Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...with multiple parties, limited power to the presidency (where it is similar to the GG in Canada, but with slightly more power), an independent central election commission, elections that last for 30-60 days not 2 years, votes of no confidence that require new elections, budgets that, if they fail, don't shut down everything... they just require new elections, a reduced-in-power Senate that reviews bills for amendment and approval and have no budgetary authority, elections with low spending limits per candidate and party, etc. etc. among other things.
The current US system is broken, and with the way the world works now with instant-reaction through constant communication, it will never work again without massive change. There is simply way too much bureaucracy with way too many people that have to insert their opinion/put their hands on something to get it done. Yes checks and balances are good, and Parliamentary systems have good ones if the Constitution is written properly...but this mess is unsustainable. If we don't change it, America is done as a superpower in 20 years.
The US system is great, a parliamentary system means an all-mighty President..In some countries Presidents are like dictators, they can pass everything they want when they want.No thanks the US system is great !
In addition, there would be weekly Premier's Questions where the Opposition Leader and other major party leaders hound the Premier for answers to questions on various legislation. There would also be a biweekly day where the Opposition controls the debate in the HoR.
And what does this achieve? Great political theater?
I'm not on board. What you are saying you want is a government you can change whenever you please, every 30-60 days, if necessary. Which is ridiculous, because no government policies could actually be successfully implemented in that sort of time frame. Our election system is not broken. It's misunderstood by many Americans who evidently didn't pay attention in their American Civics class in high school. The stability of the American government is one of the characteristics that allowed us to become a superpower. The peaceful transition from one administration to another is extraordinary. The balance of powers within the government is one of the most elegant and effective constructs in political power in the world.
Exactly, this system is one of the most steady you have ever seen.Parliamentary systems permitted Hitler for example, the US system avoid this kind of mistake.
This system is admired in the entire world.
There would be no need for an electoral college for the Presidency, especially with such drastically reduced powers. The President would be relegated mostly to a ceremonial figurehead position where we elect people who have that old/wise/revered aura about them.
Quote:
Because a national popular vote, while seemingly a good thing, actually ensures that urban interests are represented in the national government and rural interests are not. The electoral college was purposed for two things. First, by weighting more rural states, it provides an incentive for candidates to take an interest in rural states. And secondly, it helps to make campaigns more of a conversation between the candidates and the voters. Gets the candidate on the ground, as it were. Campaigns in a democratic republic, like we have, should not just be exercises in marketing a candidate. They need to be conversations. The candidate isn't supposed to just make speeches and promises, the candidate is supposed to listen. Elections, campaigns are an opportunity to have a discourse. The electoral college actually encourages that by opening the campaign to rural areas, which a popular national election will not do.
The 450 seats by electoral district function as a form of electoral college. Each seat is weighed evenly across the HoR. To govern, a party leader would be required to have 251 seats minimum in the HoR. If no one fails to reach that, either a coalition of parties can form, a minority government can try to form if none of the other parties rabidly object to it, or a new election is called by the President. There would be only 50 seats tied to the NPP Vote which is to ensure that smaller parties get represented. This would still require leaders to go to swing districts to campaign, whether they be urban, suburban, or rural... just like candidates go to swing states now. Unfortunately, no matter what the system, there is no way to prevent focus on the "swing areas" of an election.
Quote:
The idea of no-confidence votes ties the President to one party, much more so than our current system of government, which makes bi-partisanship even more difficult.
This line makes no sense. The Parliament/Congress controls no confidence votes... whether the government party/coalition requests it or the opposition requests it on opposition day or if a budget falls. If this happens, the government is dissolved and the Premier is required to go to the President telling him/her this, where the President will drop the writs of election. There is no "tying" the President to a party other than the President's party of affiliation at election time and views when selecting SCJs, etc.
Quote:
We already have multiple parties. The fact that two parties dominate have nothing to do with the design of our federal government, but in fact have everything to do with rules and laws passed on the state level and which could be changed on the state level. Personally, I would much prefer if got rid of the winner-take-all format and went with more proportional representation when it comes to federal elections. But the federal government doesn't dictate that, and the states can choose differently.
Our current system makes it supremely difficult for these parties to have any sort of voice. By limiting the amount a campaign can spend on an election to a much lower amount, smaller parties would have a chance. By moving the government/cabinet to Parliament/Congress, it doesn't require the massive effort and money that Presidential elections require for a smaller party to have a voice (they could run in an individual district, for instance). By having the 50 seats by NPP vote, a party just needs 2% of the vote to grab a seat. Once they are in Parliament/Congress, they can have their voice heard especially at Premier's Questions. This allows their party to grow stronger if they have a successful idea/voice. Right now, our system allows for none of this, therefore smaller parties are smothered.
I think you would be designing a much more rigid and partisan form of government, then. We have the opportunity every two years to change out the House of Representatives. And a portion of our Senate also changes every two years. That's a tremendous amount of flexibility which gives the people a great deal of say.
The two-year fixed system in use currently basically allows a persistent election campaign which accomplishes nothing.
Quote:
How would any of your proposals meaningfully change things? None of your proposals actually weaken the two party system. All your really doing is shifting executive power to the legislative branch. That achieves----what???
See my last post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragneel
The US system is great, a parliamentary system means an all-mighty President..In some countries Presidents are like dictators, they can pass everything they want when they want.No thanks the US system is great !
No, it does not mean an all-mighty President. Do you have any idea of what you are talking about? First, there is something called a Constitution, which you write in it limiting the President's powers. Second, read my posts. The President would have very, very, very limited powers and would be reduced to mostly a ceremonial position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And what does this achieve? Great political theater?
Premier's Questions provides debate on legislation to the public. If a Premier consistently fails in PQs, and an Opposition/3rd Party Leader consistently succeeds, it shifts public opinion... especially on bigger issues. This is important come election time or in the potential votes of no confidence if the government is widely panned. Opposition days basically allow opposition ideas to hear the floor and have a vote, and they provide an internal check on power (especially in minority/coalition situations).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragneel
Exactly, this system is one of the most steady you have ever seen.Parliamentary systems permitted Hitler for example, the US system avoid this kind of mistake.
This system is admired in the entire world.
This system is, first of all, NOT admired in the entire world. The vast majority of the world (and western world) have Parliamentary systems for a reason. Trying to bring Hitler into this is a red herring. First, our Constitution would not be a 1930s German constitution. Second, the same person would not be able to hold both the Presidency and Premiership at the same time. Third, don't you think the world has learned something since Hitler? Fourth, the way our society and military works is completely different than 1930s Germany... do you honestly think our country would allow something like that to happen? Fifth, again, the constitution would prevent that situation through proper checks and balances.
Take money out of campaigning, allow candidates that meet a signature threshold to face a run off/primary and a general election. Do all the door to door you want, use all the unpaid volenteers you want and TV and Radio time would be divided up and donated to candidates equally. Lots of public forums and debates...
We should also encourage citizens to vote. Make the general election a paid holiday, but only if you vote, make it on a weekend, and if a certain percentage, say 70%, of registered voters don't vote the election is void.
I don't want a parlimentary system, but I would like to nationalize and standardize elections which make it easier for 3rd party and independent candidates to run.
As much as I love the US Constitution, I'd be OK with a parliamentary system, with an elected Senate like Australia's. I'd rather just get rid of the electoral college, though.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits states from having parliamentary systems (the Republican Form clause only prohibits monarchical states) - yet none have them. Montana talked about adapting a parliamentary system but never did.
One question I have about Australia: have there ever been situations in which Labor controls the Parliament but the Coalition controls the Senate, or vice versa? I wonder how that would work.
I would love to lend my support to a public discussion of a US parliamentary system. I have only seen one person's blog directly call for this (last updated in 2009, though: usparliament.blogspot.com). Do any of you know of a central organizing group/site for this discussion? There have been many other movements that were first deemed "not feasible"...
I'm not on board. What you are saying you want is a government you can change whenever you please, every 30-60 days, if necessary. Which is ridiculous, because no government policies could actually be successfully implemented in that sort of time frame. Our election system is not broken. It's misunderstood by many Americans who evidently didn't pay attention in their American Civics class in high school. The stability of the American government is one of the characteristics that allowed us to become a superpower. The peaceful transition from one administration to another is extraordinary. The balance of powers within the government is one of the most elegant and effective constructs in political power in the world.
Seriously? We don't get anything done under this system. Part of it is that our system of representation limits the number of viable parties at the national level. Part of it is that one of our parties has decided to abuse a concept that was intended only for occasional use in order to make a super majority necessary to pass anything through the Senate.
Our government may stay in place longer than parliamentary governments, but there is essentially no benefit to that given that we don't actually get anything meaningful done in any time frame. The US system of government is designed purposefully to water down legislation before it reaches the President. That may have worked in the olden days, but the 21st century will go to the most dynamic and responsive governments, ie: China and emerging developing world countries.
But I agree, rather than changing the whole system, eliminating the filibuster and switching from first past the post to proportional representation would be a great help. As would be mandatory public funding for all officials running for office, among other reforms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragneel
The US system is great, a parliamentary system means an all-mighty President..In some countries Presidents are like dictators, they can pass everything they want when they want.No thanks the US system is great !
Mind listing examples? In most parliamentary systems, president is more or less a figurehead most of the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take the money out of campaigns
