Posted on 02/11/2022 12:01:15 PM PST by jonrick46
No, because if we did Nancy Pelosi would be Prime Minister. Although if we are in the minority I want to yell and make fun of the Rats during Question period.
You would end up with situations where the PM would be a Pelosi or a Schumer !
Many people don't realize there is no national selection for the PM. He\she\it (Nowadays!) is the party legislative leader. This only requires he\she\it to be “tested” by the voters of he\she\it legislative district. All the rest is the decision as to who is PM is backroom party conference shenanigans.
Yeah, I think it was Jefferson that wanted to ban them but couldn’t figure out how to do it and keep a useful 1st amendment. But all the issues predicted have come to pass. The parties are loyal to themselves first. They don’t actually stand for anything. And they’ve locked down all the paths of power.
Yes they did, however parties or factions as the called them are human nature. People naturally group together around “a cause” legitimate or otherwise. I am afraid that concern of the Founding Fathers is one of the few times they engaged in wishful thinking rather a pragmatic clear-eyed assessment of human nature.
Biggest thing that would help is the hardest - repeal of the 17th Amendment. Give the states back their role in the federal government. That will be a hard sell!
Not at all.
The US Constitution which created a Federal system, based on states rights, dispersed power, with (supposedly) limited Federal Powers - was ideal.
Power has been completely usurped by the Federal Government, starting in a limited way with Teddy Roosevelt, progressing under Wilson, and pushed forward by FDR
America’s printed, fiat, manipulated Federal Reserve currency now gives central/statist/leftists in Washington absolute power.
No. I respect the will of the founding fathers.
There are things I’ve always liked about British culture; but I don’t like all that booing and shouting in Parliament.
I might feel differently about parties if we had developed more than two viable ones; I feel that dichotomizing political and social thought this way has only been bad for us.
No.
Don’t be ridiculous.
I’ve watched the Canadian Parlement recently and their back and forth is preening, all for show. Kabuki theater.
We pretty much do already. It’s a two party system. Until that ends, we are no better than France or Italy.
________________________________
Not really. Multiple parties are more characteristic of a parliamentary system, as in Germany, Israel or Great Britain, where coalition governments often have to be formed. Some like to sound “edgy” by stating they don’t like political parties.
NO. NEVER. WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. PERIOD. END. OF. STORY.
I appologize for yelling.
I have argued this before. Our system winnows everything down to two effective parties. There is no forming a coalition to get the executive position - presidency. Its a winner take all. It forces a decision. 3rd parties come and go - if they form around a topic that catches on one of the major parties adopts it. All in all in places outside the Anglosphere parliamentary systems are unstable. Italy is a prime example! Though my claim for stability in the Anglosphere may be taken over by coronadoom events!
Another thing in parliamentary system there are no executive positions. The heads of all the departments\ministeries are MPs. So who do they serve first their constituients who brought them to the “political dance” or the department\ministery.
Probably the two most things (constitutional amendments) that could likely be done in our system that would be a big help.
1) Term Limits,
2) Recall of senators & congresscritters.
We didn’t fight the British twice to establish a Republic, and then fight another war with them to keep it, only to roll over, and become the enemy we tossed out almost 250 years ago.
Rhetorical question, without any substance. The sample size (FR readers) is small and irrelevant. The real question should be: do you support the US Constitution? If not, then why?
No. Too close to a pure democracy.
I’ll say no. BUT we have an imperial presidency. We need more checks on the POTUS.
There's also typically a de jure chief of state. In the UK, that's the queen. In Germany, though, there's an elected president whose job is mostly ceremonial.
Your willful lack of knowledge, laziness as to the WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHERE, WHEN, it comes to the founding of the United States of America, and all things AMERICAN;
Your Intellectual Cowardice.
NEWS @ ELEVEN
British BLEED A LOT!
Back to you jonrick46
It does not matter what kind of political system we use.
USA Bottom Line...
332 million hugely diverse people can never be peacefully governed as one nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.