The constitution should be changed - it makes the US ungovernable

[johan helge]

In other countries, the majority in the Parliament has both the power and the responsibility. In the US, the responsible (The President) does not have the power (if the other party controls the Senate or the House).

So when Obama wants to create jobs, the Republicans in the House can stop this. And they have every incentive to do so, because it benefits them in 2012. This is madness, and the voters should be told about this.

[Drale]

1. This has nothing to do with the Constitution

its 100% the fault of the Media. They are the ones shoving the idea that everything is Obama's fault down the throats of America.

[johan helge]

3. I know the Constitution is sacred for Americans

- I'm Norwegian - and for a reason, as far as I know, the Constitution was the first written democratic constitution in the world. But - it's not the best constitution. The OP gives one of the reasons. The two-party system it creates, is another reason - in other countries, the party for the most wealthy minority tends to be a minority party, as it should be - but in the US, the two-party system means that the party for the wealthy minority gets approximately half the votes. A third reason US law should be changed, is the power of money in US politics (political TV ads should be forbidden, like they are in Norway).

[Nye Bevan]

7. Which article of the Constitution specifies a two-party system? (nt)

[johan helge]

16. Take the

election of a President. A third party anti-Republican candidate is counterproductive, because he splits the anti-Republican votes into two camps, making it easier for the Republican to win. As far as I know, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush became presidents because of third party candidates (Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, respectively).

This is a problem also for the Senate and the House.

In my country, Norway, every "district" has roughly 8-10 representatives in the Parliament (not one, as in the US). This makes it possible for smaller parties to get into the Parliament, where there are now seven parties.

[dsc]

59. Neither first past the post, nor single member districts, are in the Constitution

In point of fact some states have signed on to having their states electoral votes go to the winner of the popular votes as soon as states totaling 270 electoral votes sign on.

[Yo_Mama]

66. If we had a Parliamentary system

the President would be the PM and he'd have gotten a vote of No Confidence. After the last Congressional election, he'd have had to form a coalition to stay in office.

Voters deliberately did this.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. The one that specifies the manner of election of the president and Congress

first-past-the-post voting systems inevitably tend to a two-party system by their nature; see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

[Nye Bevan]

22. The UK has first-past-the-post. And not only does it have 3 viable political parties,

the third party is currently part of the Government.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. I think "three viable political parties" is a bit of an overstatement

have you seen the Lib Dems' poll numbers lately? They're about as popular as syphilis. They were briefly viable because Blair alienated quite a lot of people who would have otherwise voted Labour with Iraq. That was the single largest reason for the viability of the Lib Dems in the first place. None of those people, when they voted for the Lib Dems at the last general election, wanted to cast a vote for a Tory government. Nick Clegg, in going into coalition with the Tories, has made a Faustian bargain that will condemn his party to electoral irrelevancy for the next two decades. (The Lib Dems are on 10 percent in the last poll I saw. That's down from 25% just before the election.) And the Lib Dems may be in coalition with the Tories but what we have is a Tory government very little tempered by Liberal input.

[BzaDem]

27. It isn't just first-past-the-post. Look at the electoral college. One needs an absolute majority to

become President. Any election in which all three parties split the votes means the election goes to the House, with each state's representatives collectively getting a single vote. California votes equally with Wyoming.

That does not allow for any more than two viable parties.

[Capitalocracy]

34. But if they had instant runoff the third party would be in charge

most likely

[Capitalocracy]

10. The wealthy minority have more like 90% of the votes.

Or more.

[Nye Bevan]

11. So the "wealthy minority" wanted Obama to win in 2008? And the Democrats in 2006? (nt)

[Capitalocracy]

14. They're still getting their legislation passed.

And they did give Obama and consistently give Dems a lot of campaign money, too.

[johan helge]

19. Yes,

money has too much power in US politics, that's another consequence of US law (in Norway, political TV ads are forbidden, because such ads give power to money).

[Nye Bevan]

21. Are internet, newspaper and mailed political ads also forbidden? (nt)

[johan helge]

37. No, it's forbidden only on TV and

radio (I'm not 100 % sure about radio, but the radio market is dominated by a public radio with no ads at all).

[Nye Bevan]

38. But surely internet and print ads also cost money?

And this discriminates in favor of the wealthy?

Why not ban these ads too?

[johan helge]

44. Personally, I'd be happy to ban them

but TV is most important, of course, since TV ads are so expensive.

[court jester]

40. "The two-party system it creates..."

Where do you find this in the document?

Agree on the $.

[johan helge]

45. Take the

election of a President. A third party anti-Republican candidate is counterproductive, because he splits the anti-Republican votes into two camps, making it easier for the Republican to win. As far as I know, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush became presidents because of third party candidates (Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, respectively).

This is a problem also for the Senate and the House.

In my country, Norway, every "district" has roughly 8-10 representatives in the Parliament (not one, as in the US). This makes it possible for smaller parties to get into the Parliament, where there are now seven parties.

[Capitalocracy]

8. My thoughts exactly. nt

[Shagbark Hickory]

65. I don't think it's 100% the media. I think it's mostly due to corps and corruption.

Thats the reason the media does what it does.

[TexasProgresive]

2. So in our current politcal climate- whose to rewrite it?

The teaparty I suppose.

[johan helge]

4. Good question

- but I think the Democrats should talk about it. Probably they can't change the Constitution, but at least they can make the voters aware that the Repubs gain from keeping the unemployment rate high, and do keep the unemployment rate high. If the Democrats had behaved like this under a Repub president, the Repubs would definitely tell the voters about it!

[Odin2005]

5. Our consitution was written for a loose coastal federation of 4 million people

Not a massive great power of over 300 million.

It's time for a new one.

[markpkessinger]

24. This assumes that the new one would necessarily be better ...

... But such an outcome is never guaranteed. And I have yet to see where any of our problems couldn't be addressed with some tweaks to the existing Constitution.

[Fumesucker]

28. I think that particular kettle of fish should remain firmly in the realm of fantasy.

Can you imagine a constitutional convention in the modern M$M age?

It is to shudder with horror.

[LWolf]

6. Checks and balances are important.

I wouldn't want to give any neoliberal, regardless of party, unchecked power. That includes Obama.

Instead, I'd like to see:

1. 100% publicly funded elections
2. legally mandated equal, and equally neutral, media coverage
3. Real debates, with all debaters answering all questions and guaranteed equal talk time.
4. IRV
5. Possibly proportional representation

[Nye Bevan]

9. In (2) does "media" include cable TV, newspapers and internet sites

as well as broadcast TV?

[LWolf]

15. I don't know.

I'd like to say yes.

I'm not sure how to balance that with first amendment issues.

I DO think that "free speech" is for individual citizens, and that mass media should be regulated.

[Nye Bevan]

17. I think the New York Times should be allowed to endorse the candidate of its choice

come election time. Even though it is "mass media".

[LWolf]

56. Do you think the media should be subject

to anti-trust laws?

Legalities aside, I think people should be responsible for evaluating political ideas, policies, and candidates themselves, not depending on the media to do it for them, to spoon-feed them what to think.

[markpkessinger]

12. Careful what you wish for ...

Uh, I think most voters understand the ramifications of split-party governance. Unlike parliamentary systems, the U.S. Constitution doesn't even contemplate the existence of political parties (nor does it ban them). Certainly at times this can be frustrating for the party that happens to be in power, especially when a minority party makes a decision to sabotage anything and everything the majority party is attempting to enact. I mean, God help this country if, say, the GOP were the majority party and were given total freedom to pursue its agenda, free of any ability to resist by a Democratic minority.

Also, unlike many parliamentary systems, a majority party here cannot simply call elections at any time, avoiding them when the majority is likely to fare poorly at the polls and scheduling them when it is likely to do well. They happen at fixed intervals. So, yes, there is a trade-off in that our system is, by design, slower moving; but voters here have a much more regular opportunity to express their approval/disapproval at the polls.

Parliamentary systems certainly have their advantages, but our own constitutional republic has a few of its own as well. And each system has its share of imperfections. And certainly the U.S. goes through periods when it appears to be "ungovernable." But over the larger sweep of U.S. history, I think most citizens, irrespective of party affiliation, agree that the built-in constraints on the power of political parties as well as on the individual branches of government are, overall, a good thing, and have inured more often than not to our better long term interests.

[johan helge]

26. There are four years between

every election in my home country Norway, no exceptions.

Things that should have some stability over time, are compromises between all the parties in the parliament. I'm not sure to what extent this is law or just tradition. But it means that the majority in the Parliament can't do anything it wants, that's our "check and balances".

[markpkessinger]

33. Yes, but our Congressional elections occur every two years ...

in the case of the House, and in the case of the Senate, whose members serve six year terms, those elections are staggered so that at least 1/3 of the Senate will be up for re-election every two years.

[johan helge]

35. Climate change can have

catastrophical consequences. In that case, a catastrophe is difficult to avoid, because of the Republicans' power in the US, and the US' power in the world. In other words, the US constitution is a problem especially when one of the two parties are irresponsible.

[ThomWV]

13. The problem is Constitutional, but it has next to nothing to do with the Constitution

The problem comes from proscription in the Constitution, not in anything that the Constitution directs must be. The problem itself, our ungovernable state, that comes from The Rules of the House and the Senate. It is not a process required by the Constitution, but the Constitution does state that both houses of the Congress will make their own rules. And its those rules, particularly those of the Senate, that have killed the ability of our Government to function.

[BzaDem]

29. You describe why we have disfunctional government when one party controlls both Houses and the

Whitehouse. But that doesn't describe why government fails to function when we have divided government (and the rules of the Senate therefore really don't matter much).

[johan helge]

42. Good point

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21krugman.html):

We need fundamental financial reform. We need to deal with climate change. We need to deal with our long-run budget deficit. What are the chances that we can do all that — or, I’m tempted to say, any of it — if doing anything requires 60 votes in a deeply polarized Senate?

Some people will say that it has always been this way, and that we’ve managed so far. But it wasn’t always like this. Yes, there were filibusters in the past — most notably by segregationists trying to block civil rights legislation. But the modern system, in which the minority party uses the threat of a filibuster to block every bill it doesn’t like, is a recent creation.

The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.

[saras]

61. Thank you. So much "wasn't always like this but it's hard to convince people without data.

[Nye Bevan]

18. Bush was also prevented from putting Social Security into the stockmarket.

Was that also "madness", or sensible checks and balances?

[johan helge]

23. In Norway,

my home country, things that should have some stability over time, are compromises between all the parties in the parliament. I'm not sure to what extent this is law or just tradition. But it means that the majority in the Parliament can't do anything it wants, that's our "check and balances".

[BzaDem]

32. The checks and balances are asymmetrical and help one side at the expense of the other.

Sometimes they help us, but more often than not they help Republicans.

Why? Because in our system, to STOP government action, it usually only takes one house, 5 justices, or an errant regulator. But to CAUSE government action, it takes both Houses, the President, all the regulators, and at least 5 justices to uphold the law.

That system will inevitably be bad for the party that wants more government action (the Democrats), and be better for the party that wants less government action (the Republicans). This is true of any system that requires consent among far more veto points for action than to stop action. Whenever Republicans control one House, they can take government funding bills hostage (like they did), or the debt ceiling hostage (like they did), or the FAA bill hostage (like they did). Divided government has turned into nothing more than hostage taking government. It used to work better when both parties adhered to various norms, but it does not work when the norms are shelved by one party.

[johan helge]

47. That's a very important point

My guess is: If it was the other way around, that the Constitution benefitted the Dems, then it would have been much more controversial than it is - there would be constant pressure to change it.

[white_wolf]

30. I agree. The bizzare worship so many Americans have for their archaic constitution is foolish.

There is a lot that needs to be changed. We need a parliamentary system with proportional representation, we need to ban all private money for politics, for starters.

[Nye Bevan]

36. Like Italy? Which has had 61 governments since 1945?

No thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Italy

[white_wolf]

41. You pick one bad example. What about all the other countries that have proportional representation.

Oh and those countries are every western democracy except for the U.S., Great Britain, and New Zealand. Sorry I'm sick of our two party dictatorship.

[WinkyDink]

51. Should we have a monarch, too? Hello, Belgium, UK, Sweden, .....

[Nye Bevan]

52. Bill Clinton for first American King!

A fun-loving figure in the mold of Charles the Second!

[white_wolf]

55. Those kings are all figureheads. While I despise the very concept of Nobilty, those kings

are doing far less harm to their people than our "nobility" such as the Bushes, Clintons,various business elites. Oh, and French has no king and they have proportional representation. It seems American Exceptionalism is alive and well even amongst liberals.

[WinkyDink]

50. Your last point has zero to do with the Constitution.

[customerserviceguy]

31. We have a way to change our Constitution

And when we can get the large supermajority of American opinion in favor of such a change, we'll make it. Our Framers wanted to avoid the quick passions that a parliamentary system such as yours was subject to.

I think they did a pretty reasonable job. It falls upon the persuasive powers of the advocates of a specific action to get their agenda accomplished. Even with what you might regard as an overly cumbersome system, we still managed to have the mistake of Prohibition, and we managed to use the same system to correct that mistake.

[chrisa]

39. If the President could just have the power to do what he wants,

there would be no point to a Senate or House of Representatives.

That sounds a little too much like a dictatorship.

[Yo_Mama]

64. Yes it does. n/t

[demoblemocratic]

43. vote of no confidence

They also have the vote-of-no confidence in Parlimentary system...be useful to have that when perry gets to the white house.

[Xithras]

46. The Constitution was deliberately designed to keep the federal government weak.

Besides, the intention was that the majority of our governments power was to reside in CONGRESS, and not in the President. The primary role of the President is to act as a check against congressional abuses, and to oversee the daily administration of our government and military. He is not there to make law.

[H2O Man]

48. "You say you'll

change the Constitution,
well, you know
we all wanna change your head."
-- Lennon; Revolution

[WinkyDink]

49. Yeah, right! And England should change Magna Carta, too! Attend to your own history, thanks.

[johan helge]

53. To the extent the Constitution

creates problems, it should be changed, of course, even though it was and is a fantastic thing!

[Dreamer Tatum]

54. Unrec - go study checks and balances. nt

[wizstars]

57. Eliminate midterm elections. Elect the President, House, and...

...half the Senate every four years. President and Representatives serve four years each; Senators serve eight.

Then maybe, Congress could spend at least three years actually doing something for the good of the people, followed by a year of campaigning, instead of the perpetual campaigns we have now.

[tritsofme]

58. Voters are the ones who chose divided government. What are you going to tell them?

That you would rather take that power away from them to make it easier to enact your partisan priorities? And allow Republicans to enact theirs when they govern, such as ending Medicare and Social Security as we know it?

Poor decision making. Voters are the best judge.

[johan helge]

68. Every system

has to give some power to the minority, so that the country does not change 180 degrees for every new party in power. In the US, especially with a two-party system and the filibuster in the Senate, this minority power in my view is too big. In my home country Norway, things that should be stable over time, are compromises between the majority and the minority in the Parliament.

[sudopod]

60. Thanks for starting the thread!

Your perspective allows this conversation to begin without anyone being accused of being a radical. :)

I love the smell of sacred cow burgers, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmm!

[johan helge]

69. Thanks!

And this sacred cow probably benefits the Repubs, because Democrats will not destroy Republican efforts to decrease unemployment. One reason is that the Democrats are too descent, another that if they did, the Republicans would howl about this to the voters. When the Repubs do it, the Dems are too timid to tell the voters the truth.

[treestar]

62. How should it be changed?

Sounds like starting over from scratch would be the thing to do.

[Yo_Mama]

63. We had the same constitution when we created the Great Society

I don't think the fault is in the Constitution. Voters deliberately split Congressional power in the last election.

[roamer65]

67. What makes the US ungovernable is a two-party political system.

The founders did not envision such a system and Washington strongly disagreed with the formation of political parties. We need electoral reform and non-partisan candidacies.