Should we go to a Parliamentary system?

[hrmjustin]

[Sekhmets Daughter]

1. And rewrite the entire constitution?

You'd have a better chance of sprouting wings and flying up to heaven...of Jupiter whichever your prefer.

[hrmjustin]

3. I know , but it was just a thought, lol

[tama]

6. And yet

that has happened in many countries recently, as consequence of people rebelling against neoliberal failed state regimes and rewriting new constitutions. Now Spanish Revolution is demanding new open constitutive process. What makes you think US is so special it could not happen there?

Is US neoliberalism exception to the historical forces that lead neoliberal states becoming failed states everywhere around the globe?

[Swede Atlanta]

2. I would not be opposed because....

(1) Parliamentary systems tend to support the development of multiple parties because those parties are represented based on the % of the popular vote

(2) We eliminate the Electoral College and move to democratic control (no more 2 Senators for a state like Wyoming with 500K people the same as a state like California - for full disclosure I was born and raised in Wyoming)

(3) The winning party(ies) select the Prime Minister and he/she chooses her Cabinet with little interference (such as the Senate confirmation hearings for cabinet posts)

(4) MPs are much more tightly held to party platforms. The parliamentary system is less about personalities and more about defined political policies and platforms

(5) Their election cycles are shorter and financing is much less of an issue.

But for the reasons above this will NEVER NEVER NEVER happen in this country.

[hrmjustin]

4. Would u base the parliament seats based on pop. in states or country? would u use ...

the congress seats ? would u allow a member to represent more than one state. Would there be a senate

[DonViejo]

5. Would Myth be the presiding officer in

the House of Lords? :-D

I'd go for a switch. Parliamentary rule seems much cleaner, efficient and equal as was written above. Good luck with rewriting the constitution though. What a battle that would be.

[hrmjustin]

7. But a battle worth having.

[DonViejo]

9. very true

[hrmjustin]

10. yes

[David__77]

8. Ideally, but that's not doable at the federal level.

But I don't think there's anything to prevent it at the level of the states. I would prefer a unicameral legislature and unification of the executive and legislative powers.

[hrmjustin]

12. now that is an idea

[tama]

14. Anything is doable and

nothing is guaranteed, but you don't know if you don't try. You can bypass lots of obstacles by putting Declaration of Independence above current constitution, calling General Assembly to draft new constitution, see if it flies and if it does finally organize general referendum.

[tama]

11. Drafting new constitution is no biggie

Take citizens initiative to call a General Assembly to discuss new constitution. Then see how it goes, if the idea takes wind. You can take that initiative also on DU General Assembly: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1252

Better not get hooked on pushing some specific model from the get go to make the process as open and inclusive as possible, and to start with brainstorming and thinking out of box. Putting all energy into telling oneself and others that it is impossible will of course make it impossible, so positive and even playful attitude is required. You better keep it fun, serious fun!

[hrmjustin]

13. great

[intaglio]

15. As I Brit I can say with certainty

FFS NO!!!!!!!

Our system leads to massive load of petty points scorers and jobsworths. At least in the US the Senators and Representatives have some power and do pay attention to their local party organisation.

Sorry about the panic ....

[LeftishBrit]

16. No point IMO.

Parliamentary systems can work, but they require the right ingredients - e.g. an electoral system that allows for more than two parties, but is not based on absolute proportional representation.

In the UK, total lack of proportional representation, plus the lack of a real independent executive branch (Elizabeth is very well paid, but powerless!), means that Prime Ministers tend to become elected dictators on a minority of the vote, or if they're as idle as Cameron, their favourite Cabinet Ministers become the dictators. George Osborne, Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt, and Ian Duncan-Smith at the moment. Lovely.

In some other countries, near-absolute proportional representation distorts democracy as much as the rigid first-past-the-post system in the UK, and means that small far-right or single-issue parties can hold a government hostage. Do you really want Mitt Romney getting to be president with less than 22% of the popular vote, obliged to appoint Pat Buchanan as his Foreign Secretary, and to allow Pat Robertson control of whether the government survives the next month? The Israelis are dealing with the equivalent of that. Worse, do you really want the KKK to take advantage of the economic crisis to get direct representation in your legislature? Ask the Greeks about Golden Dawn!

Some parliamentary systems seem to work very well, but I don't think that a parliamentary system is a panacea. And I do think that it's a good thing that in America, the legislators are elected separately from the president - I think the UK might benefit from that!

[limpyhobbler]

17. ok sure. It's a long way off though.

In the near term I would rather see people with an eye to government reform focus on getting money out of the political system. We should do an amendment to overturn the "Citizens United" SCOTUS decision.