Is U.S. ‘presidentialist’ democracy failing?

[grumbler]

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

It is from the writings of the founders themselves.  Madison warned them against this, but the Constitution, for instance, made the runner-up in presidential votes the Vice president, under the assumption that there was only one political party and the VP would thus not have competed with the winning president except on the basis of personal prestige.

[Berkut]

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

When was the last time it was amended in any meaningful way?

[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.

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 confidence motion, 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.

I see.  Under the Westminster Parliamentary system a budgetary vote is by definition a vote of confidence.

I am interested to how your system defines what is and is not a matter of confidence.  Is it something the government can decide?  That would seem to defeat the notion that the government must have the confidence of Parliament.

[celedhring]

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

It is from the writings of the founders themselves.  Madison warned them against this, but the Constitution, for instance, made the runner-up in presidential votes the Vice president, under the assumption that there was only one political party and the VP would thus not have competed with the winning president except on the basis of personal prestige.

That's strange. I mean, right when the Constitution was being debated you already had two "parties" being formed: federalists and anti-federalists.

Not debating the point, just that it's strange that they wouldn't see that parties would naturally appear.

[Valmy]

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.

If we had confidence votes in the US that is all the Republicans have done in the eight years since Obama was elected.

[Valmy]

That's strange. I mean, right when the Constitution was being debated you already had two "parties" being formed: federalists and anti-federalists.

Not debating the point, just that it's strange that they wouldn't see that parties would naturally appear.

The parties had a reputation of being sources of corruption and patronage from their experiences with the British system, thus something the new republic should reject.

[Valmy]

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

When was the last time it was amended in any meaningful way?

Depends on what you mean by 'meaningful'.

The recent ones just seem to concern voting rights and codifying things that had already been unofficial tradition anyway.

[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 confidence motion, 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.

I see.  Under the Westminster Parliamentary system a budgetary vote is by definition a vote of confidence.

I am interested to how your system defines what is and is not a matter of confidence.  Is it something the government can decide?  That would seem to defeat the notion that the government must have the confidence of Parliament.

We have two distinct motions that involve confidence.

- Cuestión de confianza (Motion of confidence): the government brings it to the parliament, asking if it still has confidence in the government. If the motion passes, the government stays.
- Cuestión de censura (Motion of no confidence): started by the parliament, who votes whether it still has confidence in the government. If the motion passes, the government falls and a new one is elected (it doesn't trigger an election, the parliament elects a new government).

Both are entirely discretionary and not triggered by any failed vote. So both government and parliament can decide when there's a matter of confidence.

However, for several reasons it's very difficult to pass a motion of no confidence (the one brought by the parliament), so our setup favors government stability. In general, our Constitution favors stability (which is not surprising given how volatile were our previous attempts at democracy).

[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.

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.

You live in Spain. Your historical heritage fosters conflict between classes and regions. Other areas, like Britain and Scandinavia, have developed differently because of historical variables. Your working class, for instance, was just present in urban areas, and unlike in Scandinavia, it failed to establish a firm alliance with small freeholders and the liberal part of the urban petty bourgeoisie.
So some countries are more prone to extreme polarisation than others. Despite Quisling, fascism never really got a hold here, but you can still see those 5-10 % who are prone to fascism voting for the Progress Party.

[garbon]

That's strange. I mean, right when the Constitution was being debated you already had two "parties" being formed: federalists and anti-federalists.

Not debating the point, just that it's strange that they wouldn't see that parties would naturally appear.

The parties had a reputation of being sources of corruption and patronage from their experiences with the British system, thus something the new republic should reject.

Yeah but while they wanted to reject them, I think it makes all the framers seem incredibly naive if they didn't think we actually ever have them. After all, some of the framers basically went on to form parties post-Washington - as well as what c noted about parties forming prior to the constitution.

[Valmy]

Yeah but while they wanted to reject them, I think it makes all the framers seem incredibly naive if they didn't think we actually ever have them. After all, some of the framers basically went on to form parties post-Washington - as well as what c noted about parties forming prior to the constitution.

I am well aware of that. They immediately started doing all the bad things they chastised the Westminster parties for doing almost immediately after the new order was established. Which is why I have said in the past that the real architect of our system of government was Robert Walpole.

[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.

You live in Spain. Your historical heritage fosters conflict between classes and regions. Other areas, like Britain and Scandinavia, have developed differently because of historical variables. Your working class, for instance, was just present in urban areas, and unlike in Scandinavia, it failed to establish a firm alliance with small freeholders and the liberal part of the urban petty bourgeoisie.
So some countries are more prone to extreme polarisation than others. Despite Quisling, fascism never really got a hold here, but you can still see those 5-10 % who are prone to fascism voting for the Progress Party.

Absolutely, but all that relates to the people that form the system, not the system itself. The Second Republic was a parliamentary democracy (the president was a figurehead) and we started shooting at each other pretty soon, with both left and right completely unwilling to cooperate in creating anything that wasn't a bloodshed. Fast forward to a half a century later and we have another parliamentary democracy and despite our problems we're kinda past that.

[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.

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.

You live in Spain. Your historical heritage fosters conflict between classes and regions. Other areas, like Britain and Scandinavia, have developed differently because of historical variables. Your working class, for instance, was just present in urban areas, and unlike in Scandinavia, it failed to establish a firm alliance with small freeholders and the liberal part of the urban petty bourgeoisie.
So some countries are more prone to extreme polarisation than others. Despite Quisling, fascism never really got a hold here, but you can still see those 5-10 % who are prone to fascism voting for the Progress Party.

Absolutely, but all that relates to the people that form the system, not the system itself. The Second Republic was a parliamentary democracy (the president was a figurehead) and we started shooting at each other pretty soon, with both left and right completely unwilling to cooperate in creating anything that wasn't a bloodshed. Fast forward to a half a century later and we have another parliamentary democracy and despite our problems we're kinda past that.

I guess my petty, but in my opinion important, point is that political systems aren't in the one size fits all category. Which seems to be the USA/CIA belief. Which again is weird, since most of studies in comparative politics are done at American universities.
Then again, politicians do seem to want to know better than scholars, so why bother studying stuff.

[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.

You live in Spain. Your historical heritage fosters conflict between classes and regions. Other areas, like Britain and Scandinavia, have developed differently because of historical variables. Your working class, for instance, was just present in urban areas, and unlike in Scandinavia, it failed to establish a firm alliance with small freeholders and the liberal part of the urban petty bourgeoisie.
So some countries are more prone to extreme polarisation than others. Despite Quisling, fascism never really got a hold here, but you can still see those 5-10 % who are prone to fascism voting for the Progress Party.

Absolutely, but all that relates to the people that form the system, not the system itself. The Second Republic was a parliamentary democracy (the president was a figurehead) and we started shooting at each other pretty soon, with both left and right completely unwilling to cooperate in creating anything that wasn't a bloodshed. Fast forward to a half a century later and we have another parliamentary democracy and despite our problems we're kinda past that.

I guess my petty, but in my opinion important, point is that political systems aren't in the one size fits all category. Which seems to be the USA/CIA belief. Which again is weird, since most of studies in comparative politics are done at American universities.
Then again, politicians do seem to want to know better than scholars, so why bother studying stuff.

Fair enough, I can get behind that.

[Valmy]

Which seems to be the USA/CIA belief.

Huh? What did we do this time?