Sep 25, 2008 2:35 PM GMT
Instead of being maintained with a set term in office, an administration could be dumped with a vote of no-confidence. A president wouldnt have to commit a crime to be removed, just fuck up enough.
Should America scrap the congressional system of government and adopt a parliamentary system?
-
Sep 25, 2008 2:35 PM GMT -
Sep 25, 2008 4:28 PM GMTI'm sure there are reforms that could be gleaned from a parliamentary style of government. I don't, however, think that we should abandon the concept of representative democracy in a republican (not Republican; i.e., the US is a republic) form of government. The no confidence vote thing, though, is very appealing. -
Sep 25, 2008 6:38 PM GMTHell No! The great thing about the Congressional system is it forces power sharing on all concerned and divides up the government so no one faction can take complete control. Check out the Federal Papers #10.
I thought it was absolutely ludicrous for Iraq to adopt the parliamentary system since they have three competing factions.
When Nigeria gained independence they adopted the parliamentary system and it was a disaster. Nigeria is divided into three factions, the Igbo, the Yawari and the Fulani. The muslem Fulani have the largest population so they gain the most seats in the parliament and so always control the government. The Fulani began a genocide of the Igbo in the mid to late 60s called the Biafra war.
The adoption of the parliamentary system could lead to another civil war and we don't need that.
-
Sep 25, 2008 6:52 PM GMTif we didn't have the problem of residual puritanical extremism left over from the pilgrims regarding racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia i'd say yes. it's worked for england a long time. however, since all those extreme-right and exteme-left people would get seats too... i'd say no. we need more than two major parties, but we don't need 30 minor ones. -
Sep 25, 2008 7:04 PM GMTJohn43620 saidHell No! ...The adoption of the parliamentary system could lead to another civil war and we don't need that.
A tyranny of the majority could occur in our US system, too, if any one party attained an overwhelming number of seats in Congress. This fear was expressed in the Federalist Papers over 200 years ago.
Each system has its strengths and weaknesses. The English parliamentary system that so enraged our colonial forbearers in the 1770s (it wasn't entirely about King George III), has today evolved into a fair & democratic institution that is rightfully admired by free peoples around the world.
It's really about what you do with your system of government, and how it performs in the real world. Political theory is one thing, but results are another. Pure communism can be made to look good on paper, but nobody has yet managed to make it to mean anything but dictatorship and oppression in reality.
I once thought, and indeed was taught in school, that our American system was immune to the corrupt & failed examples that litter history. Now after the last 8 years I'm not so sure.
A switch to parliamentary government may not be needed. But rather Constitutional changes that more clearly define the relative roles of the Executive and Congress, so that such radical and un-American concepts as a "Unitary Presidency" can never rear their ugly Fascist heads again.
-
Sep 25, 2008 7:21 PM GMTIf the US still had the same type of Representative republic that we did at the beginning, then I dare say that this discussion would be mute. Originally the Senate was not determined by the people. It was created by the founding fathers to represent the interests of the States. Up until the 17th Amendment in 1913, the State Legislatures selected the 2 Senators from each State. The States would have had more say in many of the issues that have bogged down this country, from both political perspectives.
Had the States controlled who was in the Senate, and there by a certain level of control of there Senators voting record, They Start of the War i Iraq and subsequent decisions might have been different. Other issues, like the Centralization of education, thought the creation of the Dept. of Ed by Carter, might not have happened. The blizzard of unfunded Federal mandates by both Clinton and Bush, would have be altered considerably.
