Let's Think About a U.S. Parliament [Bloomberg Link Only]

Bloomberg View [Link in Body] ^ | January 22, 2018 | Michael R. Strain

[C19fan]

Click here to go to Bloomberg.

[C19fan]

The only reason the our presidential system has worked is due to the strong cultural constraints against an dictatorial president. In many countries that have tried this system very often the presidency tends to degenerate to a authoritarian figure. The number of parties that would break off the current two party system depends on the type of system used to elect parliament. One can have the huge number of parties in pure proportional system, see Israel, or in a system with constituent districts a basic two party system with credible minor parties, see Canada and the UK. The author sees a bogey man in an white party ignoring it is just as likely blacks and hispanics might form their own party.

[BenLurkin]

Eight now there is only one political party in DC: The Party of Big Government, aka the Uniparty.

[Howie66]

If someone desires to have a parliamentary form of government, I strongly suggest that there are any number of countries that they can move to.

These individuals will not be a loss to us nor will they be missed.

[jjotto]

The hallmark of a parliamentary system is a threshold of representation, even by minority parties. No way Dem/Rep Uniparty will ever allow the Tea Party or the Progressive Party to be represented in Congress.

[Howie66]

Perfectly stated.

[facedown]

Okay, I did. No.

[BenLurkin]

And on the subject of parties...

“It was the remark of a Roman consul in an early period of that celebrated Republic that a most striking contrast was observable in the conduct of candidates for offices of power and trust before and after obtaining them, they seldom carrying out in the latter case the pledges and promises made in the former. However much the world may have improved in many respects in the lapse of upward of two thousand years since the remark was made by the virtuous and indignant Roman, I fear that a strict examination of the annals of some of the modern elective governments would develop similar instances of violated confidence.”

...

“I must say something to you on the subject of the parties at this time existing in our country. To me it appears perfectly clear that the interest of that country requires that the violence of the spirit by which those parties are at this time governed must be greatly mitigated, if not entirely extinguished, or consequences will ensue which are appalling to be thought of.

“If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance sufficient to keep the public functionaries within the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends. Beyond that they become destructive of public virtue, the parent of a spirit antagonist to that of liberty, and eventually its inevitable conqueror. We have examples of republics where the love of country and of liberty at one time were the dominant passions of the whole mass of citizens, and yet, with the continuance of the name and forms of free government, not a vestige of these qualities remaining in the bosoms of any one of its citizens. It was the beautiful remark of a distinguished English writer that “in the Roman senate Octavius had a party and Anthony a party, but the Commonwealth had none.” Yet the senate continued to meet in the temple of liberty to talk of the sacredness and beauty of the Commonwealth and gaze at the statues of the elder Brutus and of the Curtii and Decii, and the people assembled in the forum, not, as in the days of Camillus and the Scipios, to cast their free votes for annual magistrates or pass upon the acts of the senate, but to receive from the hands of the leaders of the respective parties their share of the spoils and to shout for one or the other, as those collected in Gaul or Egypt and the lesser Asia would furnish the larger dividend. The spirit of liberty had fled, and, avoiding the abodes of civilized man, had sought protection in the wilds of Scythia or Scandinavia; and so under the operation of the same causes and influences it will fly from our Capitol and our forums. “

- William Henry Harison

[BenLurkin]

Uh....”Eight” should be “Right”

[WayneS]

I agree that we need more than just two primary political parties. But before tossing out our constitution, perhaps we should try a return to the original method for electing president and vice-president. (Article II, Section 1).

That was, basically, all interested candidates run for president (no one runs for vice-president); electors are chosen at the state level; electors choose their top two candidates and cast votes; electoral votes are summed, the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes (which number must also be a majority of the number of electors) becomes president, the candidate with the second-most votes becomes vice-president. There were tie-breakers and and methods for chusing (sic) in the event no one received a majority, but the basic gist was, top vote getter became president, second place became VP.

This would probably lead to R/D or D/R combinations for a few election cycles, but at some point additional parties of dissatisfied dems and repubs would likely form because they would know they'd have a much better chance at scoring one of the top two executive positions than under the current system. This might then trickle down to senate and house, and a more parliamentary form of government would form naturally, breaking the two-party stranglehold on our political system.

[MomwithHope]

Convention of States is all we need.

[Redwood71]

“to be represented in Congress.”

Is that being part of it and having a say or controlling it? There used to be different parties in the government that had a large say in it. T Roosevelt was elected as a minority candidate when he broke with what is now the GOP, Bull Moose. They’re out there. Just not enough of them to become an issue. Most of them join the libs because of the lies and and false promises. Most of the time they have one issue that they drive into a full time point that means little or isn’t possible like world peace.

rwood

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

More treasonous dribbling from Bloomberg.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Like the next Barack Obama is going to put up with Question Period. RIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

[familyop]

"Let's Think About a U.S. Parliament"

The mobs of manhaters, practicing sodomites and drug addicts would like to overthrow our government and implement a parliamentary system but wouldn't be able to. So they continue their incrementalism with insidious propaganda and dirty deals.

Our system has worked better so far, because the main influence in our country sprang from the influence that won the English Civil War.

[zeugma]

There are strengths and weaknesses in the parliamentary system, just as there are strengths and weaknesses in our current model. Overall, I'd say I prefer our system, as it seems to me to be a little less easily swayed by popular sentiment. I see this as a strength, not a weakness. I would like to see more voices in our legislature though, as both the democrats and republican parties have become wholly owned creatures of the perpetual police state.