Do you have any arguments AGAINST a parliamentary system in America?

[burythehatchet]

...to be clear, I'm referring to a system of government that divides power proportionally, rather than "winner-take-all".

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Sounds good to me

[burythehatchet]

3. yeah, me too

but I'm not a poli sci student. I wonder if there are any compelling arguments against this form of government. I don't mean Italy style now!

[barbaraann]

2. It doesn't seem to work too well in the U.K.

The BFEE rules.

[Ian David]

4. I'm not an expert, but from what I heard, I MIGHT have a good idea...

Maintain a Parliamentary system along side our existing two houses of congress.

In other words, we would have a House, a Senate and a Parliament.

And each year, (or every 2 years) during The President's 4-year term, Parliament would elect a new Vice President.

[KnaveRupe]

7. I've long thought

that the House should be structured along parliamentary lines, or more specifically, should be elected via proportional representation. Rather than have the representatives elected by district, have the representatives elected from the state at large, but apportioned to the various political parties according to percentage of the vote.

For instance, Pennsylvania has 19 representatives. Rather than dividing the state into 19 districts which are subject to gerrymandering, the various political parties would run a slate of candidates. The percentage of the vote that each party receives determines how many reps they get to send to the House.

In such a system, a small party (say, the Greens) would only need to get 1/19th of the vote, or ~5.3% to get a representative elected. True, the vast majority will still be Republican or Democrat, but it would allow for more representation.

The Senate could remain exactly as it is.

Thoughts?

[burythehatchet]

8. In a past life I would have agreed about keeping the senate

as is. But seeing the borwnbacks and the coburns and the santorums, I'm not so sure anymore. I support your idea insofar as your system would more closely resemble a representative system.

[Ian David]

22. What I like about the House of Representatives as it stands right now

I like the idea of having a representative in Congress that (in theory) represents the interests on my particular district.

I think Congressional Districts should be set-up according to strict laws of geographic longitude. Congressional districts should like time zones-- but with absolutely zero flexibility in moving the lines of demarcation.

If a line splits a city or a zipcode or even a residential cul-de-sac down the middle, then that's how the districting lines will stay.

That's why I'm favoring a Parliament as a third house of Congress.

I'd also give Parliament the right to investigate ethics violations in either the House or Senate, as well as the right to call for Articles of Impeachment. They should become the most vital watchdog of the public's interests.

I realize that having three houses of Congress might become unwieldy, so I'll also suggest that Parliament should be able to vote on-- but not introduce-- federal legislation.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Parliamentary system does not equal proportional representation.

Are you only interested in proportional representation or the other aspects of a parliamentary system?

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. There is nothing (technically) to prevent that from happening now

The Constitution sets very few rules about how states select their voices: Representatives are elected by district, Senators are elected at large and every state shall have a republican form of government. Other matters, such as how Presidential Electors are selected, is entirely decided by the state. Both houses of Congress are allowed to set whatever rules they see fit as far as operations and procedures in each of those two chambers.

As long as you are not altering the basic structure of the federal government -- replacing a bicameral Congress with a single Parliament, for example, or implementing a direct vote for President -- changes towards a more parliamentary, more democratic system of national government is easy. Provided, of course, that you can convince the Two Party to make the necessary changes in the rules. Anything more severe would require amending the Constitution, ie the consent of the Two Party and the consent of three fourths of the states.

[ISUGRADIA]

9. Could be done for the US House but the Senate will always be

inquitable with WY=CA with two votes each. Some states used to have statewide elections for some Reps (IL in the 60s as I recall).

EDIT: And no amendment can change the Senate.

[Wabbajack]

10. In IL

that's because they couldn't agree on a map in 1964.

And I think if you amend the part that says you can't change the senate you can change the senate! :)

[ISUGRADIA]

15. Thanks the 64 situation seems to be coming back to me from

being mentioned in a class now that you mention it.

As to the Senate, it's one of the two items of the Constitution that had amendment restrictions:

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So an amendment could not take away any state's senators, states would have to consent to that individually.

[Wabbajack]

23. Why can't you amend Article V

maybe that goes againt the spirit but it seems legal to me. :shrug:

[Ignacio Upton]

11. Too many coalition governments

The upside would be that, because Dean is tecnically party leader, then he would be the Democratic Party Leader in Parliament, while Ken Mehlman would be Prime Minister and Bush would be the figure-head POTUS, which is not different from the status quo. :scared:

[livefrom]

12. What people don't get sometimes

is that who is in the Congress and Senate is way more important than who is president.

And, Senators were originally supposed to be elected by the states ("The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof", Art. I, §3), not the people, until the 17th Amendment, which made it by direct election ("The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof"). The old way, the Senators served the states they were from or risked being replaced; now they serve national special interest groups, many times to the detriment of their home states.

One thing I like about the British system is that the head of state has to argue issues with all parties in Parliament - they don't cut him any slack, he has to be sharp or they will be all over him. I would like to see that here on a weekly basis.

(edit to correct typo)

[burythehatchet]

13. if for no other reason

I would cherish the likes of a gee dubya having to publicly defend his positions.

[Ignacio Upton]

14. He wouldn't be in charge if that was the case

In Britian party leaders have to be policy wonks. Cheney or Frist or DeLay would be the public leader.

[NoPasaran]

16. You mean the system they use in Israel?

No thanks. Coalitions held hostage by their tiniest, extremist member parties who would never win seats except by proportional representation? :puke:

[FrenchieCat]

17. No argument, just a prediction

that it will never happen. period.

I guess that we don't have to stop dreaming though.

[KingFlorez]

18. Here's my proposal

Parliamentary is a Prime Minister form of government and proportional representation is seperate from that and not the same thing. Use the AMS system for the House, have some district seats and some proportional seats giving the voter two votes for the House, one for the candidate in their district and one for the party. That way people trapped in safe districts can have representation. And other parties, like the Greens can win seats by percentage, even if they win no district seats. This keeps the balance of power solid in the House. Now for the Senate, it's a bit harder to implement. You could have the voter select one Senator for their state and one at large vote.

[NMDemDist2]

19. i'd LOVE it! firs step is canning theElectoral College IMO n/t

[KingFlorez]

20. Example of the ballot

This is how the ballot would look

[msongs]

21. party leader MUST defend him/herself before the house EVERY day if

necessary. the leader must answer questions and speak to the assembly and the nation every day. can you imagine bush having to speak to anybody who is not a rabid follower?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/clark2008.htm

[burythehatchet]

25. that can only happen when power is not concentrated

our system seems to carry a zero-sum mentality as far as I can see.

[Laelth]

24. No checks and balances in a Parliamentary system.

The party in power runs the whole show. Here, we have significant protections for the minority party ... filibuster in the Senate, judicial review by the courts. These are essential, IMHO, to the American system. I don't like the idea of handing the Repukes more power than they already have while simultaneously taking away the few checks we have remaining.

-Laelth