An American Parliament system??

S

speedracer

Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well first of all, I am anti-Republican too. I'm also anti-Democrat. I think the two party system is responsible for more harm to our country since anything since the civil war.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this comment 100% and thought a new thread was needed.

I'm a huge fan of the parliament system. I think it would eliminate many of the more grotesque problems of republicanism (the system, not the party) and our incarnation of democracy.

My wife doesn't like it because of the inherent instability. She likes the idea of a president working instead of coalition forming and butt kissing. She also doesn't want the leader making decisions to save their ass, which does happen in the parliamentary system. Her last complaint is that she doesn't want a new leader every 18 months, a definite issue.

I think most of those things happen anyway and it does a great job of forcing parties to cross aisles if they want to rule.


What do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. As much as I've hated Bush, I think it's important to have a strong executive branch. The system of checks and balances we have was fine before Bush/Cheney started trampling on the constitution.
 
You're kidding right? Who the fuck would want to move away from our system? Americans have so many freedoms other countries don't have that it's not even funny. As a friend once said, "America may be a fucked up country, but it's the best country around". Our constitution is freaking genius, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']You're kidding right? Who the fuck would want to move away from our system? Americans have so many freedoms other countries don't have that it's not even funny.[/quote]
I don't quite understand why our "freedoms" would be in danger. Care to expand a little on that?

As a friend once said, "America may be a fucked up country, but it's the best country around". Our constitution is freaking genius, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting tossing the Constitution, I'm talking about tossing the two party republic system.
[quote name='mykevermin']Alliances the need for power will make a parliamentary system mimic a two party system, making the entire point moot, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Well, at least socialists, communists, libertarians, and every other flavor of *.*ists would have a voice. Proportional representation would mean that people really could vote for a party they supported.
 
I voted yes. Simply because at this point, out of desperation, I would support just about any type of drastic change from the dead horse we've been humping the past 100 years.

After the last 5 years, and especially the past few months, it's hard not to feel like there isn't much to lose in trying something else.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I voted yes. Simply because at this point, out of desperation, I would support just about any type of drastic change from the dead horse we've been humping the past 100 years.

After the last 5 years, and especially the past few months, it's hard not to feel like there isn't much to lose in trying something else.[/QUOTE]

Would you for for Robert Mugabe to lead this country?

C'mon. Reactionism is fine; "fuck it, let's try something different" isn't.
 
I'm tempted to say "Let's try it," just so people can see that the two party system works (for the most part) like it does for a reason. Other people have made good points about the disadvantages of things like a parliamentary system (isn't it the Dutch who have a complete governmental collapse every three or four years?), so I'll just say that something like this has come up in a thread before, and I was kinda sorta debating Koggit about it, and I couldn't think of something I had read that seemed to bear relevance. Turns out, it was:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Po...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222182788&sr=8-1

From Publishers Weekly:
In Stoken's view, American history is not a "patternless swirl of events," but rather follows a very simple pattern: a continual shifting back and forth between liberal and conservative philosophies in nine eras, or paradigms, whose agendas were set by the nine presidents Stoken considers to have been great (the inclusion of Washington and Lincoln won't surprise anyone; that of Coolidge might). For instance, the New Deal/Great Society era initiated by Franklin Roosevelt was followed by the current conservative era of the New Economy, whose agenda was set by Ronald Reagan. Beginning with the battle between Alexander Hamilton's Federalists and Thomas Jefferson's democrats, Stoken sees a political battle between those who want to limit government and provide wealth (conservatives) and those who want to use government in order to secure equality and individual rights (liberals). It's a creative approach that allows for framing American history in nice, neat windows -- perhaps a bit too neat. These paradigms are based on the current Republican and Democratic parties, and as Stoken himself admits, they don't always fit the past so well. Serious students of the American presidency will find Stoken's thinking a bit simplistic as well as present-minded. And Stoken, an investor who has written several investment books (The Great Cycle; Strategic Investment Timing), writes more like a motivational speaker - he's prone to exclamation points - than a historian. But less-schooled readers may find some help in thinking about the approaching 2004 election.

From Booklist:
Stoken, whose previous titles include Cycles (1978) and The Great Cycle (1993), here extends the cycle theme into politics, writing of the constant ebb and flow between conservatism and liberalism. This tension posits competing views of the Right (favoring business, the development of capital and wealth, and national security to protect that activity) and the Left (concerned with personal rights and a strong federal government actively pursuing equality of prosperity for all). There is nothing earthshaking here as Stoken lays out an analytical framework to track this ebb and flow back to George Washington's administration. He calls this framework the nine political paradigms of the presidency and devotes a chapter to each ("The Federalists," "The Jeffersonian Democracy," "The New Nationalism," "The New Democrats," "Late-Nineteenth-Century Transition," "The Progressives," "The New Era," "The New Deal/Great Society," and "The New Economy"). All "paradigms" end badly or are philosophically exhausted, thus resulting in a shift to the other side and the birth of a new "paradigm." Interesting and timely writing, especially for those who like their theories neatly packaged.
Click to expand...

The reviews are pretty accurate, even considering the flaws of the book (it can be a bit simplistic, etc), but it does well framing the two party system as something prone to fluctuations, not unlike the market.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well first of all, I am anti-Republican too. I'm also anti-Democrat. I think the two party system is responsible for more harm to our country since anything since the civil war.

In other forums, where Republicans run around talking as if they have done nothing wrong and will save the country, I bash the shit out of them.

But part of why I stick around here is the anti-Republicanism. It's so rampant, so blatant, so age-old stereotypical, I can't help but jump in and bring some ying to all the yang.[/quote]

I feel the same way you do and have commented on the problems of the two-party system as well. It's the political version of Bloods vs. Crips, Hatfields and McCoys, whatever analogy you like.

There are things I agree with Republicans about and some things I disagree. Same with Democrats. It's the almost complete lack of open minds from the diehards on each side that sadden me. The talking down to of liberals on conservative radio, the hollywood left being almost completely out of touch with average american life, the lack of tact on both sides.
 
I voted yes, but really it depends on how the system will be set up.

For example, would both chambers be parliamentary or just one? Would the states still have so many seats and they are elected at large by each state or do people just vote nationally for a party and the percentage that the party gets is the percentage of seats that the party gets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top