Modern America as a Parliamentary Democracy?

[Admiral Yi]

In parliamentary systems parties haggle with each other to form coalitions after the citizens have voted.  They thus have no direct input into the policies followed.

[mongers]

If we had a parliamentary system, we'd probably have fractured into a multitude of small, weak nations years ago, rendering the whole idea moot.

Why would that be the case?

Historical deterministic 'thinking'.


"We live in the best of all possible worlds", make this type of thread pointless.

[garbon]

If we had a parliamentary system, we'd probably have fractured into a multitude of small, weak nations years ago, rendering the whole idea moot.

Why would that be the case?

Historical deterministic 'thinking'.


"We live in the best of all possible worlds", make this type of thread pointless.

Your threads generally are.

[Malthus]

Hell, if Washington were alive today, what would he say?

I mean, aside from "get me out of this damned box!". 

[crazy canuck]

In parliamentary systems parties haggle with each other to form coalitions after the citizens have voted.  They thus have no direct input into the policies followed.

only in cases of hung parliaments - which are rare.  And this time around it we have an extremely rare occurrence of the governing party being propped up by an extremist party.

Btw, this is a good example of why I don't think proportionate representation works well in a Westminster model of government.

I wonder what "direct" input you think American voters have "into the policies followed" after every American election?

[CountDeMoney]

Hell, if Washington were alive today, what would he say?

I mean, aside from "get me out of this damned box!". 

Booooo.   
That was great.

[Valmy]

I think parliamentary majorities have too much power to work well here. Our checks and balances are too integral to our system.

On the other hand having MPs head departments would annoy those who like to constantly bitch about the power of 'unelected bureaucrats' whenever they don't get their way on something.

[Valmy]

In parliamentary systems parties haggle with each other to form coalitions after the citizens have voted.  They thus have no direct input into the policies followed.

Isn't there haggling and dealing for us as well?

[HVC]

In parliamentary systems parties haggle with each other to form coalitions after the citizens have voted.  They thus have no direct input into the policies followed.

Isn't their haggling and dealing for us as well?

The 60 percent of Americans who want universal health care are really happy with their direct input on policies too.

[Razgovory]

Parliamentary democracies tend to be more flexible.  The US has pulled off a Presidential democracy, but not without major problems.  We did have a civil war after all.

US made it through on the strength of strong tradition preventing the fatal weaknesses of our system from materializing.  Without the traditions holding the system together, problems fester indefinitely without resolving.

If we had the system from the begnining, why wouldn't traditions protect it has well?

As I pointed out in the civil war statement, traditions haven't always protected us.  Sometimes traditions have been detrimental, that's why it was so hard to make lynching a federal crime.  Trump is an example of someone who has no use for traditions, for good or ill.

[jimmy olsen]

Parliamentary democracies tend to be more flexible.  The US has pulled off a Presidential democracy, but not without major problems.  We did have a civil war after all.

US made it through on the strength of strong tradition preventing the fatal weaknesses of our system from materializing.  Without the traditions holding the system together, problems fester indefinitely without resolving.

If we had the system from the begnining, why wouldn't traditions protect it has well?

As I pointed out in the civil war statement, traditions haven't always protected us.  Sometimes traditions have been detrimental, that's why it was so hard to make lynching a federal crime.  Trump is an example of someone who has no use for traditions, for good or ill.

Depending on the size of the Parliament, he might not be PM here.  (That's assuming no butterfly effect until now)

[crazy canuck]

I think parliamentary majorities have too much power to work well here. Our checks and balances are too integral to our system.

On the other hand having MPs head departments would annoy those who like to constantly bitch about the power of 'unelected bureaucrats' whenever they don't get their way on something.

Yeah, you might end up with government that functions.  The terror!

[dps]

I think parliamentary majorities have too much power to work well here. Our checks and balances are too integral to our system.

On the other hand having MPs head departments would annoy those who like to constantly bitch about the power of 'unelected bureaucrats' whenever they don't get their way on something.

Yeah, you might end up with government that functions.  The terror!

You're being sarcastic, but our whole system is set up to limit the power of the government, especially the Federal government. 

[Maximus]

You're being sarcastic, but our whole system is set up to limit the power of the government, especially the Federal government.

Which it hasn't done. Instead it has limited the effectiveness of the government.

[dps]

You're being sarcastic, but our whole system is set up to limit the power of the government, especially the Federal government.

Which it hasn't done. Instead it has limited the effectiveness of the government.

I'll live with the ineffectiveness as long as it limits the power.  I much prefer the model of human and civil rights we have here to that they have in the UK.  I'll grant that I would be happier if the government's power were even more limited.