Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
apodino
Topic Author
Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

What if the US was a parliamentary government

Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:38 am

As we all know the US is a Constitutional republic where the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are separate. Most other democratic nations on the planet use a parliamentary system. In this system, voters elect the legislative branch (Parliament) and who ever gets the most seats in the legislative branch forms the government with the party leader and his aides running the executive branch, and the opposition forming the shadow government. One benefit to such a system is the fact that you never have to deal with deadlocked government that cant accomplish anything because the same party in theory controls the executive and the judicial branches as they are interwoven. One drawback though is there is no check on power of the prime minister or parliament other than the Opposition who doesn't really have a lot of power unless you have a minority government. (Which is what exists today in places such as Canada and the UK).

If this system was in place in the US today, Trump would never have been able to come to power (He would never have won a congressional seat in NY, unlike Boris Johnson, who was mayor of London and also already an MP when he became PM). We would be looking at Prime Minister Nancy Pelosi right now, with Kevin McCarthy the leader of the opposition. The government would look something like this.

Secretary of State - Eliot Engel
Attorney General - Jerrod Nadler
Secretary of Treasury - Richard Neal
Secretary of Defense - Adam Smith
etc.

Of course in such a system the senate would have much less power, so a lot of big names currently in the senate would probably be Frontbenchers in a US Parliament.

I have more thoughts on this going forward, but its something that I thought of, and knowing that the UK has a brief campaign season before an election, it also gives them much more time to govern, where in the US, everything being cyclical creates a never ending fundraiser for both parties.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7207
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:14 am

It would insure that one political party can stay in power for an indeterminate length of time. The current system, even with it's flaws, still insures a balance between the branches and that is further balanced by the parties.

The point is for all people to have equal say in government and installing one party in power is the opposite.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7207
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:15 am

It would insure that one political party can stay in power for an indeterminate length of time. The current system, even with it's flaws, still insures a balance between the branches and that is further balanced by the parties.

The point is for all people to have equal say in government and installing one party in power is the opposite.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7207
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:19 am

It would insure that one political party can stay in power for an indeterminate length of time. The current system, even with it's flaws, still insures a balance between the branches and that is further balanced by the parties.

The point is for all people to have equal say in government and installing one party in power is the opposite.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
melpax
Posts: 2021
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:13 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:10 am

In the Australian system, there have been situations where the Senate has held power over the government of the day. Not uncommon for the Government of the day to not have control over the Senate, where the Opposition party might have control, or more commonly, a few independant senators might hold the balance of power. Not unusual in this situation for legislation to be 'tweaked' so it can pass through the Senate.

And then there's Question Time...

Some old clips featuring former Oz PM Paul Keating at his Zegna-suited best...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Lu6FCVkNs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shtgfGV4R58
Essendon - Whatever it takes......
 
Reinhardt
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:23 am

TWA772LR wrote:
It would insure that one political party can stay in power for an indeterminate length of time. The current system, even with it's flaws, still insures a balance between the branches and that is further balanced by the parties.


That doesn't happen in any Western nation with a parliamentary system. Parties in power screw up, voters get fed up or change their views, some countries like the UK set a fixed parliament term so there has to be an election every x years.

TWA772LR wrote:
The point is for all people to have equal say in government and installing one party in power is the opposite.


Again that happens with parliamentary democracies. You have opposition parties. When leglislation comes to a vote they choose which side to vote on - that is representing the will of the other side. Brexit is a prime example. Look at how the opposition parties have voted to stop or change what the govenment of the day is doing. If you don't have the numbers to have a majority govenment then it's entirely up to deal making with other parties, so you often don't get crazy leglisation passed.

It's all possible and there are checks and balances (in the UK you have the house of lords, other countries have elected upper chambers). Sometimes the numbers match up and everything gets passed, sometimes nothing will. It entirely depends on who the public vote for, but generally it works very well.

From the outside the US system looks incredibly expensive, open to massive influence from lobbyists, slow, and from Obama's last term and some of Trumps completely unable to pass any meaningly reform or legislation. In the real world none are perfect, but the US model starts to seem out of date as time goes by.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12802
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:47 am

TWA772LR wrote:
It would insure that one political party can stay in power for an indeterminate length of time. The current system, even with it's flaws, still insures a balance between the branches and that is further balanced by the parties.

The point is for all people to have equal say in government and installing one party in power is the opposite.


Bollocks you'd have a system more like Australias and they have fairly regular changes of government.

At the moment in the US the people's vote doesn't count, the electoral college using a first past the post system ensures that, if you changed the electoral college to proportional representation like 2 of the 50 states use then your govt would represent all the people, everyone's vote would count, to have a situation like the current one where the winner lost the popular vote is a farce.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:27 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
At the moment in the US the people's vote doesn't count, the electoral college using a first past the post system ensures that, if you changed the electoral college to proportional representation like 2 of the 50 states use then your govt would represent all the people, everyone's vote would count, to have a situation like the current one where the winner lost the popular vote is a farce.


The electoral college is about equal representation, not proportional. Equal representation between large and small states is an age long discussion in the USA and the reason the US Senate exists.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:27 pm

If the United States had a parliament, who would have the ultimate decision on dissolving parliament? In Canada, the vote of no confidence and desire to dissolve parliament is given to the governor general who speaks for the crown, right? So, on behalf of Her Majesty, the governor general accepts the vote of no confidence and dissolves parliament. Is that correct? So, if we were to have a parliament, who would accept the vote of no confidence and dissolution?

I do like the idea of shorter campaign cycles.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:54 pm

seb146 wrote:
If the United States had a parliament, who would have the ultimate decision on dissolving parliament? In Canada, the vote of no confidence and desire to dissolve parliament is given to the governor general who speaks for the crown, right? So, on behalf of Her Majesty, the governor general accepts the vote of no confidence and dissolves parliament. Is that correct? So, if we were to have a parliament, who would accept the vote of no confidence and dissolution?

I do like the idea of shorter campaign cycles.

May I suggest Wikipedia's article on "Dissolution of parliament" - it covers proceedings in a variety of countries.
In those countries where a monarchy does not exist, that role is often performed by a "President", which is often merely a ceremonial office.

So, to answer your question, if the US had a parliamentary government, it would be the Prime Minister who flew around in Air Force One, whilst the President only had a Learjet and a small office & staff somewhere in the basement of the White House. Most of the time you wouldn't even know the President of the USA existed, except for charity balls and diplomatic dinners... :D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_parliament
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
Thunderboltdrgn
Posts: 2031
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:01 pm

seb146 wrote:
If the United States had a parliament, who would have the ultimate decision on dissolving parliament? In Canada, the vote of no confidence and
desire to dissolve parliament is given to the governor general who speaks for the crown, right? So, on behalf of Her Majesty, the governor general accepts the vote of
no confidence and dissolves parliament. Is that correct? So, if we were to have a parliament, who would accept the vote of no confidence and dissolution?

I do like the idea of shorter campaign cycles.


Speaker of the parliament (which is how it works in Sweden even if we are a constitutional monarchy) ?
Like a thunderbolt of lightning the Dragon roars across the sky. Il Drago Ruggente
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12969
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:51 am

Personally I like the French system. It has drawbacks of course, but the president has always the popular vote for him, and thus legitimacy. It doesn't mean there are no checks and balances, but ultimately the main check is the next election, and it's proving more and more difficult to win that.

I also like that we do manage to improve the constitution when needed, fairly major changes are done on a regular basis with no drama.

Here, it's impossible to imagine subjects like abortion, gun control or healthcare being major political issues at every election for decades. There is a regular back and forth, something is done then undone, but not on such matters.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:31 pm

Aesma wrote:
Personally I like the French system. It has drawbacks of course, but the president has always the popular vote for him, and thus legitimacy. It doesn't mean there are no checks and balances, but ultimately the main check is the next election, and it's proving more and more difficult to win that.

I also like that we do manage to improve the constitution when needed, fairly major changes are done on a regular basis with no drama.

Here, it's impossible to imagine subjects like abortion, gun control or healthcare being major political issues at every election for decades. There is a regular back and forth, something is done then undone, but not on such matters.


The French system is way over centralized in Paris. The US states have much more power.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12969
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:41 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Personally I like the French system. It has drawbacks of course, but the president has always the popular vote for him, and thus legitimacy. It doesn't mean there are no checks and balances, but ultimately the main check is the next election, and it's proving more and more difficult to win that.

I also like that we do manage to improve the constitution when needed, fairly major changes are done on a regular basis with no drama.

Here, it's impossible to imagine subjects like abortion, gun control or healthcare being major political issues at every election for decades. There is a regular back and forth, something is done then undone, but not on such matters.


The French system is way over centralized in Paris. The US states have much more power.


That's another matter not really linked with how we choose our leaders and legislators, though. And it has advantages, for example you can move across the country (not in overseas territories) and have exactly the same laws, same taxes, same regulations, no need to adapt.

I drove through California a couple weeks ago and every few miles taxes changed, you never know what you're going to pay, it's bonkers.

There have been attempts at "decentralizing" which are not very convincing, usually it just gives a way for local barons to get power and money.

If people will put all blame on the president, he might as well have all the power too.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13378
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:07 pm

PPVRA wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
At the moment in the US the people's vote doesn't count, the electoral college using a first past the post system ensures that, if you changed the electoral college to proportional representation like 2 of the 50 states use then your govt would represent all the people, everyone's vote would count, to have a situation like the current one where the winner lost the popular vote is a farce.


The electoral college is about equal representation, not proportional. Equal representation between large and small states is an age long discussion in the USA and the reason the US Senate exists.



Don't bother he won't listen to anything that doesn't include turning the US into some Europe type utopia. Sorry but we will stick to what we have.
I am the Googlizer!!!
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:13 am

seb146 wrote:
If the United States had a parliament, who would have the ultimate decision on dissolving parliament? In Canada, the vote of no confidence and desire to dissolve parliament is given to the governor general who speaks for the crown, right? So, on behalf of Her Majesty, the governor general accepts the vote of no confidence and dissolves parliament. Is that correct? So, if we were to have a parliament, who would accept the vote of no confidence and dissolution?

I do like the idea of shorter campaign cycles.


The president remains head of state and thus has the decision on dissolving parliament. However unlike today, the president would be a ceremonial post, while the Prime Minister/Premier/Chancellor has the power of government.
I FLY KLM+ALASKA+QATAR+MALAYSIA+AIRASIA+MALINDO
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12969
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:01 am

NIKV69 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
At the moment in the US the people's vote doesn't count, the electoral college using a first past the post system ensures that, if you changed the electoral college to proportional representation like 2 of the 50 states use then your govt would represent all the people, everyone's vote would count, to have a situation like the current one where the winner lost the popular vote is a farce.


The electoral college is about equal representation, not proportional. Equal representation between large and small states is an age long discussion in the USA and the reason the US Senate exists.


Don't bother he won't listen to anything that doesn't include turning the US into some Europe type utopia. Sorry but we will stick to what we have.


Why couldn't you get rid of the electoral college but keep the senate as is ?

The electoral college means many people vote for nothing, and it has no direct link to the size of the state, it happens in small and large ones.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
bgm
Posts: 2430
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:41 am

NIKV69 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
At the moment in the US the people's vote doesn't count, the electoral college using a first past the post system ensures that, if you changed the electoral college to proportional representation like 2 of the 50 states use then your govt would represent all the people, everyone's vote would count, to have a situation like the current one where the winner lost the popular vote is a farce.


The electoral college is about equal representation, not proportional. Equal representation between large and small states is an age long discussion in the USA and the reason the US Senate exists.



Don't bother he won't listen to anything that doesn't include turning the US into some Europe type utopia. Sorry but we will stick to what we have.


Even though it's completely dysfunctional and ineffective? The US government is in constant gridlock (gov shutdowns, impeachment, Benghazi, inquiry after inquiry etc etc). And that's not even talking about the obscene amount of money spent on election campaigns which could be much better spent on say, the crumbling infrastructure, or gasp, healthcare?
If you hate wearing a mask, you’re really going to hate using a ventilator.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12802
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:18 am

PPVRA wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
At the moment in the US the people's vote doesn't count, the electoral college using a first past the post system ensures that, if you changed the electoral college to proportional representation like 2 of the 50 states use then your govt would represent all the people, everyone's vote would count, to have a situation like the current one where the winner lost the popular vote is a farce.


The electoral college is about equal representation, not proportional. Equal representation between large and small states is an age long discussion in the USA and the reason the US Senate exists.


I get that but if you're not making the electoral college vote proportional only some of the people in each states vote counts, the rest don't. You can still have an electoral college and there would still be a balance between states large and small but it would be more representative if it was proportional.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12802
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:22 am

NIKV69 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
At the moment in the US the people's vote doesn't count, the electoral college using a first past the post system ensures that, if you changed the electoral college to proportional representation like 2 of the 50 states use then your govt would represent all the people, everyone's vote would count, to have a situation like the current one where the winner lost the popular vote is a farce.


The electoral college is about equal representation, not proportional. Equal representation between large and small states is an age long discussion in the USA and the reason the US Senate exists.



Don't bother he won't listen to anything that doesn't include turning the US into some Europe type utopia. Sorry but we will stick to what we have.


ok smarty pants how would making the electoral college proportion turn the US into some European type utopia, all would do is make everyone's vote count. And if you pull your head out long enough you'd see that 2 of the 50 states already do this.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:39 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
PPVRA wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
At the moment in the US the people's vote doesn't count, the electoral college using a first past the post system ensures that, if you changed the electoral college to proportional representation like 2 of the 50 states use then your govt would represent all the people, everyone's vote would count, to have a situation like the current one where the winner lost the popular vote is a farce.


The electoral college is about equal representation, not proportional. Equal representation between large and small states is an age long discussion in the USA and the reason the US Senate exists.


I get that but if you're not making the electoral college vote proportional only some of the people in each states vote counts, the rest don't. You can still have an electoral college and there would still be a balance between states large and small but it would be more representative if it was proportional.


In a national election, why would Wyoming carry the same weight as Texas? I think we all agree it works just fine in the Senate. But in the electoral college, why should one state get two or three times as many votes as another? What happened to one person, one vote? If Wyoming wants the same voice as Texas, maybe Wyoming should convince the entire nation to vote as they do instead of demanding two or three times as many votes?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:43 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
PPVRA wrote:

The electoral college is about equal representation, not proportional. Equal representation between large and small states is an age long discussion in the USA and the reason the US Senate exists.



Don't bother he won't listen to anything that doesn't include turning the US into some Europe type utopia. Sorry but we will stick to what we have.


ok smarty pants how would making the electoral college proportion turn the US into some European type utopia, all would do is make everyone's vote count. And if you pull your head out long enough you'd see that 2 of the 50 states already do this.


You are, of course, talking about Ohio and Wisconsin.

When speaking of parliamentary style of government, I am most familiar with Canada. Their system is most closely related to our House. So, if we were to have a parliamentary style of government, we would have Nancy Pelosi as our prime minister. A majority of districts (ridings in Canada) voted Democrat. Democrats in the House, being the majority in that chamber, got together and elected her as leader.

Stop with the hate and name calling of Europe. This has nothing to do with Europe and "liberal utopia" or whatever boogyman you have in your mind. This is a fantasy scenario. Rob and Nik, you are being WAAAAAAY too dramatic about this.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Ken777
Posts: 10037
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:07 pm

The Australia system would be a shock to US Politicians because you are actually required by law to vote. In the US there is a huge change from the US where Republicans work really hard to keep people of color from voting.

The Aussie system also uses a ranking system where you vote your preferences, giving your first choice a "1" and then ranking the other 2, 3 etc. When you walk into the polls there are representatives outside handing you the sequences of votes the party would like you to use. It's specifically designed to minimize the voted of the main opposition party,

When living there I was initially taken back by the political tone (as showing the links above) but with Trump we are so far lower than any politician in a Parliament.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:09 pm

seb146 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
PPVRA wrote:

The electoral college is about equal representation, not proportional. Equal representation between large and small states is an age long discussion in the USA and the reason the US Senate exists.


I get that but if you're not making the electoral college vote proportional only some of the people in each states vote counts, the rest don't. You can still have an electoral college and there would still be a balance between states large and small but it would be more representative if it was proportional.


In a national election, why would Wyoming carry the same weight as Texas? I think we all agree it works just fine in the Senate. But in the electoral college, why should one state get two or three times as many votes as another? What happened to one person, one vote? If Wyoming wants the same voice as Texas, maybe Wyoming should convince the entire nation to vote as they do instead of demanding two or three times as many votes?



Since when is 3 larger than 38? Is this the “new math” I’ve heard about?

GF
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:29 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

I get that but if you're not making the electoral college vote proportional only some of the people in each states vote counts, the rest don't. You can still have an electoral college and there would still be a balance between states large and small but it would be more representative if it was proportional.


In a national election, why would Wyoming carry the same weight as Texas? I think we all agree it works just fine in the Senate. But in the electoral college, why should one state get two or three times as many votes as another? What happened to one person, one vote? If Wyoming wants the same voice as Texas, maybe Wyoming should convince the entire nation to vote as they do instead of demanding two or three times as many votes?



Since when is 3 larger than 38? Is this the “new math” I’ve heard about?

GF


That is the problem. People like Rob and Nik want 3=38. That's not how it works. They want Wyoming and North Dakota to have the same voice and Texas and California. Just because there are more people in Texas and California.

One person one vote.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
SanDiegoLover
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:24 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:54 pm

This is one of the downsides of being the nation with the oldest working Constitution in the world. We as Americans would not chose it today. In fact our founders were quite afraid of the populace at large, and only allowed white, male, landholding, adults, to vote and even then limited their power via the Electoral College and Senators being appointed by states instead of a popular vote. Just look at all the governments the US has stood up since from scratch. Places like Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Each has a more dynamic, balanced, set of powers that has the ability to better respond to changes in the world as time moves on. It is likely that Japan will free itself of their Article 9 limitation/ pacifism stance.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:27 am

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

In a national election, why would Wyoming carry the same weight as Texas? I think we all agree it works just fine in the Senate. But in the electoral college, why should one state get two or three times as many votes as another? What happened to one person, one vote? If Wyoming wants the same voice as Texas, maybe Wyoming should convince the entire nation to vote as they do instead of demanding two or three times as many votes?



Since when is 3 larger than 38? Is this the “new math” I’ve heard about?

GF


That is the problem. People like Rob and Nik want 3=38. That's not how it works. They want Wyoming and North Dakota to have the same voice and Texas and California. Just because there are more people in Texas and California.

One person one vote.


But, the process is NOT one person, one vote; it’s by the state proportional to its population as its Congressional representation.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12802
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:56 am

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

In a national election, why would Wyoming carry the same weight as Texas? I think we all agree it works just fine in the Senate. But in the electoral college, why should one state get two or three times as many votes as another? What happened to one person, one vote? If Wyoming wants the same voice as Texas, maybe Wyoming should convince the entire nation to vote as they do instead of demanding two or three times as many votes?



Since when is 3 larger than 38? Is this the “new math” I’ve heard about?

GF


That is the problem. People like Rob and Nik want 3=38. That's not how it works. They want Wyoming and North Dakota to have the same voice and Texas and California. Just because there are more people in Texas and California.

One person one vote.


Where am I saying that. Let's make it easy for you, using Illinois as an example, Illinois has 20 electoral college votes, if one side wins a majority all 20 votes go to that side, with proportional voting, if the other side win 40% of the popular vote they get 8 electoral college votes, which means that boths sides votes count, at the moment only the winners vote counts in 48 states, that's not right in my opinion. Making everyone's vote count is important, in a lot of states people don't vote because they don't believe their vote counts.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:51 pm

And show me where it’s not possible to do this?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12783
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:28 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
It would insure that one political party can stay in power for an indeterminate length of time.


That depends on how you do it, not on parliamentary or not. The interesting question is how you fill those seats in parliament, if you have a pure majority system you are going to end up with two dominating parties (just like you have today) and that may make it easier to have one party in power for a long time, but if it is a proportional system you can be fairly sure that most government coalitions won´t last long, and rarely ever will one party hold the power.
On the plus side your government usually gets stuff done..... no Mitch refusing to even hold debate, let alone votes, on what.... ~250 pieces of legislation by now?

The current system, even with it's flaws, still insures a balance between the branches and that is further balanced by the parties.


I hate to break it too you, but from the the republicans right to the democrats left your system covers about as much ground a single larger parties elsewhere.

Gore Vidal still put it best: "“There is only one party in the United States, ....and it has two right wings".

The point is for all people to have equal say in government and installing one party in power is the opposite.


With the Senators from only 26 Staates representing ~50 million people, essentially deciding what is what in the United States, and the ~300 Million people in the other states only getting to decide what the Senators from those 26 states will get bribed for the next couple of years (Military basis and other kinds of Welfare) i highly doubt that "eqal say" bit.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:19 pm

Gore Vidal still put it best: "“There is only one party in the United States, ....and it has two right wings".


He was wrong, both parties are pro-big government. Rand Paul might come close to small government party positions, the rest of morons at the Versailles on the Potomac only want more money, more dependency making us their wards, more control. Off with their heads.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12783
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:29 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Gore Vidal still put it best: "“There is only one party in the United States, ....and it has two right wings".


He was wrong, both parties are pro-big government. Rand Paul might come close to small government party positions, the rest of morons at the Versailles on the Potomac only want more money, more dependency making us their wards, more control. Off with their heads.


The full quote is a bit more detailed: “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”

sums it up rather nicely.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8245
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:43 pm

Parliamentary democracies are no good. They are doing worse than presidential democracies. India is the best example. It turned into a single-party system. All autonomous entities are working for the single party. No use of having a label of democracy. India actually implemented Trump's wish list without anyone noticing or questioning.

Media working only for the Leader - :checkmark:
Autonomous institutions working for the leader :checkmark:
Supreme court working for the leader :checkmark:
Refuse refugees in millions :checkmark:
Revoke citizenship if they are not your vote bank :checkmark:
Revoke protections to minorities :checkmark:
Build modern day concentration camps :checkmark:


Independent institutions are the key. Whatever Trump is doing, system hasn't failed the nation. At the end from government officials to cabinet members, exhibited the ability to protect the system rather than to appease one leader. Could they have reacted sooner, sure.
All posts are just opinions.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:59 pm

t the end from government officials to cabinet members, exhibited the ability to protect t


That pretty defines the mythical “deep state. Those officials are not elected, do not answer to the voters, are employed to follow the law. They’re not employed to be an alternate government answering to some personal agenda.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12783
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:00 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
Parliamentary democracies are no good. They are doing worse than presidential democracies.


Well, it would appear that "presidential democracies" are pretty much unable to deliver quality of life to their Citizens, India is pretty much the outlayer. Top 10, Top 25.... almost exclusively parliamentarian democracies. Keep in mind there are ~2 Presidential or Semi-Presidential Countries for each Parliamentarian one

Image

https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/ ... ountry.jsp

India actually implemented Trump's wish list without anyone noticing or questioning.

Media working only for the Leader - :checkmark:
Autonomous institutions working for the leader :checkmark:
Supreme court working for the leader :checkmark:
Refuse refugees in millions :checkmark:
Revoke citizenship if they are not your vote bank :checkmark:
Revoke protections to minorities :checkmark:
Build modern day concentration camps :checkmark:


That just seems to imply that India failed to write a better Constitution then the US, despite having 150 years of experience to work with.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8245
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:50 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
That just seems to imply that India failed to write a better Constitution then the US, despite having 150 years of experience to work with.

best regards
Thomas


I don't think any country can author a perfect constitution. What India proved is with a concerted effort constitutional protections can be overruled.
All posts are just opinions.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12783
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:08 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
That just seems to imply that India failed to write a better Constitution then the US, despite having 150 years of experience to work with.

best regards
Thomas


I don't think any country can author a perfect constitution.


True, but you can always write a better one.

What India proved is with a concerted effort constitutional protections can be overruled.


Yup, as i said a fringe case, check the history books, presidential democracies transition into dictatorships more often than parliamentarian ones. Heck, wannabe dictators in parliamentarian democracies sometimes even chose to change them to a presidential system before removing democracy. Its apparently easier.
The US is also just in the process of finding out how much the rule of law is worth in their presidential system.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8280
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:18 pm

If the US was based on a parliamentary system, people would be happier with elections. Instead of a lower house where each jurisdiction sends a number of delegates, the lines for the lower house can stretch across state lines and group people into equally sized district. Districts would be federal and not statewide. If there is an upper house, then every state can still send its equally sized delegation (2 senators). But the lower house gives smaller parties and independents a chance at running since districts are not drawn to favor a party.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8245
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:20 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
...Heck, wannabe dictators in parliamentarian democracies sometimes even chose to change them to a presidential system before removing democracy. Its apparently easier.
Best regards
Thomas


Interesting you said that. Coincidence or following India?
All posts are just opinions.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12783
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:23 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
...Heck, wannabe dictators in parliamentarian democracies sometimes even chose to change them to a presidential system before removing democracy. Its apparently easier.
Best regards
Thomas


Interesting you said that. Coincidence or following India?


I wouldn't say "following", but I try to stay a little current.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12969
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:13 pm

Money is the worst problem in the US system anyway. Limit the amount that can be spent by the candidate (and anyone/thing supporting him/her), let's say 500000 dollars for each congress member, and 100 millions dollars for each presidential candidate, that will help a lot.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8245
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:34 pm

Estimates claim India spent $7 Billion on the last election, mostly through unaccounted transactions, which is higher than what the US spent during the last elections.

There are well know rates of crowdsourcing and vote. I was dumbfounded to know INR 300 + Transportation + Lunch per head to attend a rally, INR 500 to INR 7000 per vote on election eve. If you are in power you can use police vehicles and media trucks to transport cash for distribution. If you are not in power you are pretty much out of luck or have a find an innovative way.

Mandates are no longer sought, they are bought.

I can only compare US with India, would like to hear from other countries. You can understand why I am skeptical about parliamentary democracy.
All posts are just opinions.
 
apodino
Topic Author
Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:54 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
If the US was based on a parliamentary system, people would be happier with elections. Instead of a lower house where each jurisdiction sends a number of delegates, the lines for the lower house can stretch across state lines and group people into equally sized district. Districts would be federal and not statewide. If there is an upper house, then every state can still send its equally sized delegation (2 senators). But the lower house gives smaller parties and independents a chance at running since districts are not drawn to favor a party.

Maybe the house of representatives should work more this way. There are many areas where the suburban area goes across state lines (Especially in the Northeast and Chicago areas), and there are similar interests here, and this way would make it absolutely impossible to gerrymander. If you look at the state level, most of the house districts at the state level go across municipal and county boundaries. No reason it cant work like that at a federal level. The states interest is still represented by the two senators from each state.

Aesma wrote:
Money is the worst problem in the US system anyway. Limit the amount that can be spent by the candidate (and anyone/thing supporting him/her), let's say 500000 dollars for each congress member, and 100 millions dollars for each presidential candidate, that will help a lot.


No disagreement here, but without a constitutional amendment, you will never be able to limit it. Good luck getting 38 states to ratify that too.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:52 pm

apodino wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
If the US was based on a parliamentary system, people would be happier with elections. Instead of a lower house where each jurisdiction sends a number of delegates, the lines for the lower house can stretch across state lines and group people into equally sized district. Districts would be federal and not statewide. If there is an upper house, then every state can still send its equally sized delegation (2 senators). But the lower house gives smaller parties and independents a chance at running since districts are not drawn to favor a party.

Maybe the house of representatives should work more this way. There are many areas where the suburban area goes across state lines (Especially in the Northeast and Chicago areas), and there are similar interests here, and this way would make it absolutely impossible to gerrymander. If you look at the state level, most of the house districts at the state level go across municipal and county boundaries. No reason it cant work like that at a federal level. The states interest is still represented by the two senators from each state.

Aesma wrote:
Money is the worst problem in the US system anyway. Limit the amount that can be spent by the candidate (and anyone/thing supporting him/her), let's say 500000 dollars for each congress member, and 100 millions dollars for each presidential candidate, that will help a lot.


No disagreement here, but without a constitutional amendment, you will never be able to limit it. Good luck getting 38 states to ratify that too.


You’d need to completely rewrite the constitution—the US at the Federal level is based on dual sovereignty of states and the Federal government. That is baked into the system of checks and balances. It was broken when the SCOTUS held constitutional the FDR seizure of power.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:53 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
And show me where it’s not possible to do this?


Each state legislature would have to draw up rules for electoral college voting based on their own legislature rules. It could be done but it is not going to be done, partly because state legislatures can not be bothered but also because both parties would have to agree to it. Based on the last presidential election, I would guess Republicans have more to lose.

The Electoral College needs to go away. Even if it were not replaced with anything, it would be an improvement. All the states would be in play. Get rid of EC and, at the same time, get money out of campaigns and this whole election thing would be much better.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:55 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
apodino wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
If the US was based on a parliamentary system, people would be happier with elections. Instead of a lower house where each jurisdiction sends a number of delegates, the lines for the lower house can stretch across state lines and group people into equally sized district. Districts would be federal and not statewide. If there is an upper house, then every state can still send its equally sized delegation (2 senators). But the lower house gives smaller parties and independents a chance at running since districts are not drawn to favor a party.

Maybe the house of representatives should work more this way. There are many areas where the suburban area goes across state lines (Especially in the Northeast and Chicago areas), and there are similar interests here, and this way would make it absolutely impossible to gerrymander. If you look at the state level, most of the house districts at the state level go across municipal and county boundaries. No reason it cant work like that at a federal level. The states interest is still represented by the two senators from each state.

Aesma wrote:
Money is the worst problem in the US system anyway. Limit the amount that can be spent by the candidate (and anyone/thing supporting him/her), let's say 500000 dollars for each congress member, and 100 millions dollars for each presidential candidate, that will help a lot.


No disagreement here, but without a constitutional amendment, you will never be able to limit it. Good luck getting 38 states to ratify that too.


You’d need to completely rewrite the constitution—the US at the Federal level is based on dual sovereignty of states and the Federal government. That is baked into the system of checks and balances. It was broken when the SCOTUS held constitutional the FDR seizure of power.


It became even more broken with the Citizens United case.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:09 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
And show me where it’s not possible to do this?


Each state legislature would have to draw up rules for electoral college voting based on their own legislature rules. It could be done but it is not going to be done, partly because state legislatures can not be bothered but also because both parties would have to agree to it. Based on the last presidential election, I would guess Republicans have more to lose.

The Electoral College needs to go away. Even if it were not replaced with anything, it would be an improvement. All the states would be in play. Get rid of EC and, at the same time, get money out of campaigns and this whole election thing would be much better.


NO, eliminate the EC and the presidential election turns on NYC, LA and SFO voters. Take a look at the 2016 results, Clinton tan up big numbers in a few cities and ignored the rest of country. Every state needs to count, not a few Dem heavy districts and cities. The ONLY reason you want to eliminate the EC is the Democrats cannot won outside of a few counties.

Shame about that “freedom of speech” idea, we don’t need speech that opposes us, right?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
And show me where it’s not possible to do this?


Each state legislature would have to draw up rules for electoral college voting based on their own legislature rules. It could be done but it is not going to be done, partly because state legislatures can not be bothered but also because both parties would have to agree to it. Based on the last presidential election, I would guess Republicans have more to lose.

The Electoral College needs to go away. Even if it were not replaced with anything, it would be an improvement. All the states would be in play. Get rid of EC and, at the same time, get money out of campaigns and this whole election thing would be much better.


NO, eliminate the EC and the presidential election turns on NYC, LA and SFO voters. Take a look at the 2016 results, Clinton tan up big numbers in a few cities and ignored the rest of country. Every state needs to count, not a few Dem heavy districts and cities. The ONLY reason you want to eliminate the EC is the Democrats cannot won outside of a few counties.

Shame about that “freedom of speech” idea, we don’t need speech that opposes us, right?


Actually, the whole country voted for her by a 3,000,000 vote majority. Not just NYC, LA, and SFO. Those votes also came from UP of Michigan and North Dakota and Arizona and Florida. Every state. Not just three cities you hate. Nearly every citizen had a voice in 2016. Just like nearly every citizen had a voice in 2018.

I say nearly because of the archaic and arbitrary rules put in place to stop Democrats and minorities from voting. But, yeah, go on and be fake outraged over "liberals hating free speech" or whatever. Don't believe me? Look at states with automatic voter registration and vote by mail.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5504
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:26 pm

seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Each state legislature would have to draw up rules for electoral college voting based on their own legislature rules. It could be done but it is not going to be done, partly because state legislatures can not be bothered but also because both parties would have to agree to it. Based on the last presidential election, I would guess Republicans have more to lose.

The Electoral College needs to go away. Even if it were not replaced with anything, it would be an improvement. All the states would be in play. Get rid of EC and, at the same time, get money out of campaigns and this whole election thing would be much better.


NO, eliminate the EC and the presidential election turns on NYC, LA and SFO voters. Take a look at the 2016 results, Clinton tan up big numbers in a few cities and ignored the rest of country. Every state needs to count, not a few Dem heavy districts and cities. The ONLY reason you want to eliminate the EC is the Democrats cannot won outside of a few counties.

Shame about that “freedom of speech” idea, we don’t need speech that opposes us, right?


Actually, the whole country voted for her by a 3,000,000 vote majority. Not just NYC, LA, and SFO. Those votes also came from UP of Michigan and North Dakota and Arizona and Florida. Every state. Not just three cities you hate. Nearly every citizen had a voice in 2016. Just like nearly every citizen had a voice in 2018.

I say nearly because of the archaic and arbitrary rules put in place to stop Democrats and minorities from voting. But, yeah, go on and be fake outraged over "liberals hating free speech" or whatever. Don't believe me? Look at states with automatic voter registration and vote by mail.


Take away her huge majorities in NYC and the Cali cities and she loses big time. Hilary ran up a 6 million vote lead in California and NYS whose voters mostly in a few cities would have decided the election. Democrats are “inefficiently” distributed. That’s what makes the EC necessary.

It’s not “fake” outrage, it’s real. “Congress shall make no law abridging....”. Why do you want one?
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: What if the US was a parliamentary government

Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:57 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
seb146 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:

NO, eliminate the EC and the presidential election turns on NYC, LA and SFO voters. Take a look at the 2016 results, Clinton tan up big numbers in a few cities and ignored the rest of country. Every state needs to count, not a few Dem heavy districts and cities. The ONLY reason you want to eliminate the EC is the Democrats cannot won outside of a few counties.

Shame about that “freedom of speech” idea, we don’t need speech that opposes us, right?


Actually, the whole country voted for her by a 3,000,000 vote majority. Not just NYC, LA, and SFO. Those votes also came from UP of Michigan and North Dakota and Arizona and Florida. Every state. Not just three cities you hate. Nearly every citizen had a voice in 2016. Just like nearly every citizen had a voice in 2018.

I say nearly because of the archaic and arbitrary rules put in place to stop Democrats and minorities from voting. But, yeah, go on and be fake outraged over "liberals hating free speech" or whatever. Don't believe me? Look at states with automatic voter registration and vote by mail.


Take away her huge majorities in NYC and the Cali cities and she loses big time. Hilary ran up a 6 million vote lead in California and NYS whose voters mostly in a few cities would have decided the election. Democrats are “inefficiently” distributed. That’s what makes the EC necessary.

It’s not “fake” outrage, it’s real. “Congress shall make no law abridging....”. Why do you want one?


You and I are both saying the Electoral College needs to go. You want to go one step further, however, and make CA and NY not count. The bottom line is: Across the whole country, out of all the votes from all 50 states, Hillary won. Get over it. She even did it without help from a foreign government. "Russia, if you are listening....." was NOT Hillary.

How exactly am I silencing free speech? Tell me where I said I want to silence anyone? Or are you projecting? You heard one thing one time from someone and now "all liberals" are that way?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArchGuy1, einsteinboricua, Newark727, Toenga, tommy1808 and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos