We Ought to have a Parliamentary System!

[Rupert Notmurdoch]

In Britain, Canada, Australia, etc., a Prime Minister with a majority in the legislature can do pretty much whatever the hell s/he wants. Party discipline is enforced: A member of the ruling party can, if they wish, vote against their leader's wishes, but then they get kicked out of the party, leaving them with the options of either crossing the aisle and joining an opposition party, or running as an independent, in order to retain their seat in the next nationwide election. (Independent candidacies rarely succeed in the countries mentioned above.)

If we had that kind of system, Joe Lieberman could whine to his heart's content. Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson could all go fuck themselves, as no supermajority would be required to pass important legislation like health care reform. The parliamentary model is simple and direct: Fifty percent plus one constitutes a majority, and majority RULES!

Such democracies as these get things done, as opposed to us, checking and balancing ourselves to a goddamn standstill!

[DrDan]

1. think where we would be today had the past administration been void of checks and balances

[Tesha]

5. We had CHECKS on the last administration???

Seems to me like they got pretty much everything they wanted
with few or no questions asked by any Democrats for fear of
being seen as "soft on terra!"

USA-PATRIOT Acts I and II, Gitmo and rendition, Supreme
Court justices, Alberto Gonzalez, etc.

Tesha

[DrDan]

7. they didn't get Social Security

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, well, imagine that system in place when GOOPers

are in the majority. Thanks for listening.

[Gold Metal Flake]

3. IRV would be a good second step...

...Right after comprehensive campaign finance reform including public financing of elections without an opt-out clause.

CFR must be next.

[treestar]

4. Those countries have much lower populations

Here, that could lead to a lot of disaster - where would we be now without the checks on the repukes?

Now that our side is in power we are feeling that frustration of not being able to do whatever we want. But we shouldn't forget what it could be like if the other side could. Bork on the Supreme Court, more war, more inroads on the Bill of Rights that could be hard to overturn.

If we had that system, abortion could be illegal right now.

[SidDithers]

6. Parliamentary systems work better when there are more than 2 parties...

there are 4 currently represented in the Canadian Parliament. Multiple parties allow for the possibility of a minority government, which can be truly representative of an entire population. With only 2 parties, you're always going to have a majority government, which is great when it's your "team" but not so great when it's the other guys.

Where a parliamentary government really shines, imo, is with question period. When the leader of the government must stand up in the House on a daily basis and answer questions from opposing members, then the people being served by the government get to really see who they elected.

Imagine if Bush had been made to face daily questions about Iraq, and Katrina, and tax cuts, and deficits. That would have been beautiful.

Sid

[LeftishBrit]

8. Pros and cons to that...

The value of 'getting things done' can depend on what things are being done. 11 years of Maggie Thatcher as an elected dictator can make you see the disadvantages! 'Joe Lieberman could whine to his heart's content' - or then again he could happen to become the party leader and spend the next 10 years forcing it to the right (cf Tony Blair).

This is what happens in a parliamentary system with a first-past-the-post electoral system. If you have proportional representation, you can end up with the opposite extreme of very weak coalition governments, and a new government every 5 minutes. Better than an elected dictatorship, except when some countries have small far-right parties that can end up holding the government hostage.

I think that all systems have their disadvantages.

[malaise]

9. Backbenchers in the British parliament

often vote against their own party - ask Thatcher and Blair.
That said were the vote about health care, in a parliamentary system the Dems would win a unanimous vote here.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. Backbenchers will vote against the government on some bills.

But if the vote is subject to a three line whip, they won't. (The 'whip' is a précis of upcoming bills scheduled for a vote; the relevant instructions to MPs in their respective parties' whips are underlined. A 'three line' whip, underlined thrice, is an instruction to attend the vote and vote in a particular way; MPs can have the whip withdrawn (be expelled from their parliamentary party) for not heeding it. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_%28politics%29#United_Kingdom