure what I want done with the electoral college.

No. I don't think it'd to change anything. It'd still going to be rich butt-holes in charge. Also, the whole process would take a lot of money and cause confusion.

We in Canada have a parliamentary system. I have no complaints, except I'm really envious you Americans can actually put a tick beside your presidential candidate. We get to elect a member of a party and hope enough people elect other members of that party so the party head can be prime minister. And we don't have enough sex scandals.

Just keep our government the way it currently is

Huh? This would disrupt our entire way of doing things and weaken us during the process. Plus, what would we have to gain?

no

I don't agree, but I've certainly been wrong before. Would you mind making your case?

Well, wikipedia has a good section: Advantages_of_a_parliamentary_system (there's also a criticism section after that's worth a read).

The US system seems stuck in a rut with only 2 parties feasible. Sure, there are a handful of smaller, insignificant parties, but they seem unable to grow because in general it's foolish for any voter to vote for their candidate because it only helps the opposing party. For example, Nadar's run for president in 2000 as a member of the green party. He got a good deal of support, but most of it came from the left, so the Democrats lost votes and there's a fair bit of evidence that it helped Bush win. Parliamentary systems are better at sharing power among poltical parties. They allow for more shades of grey. The artificial red/blue separation in the US is polarizing us, yet most people would probably admit that they are not entirely in-line with the beliefs of either party.

I also think the focus the US has on president is getting to be excessive and a bit absurd. Presidential elections start years in advance now. There's just too much emphasis on 1 person. In parliamentary systems the prime minister is not voted for directly, but appointed from within their party. This lessens the focus on 1 person.

Also, parliamentary systems are more flexible about how long a party/prime minister stays in power. They can stay for a long time, if they have the support. Or, they can go quickly with a vote of no-confidence. So, for example, Bush probably would have been voted out last year or earlier if we had this ability in the US. Not that I'm so anti-Bush, but it's kind of frustrating to be stuck with a unpopular president for years while people whine about him all the time.

Never saw that before, but you're probably right. In Canada, Bush would very likely already be gone. And yeah, we don't have the intense focus on one person - we consider the party line. And Canada is divided into small zones within which we vote for the party's representative in our zone. The zones are determined by population. It's discouraging to live on the West Coast in Canada though, because by the time the vote is counted in Quebec and Ontario - which have the biggest populations, ergo the most zones - it's already obvious who has won. I must admit I do prefer this system, maybe just because I'm familiar with it, but it does have the benefit you just pointed out.

The US has a similar problem with the order of states voting. It's especially bad with primaries (inter-party elections) that are held of the course of months. The first states have a huge influence over the outcome, while the last states tend to be irrelevant. Though, in our most recent primary season, this was not the case since it ended up being very close race between Hillary and Obama. We're having a lot of problems with states trying to jocky into an early primary slot. Some states were not counted this time because of it...

I agree that people tend to like what they are used to... Honestly, I don't really know enough about parliamentary systems to be sure it would be better. But, it seems better, especially when we have problems with our system.

Hmmm, regarding your first point, yes, the polarization is pretty terrible, but I don't think that has anything to do with a parliamentary system so much as it has to do with money. Corporations and their goons don't back other parties, so those other parties never get a full head of steam. But those other parties still participate; the last time I voted the list of candidates was an arm's length. OK, it does seem futile to back a candidate who's not a Dem. or Rep., but isn't that our own cynicism rather than the product of any particular political structure? Couldn't the other parties themselves focus on smaller targets to build a base, rather than always focusing on the big, national prize? Why don't those other parties look to local elections first? That's how parties have historically made their mark everywhere else. They gained influence slowly and at smaller levels before going after the big prize. I really think other parties don't succeed in the US because Americans are too impatient.

I would respectfully disagree with your second point; I don't see any less focus on a PM than the pres. It's doesn't seem that parliament makes headlines as much as the PM does. The pres. doesn't address the House of Commons (Let's stick to the English system as an example) usually; he meets with the PM. And while our process seems to suck, it's more politically legitmate to choose the head of your nation directly, rather than by proxy. For example, relatively speaking, the English system only has the House of Commons, which would be our House of Representatives (Technically, the House of Lords has a say, but the most they can do is muck up th process). So, if you're in a district that always elects officials contrary to your beliefs because you are so outnumbered, you would never have a hope of participating in your government. There's no Senatorial body and the PM is chosen for you. You vote for your local "Congressman," and that's it. At least in our system, even if your voice is never heard locally, you can still vote for the president and senators directly.

I agree with your third point, but this can be fixed with an ammendment. For example, we could have a yes or no affirmation vote every other year. The pres. would be scutinized biannually (or even annually) whether he should keep his job, and we wouldn't have to change our system of government. I think California has such a provision in their Constitution.


The danger I see in trying to restructure our government is three-fold: (1) I feel our government would be less legitimate (my point 2); (2) The committe systems in Congress and Federal agencies in the executive branch which do the "daily work" of our government now, would be thrown into utter chaos; I don't even see how they could properly function while this process was taking place. Or in other words, who would have their "hands on the switches" (switches like the "football") while all these power shifts were happening; and (3) finally, what if we decided we didn't like the parliamentary system after we so gutted our Constitution? Could we just "go back," or would our new Constitution even allow it?

i would really love to have more parties involved in our presidential elections especially and all elections in general but otherwise would stick with our system.

Maybe I'll just move to England. I'm starting to sincerely hate this nation.

Somewhat, maybe.

I can envision systems better than either though.
ie: A concentric sphere of outward affect, popular vote, amorphously representational, democratic confederacy.

In such a system every decision in the nation would be put to popular vote by anyone possibly affected. People could categorically defer their votes to any individual or agency they wanted to, ie deferring their environmental votes to GreenPeace, who could in turn defer their votes to experts.

Public debate would still be useful to keep people informed, and so for that I suggest a board elected by IRV popular vote, where people like Michael Moore or Dennis Kucinich would debate things on tv, so that people could vote or choose their reps on issues.

The system would be highly based on media, and so one critical part is that people vote on who the media itself is. Without nationalizing and democratizing a portion of the media, free from commercial lobbying, it's impossible to have a valid democracy in today's world. You can't vote on things you aren't informed on.

I think the answer to the shortrcomings of our american two party system is to create a one-party system, which would equate to a pan-party system. If every candidate were a Republican, voters wouldh have to choose between the Republican who wanted to privatize social-security, the one who wanted to dismantle it, and the one who wanted to integrate it with a national health care program, and maybe a few others.

Perhaps candidates could still be associated in unofficial media with thematic parties like Greens, Anarchists, or something, but no government elections should be involved in anything specific to parties. Small parties could then back up indpendents or candidates from other parties as well as sponsor their own.

One interesting thing about our two party system is that it always evolves to be a fair match across the center (thus always be an expensive election, and never a landslide) since if one side lacks numbers, they will adopt enough of the opposing ideology to have a fair chance at victory. It could have just as well been a three or four party system, but whatever it was, they would have evolved to shift ideology and maintain a voter number balance, and we'd be stuck with those three or four parties as we are our two now.

While that balance may happen strategiclly at the presidential level, a top down decision to appeal to voters, I think this redefinition of the two parties may also evolve bottom up as defined by house members trying to stay elected by supporting the values of their own constituency. Being a Republican or Democrat becomes not so much following an ancient ideology as being the views of the average representatives of that party.

"OK, it does seem futile to back a candidate who's not a Dem. or Rep., but isn't that our own cynicism rather than the product of any particular political structure? Couldn't the other parties themselves focus on smaller targets to build a base, rather than always focusing on the big, national prize? Why don't those other parties look to local elections first? That's how parties have historically made their mark everywhere else. They gained influence slowly and at smaller levels before going after the big prize. I really think other parties don't succeed in the US because Americans are too impatient."

Not to nitpick, but you did say that local politcal parties tend to be a bit cultish if you attend their meetings. Maybe they'll become less so as they start to get more mainstream. Or would the cultish aspect be just the price we'd pay for having more than the stagnant 2-party system.

They do use local offices to get themselves situated. They still need presidential candidates though, not so much to getelected, but because such candidates become the representatives of the party platforms for people to become familiar with. No one will pay attention to the fleeting candidates running for city council and mayors. One name per party, and the name of the party is about all people have memory space for.

The problem I find with most 3rd parties is that they have no cohesive comprehensive platform regarding all issues. They concentrate on some issue like civil rights or agricutural law, which does not alone a good choice of candidate make. At least when such candidates do get some votes, it makes it easier for the two parties to identify interest trends.

Impatience is not the problem. Dennis Kucinich was a 'democrat' congressman running for president and still couldn't get into debates because the debates were run by private industry and by invitation only. Unless by impatience, you are suggesting that Kucinch beome so well known over email and blogs, and gain a national popular vote that the debates are forced to invite him or appear as fixed-game as they actually are.

I think the best place for these special interest party candidates would be in cabinet positions, but alas we don't vote on those.

"Start to get more mainstream?" Is your premise that the Democratic Party and Republican Party are not mainstream?

My point of reference in the post to which you refer is that the local party meetings...Repub. and Dem. meetings, smell like cult meetings. I made no reference or inference about any upstart party meeting. Perhaps that's the confusion.

Ooh, ooh - who gets to be King of America?!

You know what? It sucks here too.

Maybe we should both go to Australia.

I know a few people from Australia (on the Care2 site). They seem happy enough--even the one from Lonely Singles.

> My point of reference in the post to which you refer is that the local
> party meetings...Repub. and Dem. meetings, smell like cult meetings.
> I made no reference or inference about any upstart party meeting.
> Perhaps that's the confusion.

I thought by local party meetings you were refering to local 3rd parties, upstart or pre-existing. I am pretty sure they're fairly culty as well, if not moreso.

btw -- did you hear about that where some McCain supports actually booed McCain when he called Obama an upstanding citizen.

1. No, sorry, I was unclear. I meant Repubs or Dems, though I agree that other party meetings would probably be just as culty.

2. Yes, I heard that. Frankly, I am not surprised. Despite polling evidence to the contrary, the Ayres connection is having an affect...on me as well. I think it's fairly clear that Ayres and Barry Obama were more than ships that passed in the night.

I understand how Obama may have had to come to Ayres to launch his election; politics make strange bedfellows, especially Chicago politics.

What is alarming to me are not Obama's actions, but the contrapositive. What about Barry was attractive to Ayres and to The Reverend Wright? What about Barry made those wackadoos want to openly embrace him before he was anybody?

I heard one of Palin's main speeches was written before she was even chosen as a candidate. I'd really be interested in knowing that were true.

> 1. No, sorry, I was unclear. I meant Repubs
> or Dems, though I agree that other party meetings
> would probably be just as culty.
>
> 2. Yes, I heard that. Frankly, I am not surprised.
> Despite polling evidence to the contrary, the
> Ayres connection is having an affect...on me as
> well. I think it's fairly clear that Ayres and
> Barry Obama were more than ships that passed in
> the night.
>

Clear how exactly? The conenction is tenuous at best. It's just an excuse racists use to justify not voting for him because they don't want to admit why they really aren't voting for him. The two guys sat on a baord years ago that was put together by a Republican, and the GOp wants you to associate Obama with crimes Ayers committed when Obama was 8 years old.

> I understand how Obama may have had to come to
> Ayres to launch his election; politics make strange
> bedfellows, especially Chicago politics.
>
> What is alarming to me are not Obama's actions,
> but the contrapositive. What about Barry was
> attractive to Ayres and to The Reverend
> Wright? What about Barry made those wackadoos
> want to openly embrace him before he was anybody?
>

With regard to Rev. Wright, you do know that YouTube clip you see over and over and again is just, what, 20 minutes out of more than 20 YEARS at the pulpit? Besides, I don't her you bringing up McCain or Palin's wackadoodle pastors; Hagee, Parsely, et al are TRULY nuts.

No