Is U.S. ‘presidentialist’ democracy failing?

[Admiral Yi]

The lack of any constitutional limit on number of justices at any one time.

It doesn't say how many there are supposed to be?  I was unaware.

[The Brain]

The Res Publica was doomed when Marius was elected to multiple terms as consul in a row.

You should never make decisions when angry.

[Norgy]

Well part of the point here is that the US and Spain are dissimilar. We have a parliamentary democracy.

The overall point is BS, though - in my opinion at least.

For Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.

All democratic systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.

Some more than others, according to Linz and other students of political systems. Linz mostly concerned himself with Latin American countries in his case studies and was taught as a standard work in pol sci back in the last century when I attended classes.
Scholars of various colours and shapes have often brought forth the Dutch democracy as a beacon of stability in spite of deep-rooted internal conflicts. The Lijphart study of the Netherlands came up with the "verzuiling" theory of elite cooperation. Others tend to look to Britain as the polar opposite with their first past the post electoral system, or Westminster system. Both have been stable systems and capable of dealing with class conflict etc, but there is a certain value inherent in compromise, which you find in the Dutch model. Presidental systems rarely seem to foster the spirit of cooperation.

In any case, democratic systems are again under the threat of extremists nowadays, so I'm already packing up my stuff and getting ready for some KZ R&R.

[grumbler]

Just because you lost your farm because you were declared an enemy of the state doesn't mean that the collapse didn't start before Sulla.

  You were in the East, dude.  You have no idea what we were dealing with in Rome.

[grumbler]

I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other.  Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.

[LaCroix]

I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other.  Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.

this is interesting and have never heard this before. is it pretty widely accepted, or a plausible theory?

[Norgy]

I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other.  Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.

this is interesting and have never heard this before. is it pretty widely accepted, or a plausible theory?

More plausible and accepted than Jimmy Carter being a traitor, I should think, but what do you care.

[celedhring]

Well part of the point here is that the US and Spain are dissimilar. We have a parliamentary democracy.

The overall point is BS, though - in my opinion at least.

For Linz, who died in 2013, such cases established a rule: Presidentialist democracy is most vulnerable in a polarized society with multiple parties and a volatile electorate.

All democratic systems are vulnerable to a polarized society and a volatile electorate.

Some more than others, according to Linz and other students of political systems. Linz mostly concerned himself with Latin American countries in his case studies and was taught as a standard work in pol sci back in the last century when I attended classes.
Scholars of various colours and shapes have often brought forth the Dutch democracy as a beacon of stability in spite of deep-rooted internal conflicts. The Lijphart study of the Netherlands came up with the "verzuiling" theory of elite cooperation. Others tend to look to Britain as the polar opposite with their first past the post electoral system, or Westminster system. Both have been stable systems and capable of dealing with class conflict etc, but there is a certain value inherent in compromise, which you find in the Dutch model. Presidental systems rarely seem to foster the spirit of cooperation.

In any case, democratic systems are again under the threat of extremists nowadays, so I'm already packing up my stuff and getting ready for some KZ R&R.

Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.

[Berkut]

I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other.  Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.

I think the deification of the US Constitution means that we will never really be able to solve problems like this.

[MadImmortalMan]

It's been amended 27 times. Nothing's impossible.

[Ideologue]

I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other.  Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.

Maybe this just reframing the same point, but didn't a lot of the folks around in the 18th century not actually want the government to work quickly, except in cases of massive consensus (i.e., in times of foreign emergency?)--or, at least, never foresaw the massive reliance upon the federal government that would inhere to the 21st century?  I mean, the checks-and-balances system is designed for a lot of inefficiency--theoretically for the benefit of fairness and protection of the individual--but was not obviously invented with the modern state in mind.

[Valmy]

It's been amended 27 times. Nothing's impossible.

Yeah but that last amendment took 200 years for the States to ratify.

[crazy canuck]

Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.

I disagree.  Consider the budgetary system in the US compared to a Parliamentary system when the governing party does not have majority control.  In a Parliamentary system, if the governing party loses a vote on the budget the government falls and there are elections.  Opposition parties need to carefully consider the political consequences of forcing such an election.  Normally there is a significant political incentive to compromise in order to pass the budget.  Recent experience in the US is the reverse where politicians can threaten an unfunded government without the risk of triggering an election.

[celedhring]

Imho, parliamentary systems don't foster compromise any more than a president that has to cohabitate with a congress controlled by the opposition (and this has been pretty common in the US). It's the people that make up the system more than the system itself. If this people lose the willingness to compromise, the system will break.

I disagree.  Consider the budgetary system in the US compared to a Parliamentary system when the governing party does not have majority control.  In a Parliamentary system, if the governing party loses a vote on the budget the government falls and there are elections.  Opposition parties need to carefully consider the political consequences of forcing such an election.  Normally there is a significant political incentive to compromise in order to pass the budget.  Recent experience in the US is the reverse where politicians can threaten an unfunded government without the risk of triggering an election.

Failing to pass a budget doesn't trigger an election in our parliamentary system - the government would lose a lot of political capital and might feel forced to bring a motion of confidence, but it would not be mandatory.

The US system could also adopt this kind of provision and still be a presidential democracy. So I don't think that's an inherent trait of a parliamentary democracy.

[crazy canuck]

I think that what a lot of people forget is that the presidential system was established in the US with the understanding that competing political parties would never arise, since one political party had essential won the AWI and banished the other.  Had the writers of the US Constitution been a little more clear-eyed, they'd probably have created a parliamentary system of some sort.

Maybe this just reframing the same point, but didn't a lot of the folks around in the 18th century not actually want the government to work quickly, except in cases of massive consensus (i.e., in times of foreign emergency?)--or, at least, never foresaw the massive reliance upon the federal government that would inhere to the 21st century?  I mean, the checks-and-balances system is designed for a lot of inefficiency--theoretically for the benefit of fairness and protection of the individual--but was not obviously invented with the modern state in mind.

A Parliamentary system has many of the same checks and balances.  I think the main difference was that at the time the experience was that Parliament ruled over a unitary rather than a federal State and the King was still more than just a figure head.  Not a very good model for a new country concerned about States rights and getting rid of a king.