No. Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.
However, even they couldn't have foreseen the massive power of bloated bureaucracies. Those need to be cleaned up.
Not no.... HELL no.
NO. Tom Jefferson hated everything British and made sure we do everything differently as Americans. I should know, I’m originally from Sask. Parliament is a clown show.
No. In a Parliamentary system, you are a subject, not a citizen.
I want an AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT in AMERICA!!
Follow the Constitution!
Meanwhile, we must convert to being a more virtuous people.
For all its flaws, a system of government like hours with an independent executive branch is far more stable than its parliamentary counterparts.
Anything to break up the duopoly. We really were never meant to have a 2 party system, we do now because the 2 parties have agreed to close the door behind them.
We pretty much do already. It’s a two party system. Until that ends, we are no better than France or Italy.
No thank you!
In America, the executive is not the creature of the legislative. The president does not come from the Congress, as prime ministers do in parliamentary governments.
Furthermore, our elections our scheduled at regular intervals, much to the aggravation of incumbents. Our executives, at either the state or federal levels, CANNOT call elections. The governors can schedule elections only if there’s a vacancy.
There are no “snap elections” in America, whereby the executive can dissolve the legislative and call for a new election to repopulate the assemblies.
We dealt with parliamentary government prior to the American revolution and we specifically avoided it in the state constitutions and then the federal constitution.
There is literally no advantage to parliamentary government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggz_gd—UO0
NO!
Instead of just adding to the chorus of "No"s and "Hell NO!"s, let me instead ask you a question: What is it about a parliamentary system that appeals to you?
There must be some aspect that appeals to you, otherwise you would not have posed the question.
Is it the thought of voting for a party, not a specific candidate? Is it the majority in the House of Commons choosing who will be Prime Minister, instead of the people voting directly for their leader?
Is it the ability to have a "vote of no confidence" in Parliament and have a sudden election season unexpectedly thrust upon the nation?
Is it perhaps some other aspect of the Parliamentary system that appeals to you?
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.
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.
No.
Don’t be ridiculous.
I’ve watched the Canadian Parlement recently and their back and forth is preening, all for show. Kabuki theater.
NO. NEVER. WILL NOT CONSIDER ANY OTHER FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. PERIOD. END. OF. STORY.
I appologize for yelling.