Quote from: Tamas on October 12, 2025, 03:19:58 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2025, 11:03:25 AMQuote from: Tamas on October 11, 2025, 01:13:47 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 09, 2025, 03:16:13 PMQuote from: Tamas on October 09, 2025, 01:32:57 PMConcentrating power just concentrates power - you concentrate power in a few hands with no checks in balances to fight the rich and suddenly you have created your own enemy.
Checks and balances are annoying when your guy is being checked and balanced but the best system invented so far to maintain a democracy.
Where are the checks and balances to which you refer? Sounds great in theory - it's in practice that it starts crumbling. Take the US as the most recent tragic example.
Sure but no matter what system you build (and this is in reply to Sheilbh as well), anything beyond sheer physical coercion requires the consent of the ruled and the powerful to accept the rules.
First stop is the ones in power agreeing implicitly not to use their power to diminish other branches of power. If they try those other branches should push back before it is too late. Failing that, the electorate should step in to stop those efforts.
Obviously if all those steps fail then the system fails but this is not something you can remedy except by giving up and just going straight for your preferred form of autocracy.
Again, that is a very American centric view if the world. A parliamentary system does have competing branches of government. The flaw in the US system is it did create competing branches and hoped each branch would be a check on the others.
The Parliament system encourages cooperation. For a third time (because you keep ignoring this point) a non confidence vote, like a budget vote, means there is a new general election. That tends to focus the mind on what compromises are possible.
It also gives a lot of power to back benchers if someone like Trump (or Vance) were to arise.
A parlamentiary as opposed to presidential democracy is better no argument there, but just from my limited knowledge I can raise Hungary as a parlamentiary democracy that has failed. It even had a very modern two-rounds election system which was far superior to something like the British first past the post nonsense but once an actor like Orban got a constitutional majority it all went to hell.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 08:15:03 AMAt this point, I don't think Supreme Court decisions can be taken as precedential. No one thinks that the holdings the Court has been announcing over the past 6 months expanding executive power will be honored if the Democrats ever retake the White House.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 12, 2025, 05:40:55 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on October 12, 2025, 11:03:25 AMAgain, that is a very American centric view if the world. A parliamentary system does have competing branches of government. The flaw in the US system is it did create competing branches and hoped each branch would be a check on the others.
The Parliament system encourages cooperation. For a third time (because you keep ignoring this point) a non confidence vote, like a budget vote, means there is a new general election. That tends to focus the mind on what compromises are possible.
It also gives a lot of power to back benchers if someone like Trump (or Vance) were to arise.
I still think you are very much wrong, or coming from a similarly Canadian-centric parliamentarian view. The "non-confidence vote" only works if the members/backbenchers of the party in power think it is to their advantage/ambition to scuttle the current leader. You would be hard-pressed to convince me that if we translated Trump/MAGA/GOP into a parliamentary system, that Trump would be under any kind of threat. Sure, he might be more vulnerable in theory, but only marginally so.
QuoteAnd even then...what stops a Prime Minister, with a loyal cabinet and administrative control of the police/security services from doing anything different than Trump is doing now? What happens if a PM says "fuck your vote of no-confidence, I am not leaving power...try and stop me"...or "nope, no new general election is necessary just because we didn't pass a budget...we'll just keep going as we were"? And has enough support, or I suppose, apathy, in the cabinet or other gears of power to stop it?
QuoteThere are no really superior, real safeguards in a parliamentary system than in ours...other than the theoretical hope that the administration, security services/military, or other pillars of power (including the willingness of the people/society to engage in mass protest), will do the right thing and stop the wannabe-dictator at the top.
QuoteThese are the flaws of any democratic/republican system...and ours was always as subject to failure, just as Hungary was, or others. They can all sink when those involved lose their ethics to ambition, nationalism, or some other anti-democratic drive. Ultimately, "my system is better" doesn't get one very far if the other more important factors are crumbling around us.
Quote from: Zoupa on Today at 12:06:24 AMI dunno. Are you organizing any marches for them?Yeah, from the deli. But seriously, not caring about Palestinians dying is racism!
Quote from: Syt on Today at 08:19:47 AMThey will bend over backwards to figure out a random argument why all this doesn't apply to Democrat presidents.
Page created in 0.019 seconds with 11 queries.