US choose Parlamentarism??
- Thread starter Euroman26
- Start date
I think that because of the size of the US, even if it was a Westminster style first past the post system, you would probably have a 2.2 party system, that is two big dominant parties, but also 2 smaller parties that often get to form coalitions with either of the dominant ones.
It'd probably look something like OTL Canada, that is having four major parties, but would probably also have one or two BQesque parties and a bunch of regional parties, with the BQesque parties controlling say 10% and the other regional parties 5-10% and the four main parties comprising the rest.
You'd probably see a (bare) majority government once every twenty years, but overall their would probably be a form of coalition governments, since Americans overall tend to focus more on the person then party.
You'd probably see a (bare) majority government once every twenty years, but overall their would probably be a form of coalition governments, since Americans overall tend to focus more on the person then party.
I'm not sure their would be a huge difference, you'd likely see some sort of UHC, yes, though perhaps more Federalized with the Federal government paying for it while the states implement it.
Overall I think America probably would be more socially and politically stable and, probably further to the left (since we'd actually have a major party on the left) overall.
Another difference I think this would have would be a higher average voter turn out and more interest in politics since you'd have actual different competing ideologies rather than the current system of little real choice.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Politically I doubt you will see much difference since the societal background that produced the liberal and conservative movements in Europe don't have their equivalents in US politics until the early 20th century. There could be a splitering of parties or a widening of the field since the end of the Cold War but probably not much before. The New Deal would certainly be something that would dominate politics and so would its follow up 'Great Society', with may be the nearest we get to European socialism.
One would believe that should the US adopt some form of parliamentarism that the representation of the states - ie. the Senate - would be taken care of by the 'House of Lords'.
One would believe that should the US adopt some form of parliamentarism that the representation of the states - ie. the Senate - would be taken care of by the 'House of Lords'.
Well if you make the House of Representative completely national it gets rid of the issue of population and representation for it and creates a de facto system where the states with large populations are gonna have the most say anyways while the Senate would placate the small States by ensuring they all have an equal say.
if Parlamentarism had been choose before the civilwar. Would there have been a civilwar at all?
Most likely, yes, the Civil War was something that, I think was inevitable without further changes to the Constitution and a different set of economic and social conditions.
David S Poepoe
Banned
In one sense you are describing how things work now, but the issue of population will have to be addressed unless there is a set number of House members or the size of the House is regularly updated by after each census.
I would think that you would be more parliamentarian by having the President elected by the House of Representatives than making the lower house being elected 'nationally'. The method you describe is unworkable.
America is politically stable. The two party system does limit choice, but it also provides a 'big tent' that keeps radical groups in check. We do it differently than a parliament, but our political system is stable. Except for that four-year unpleasantness of the ACW, we've had smooth transitions of power. And it's really doubtful that adopting a parliamentary system would make the US move to the same political standards as Europe; we'd have the system, but still be to the right of them...Not necessarily more progressive, but possibly more so in the American case. No Dixiecrats in the Republican party.
But you won't see a major third party without changing the electoral system. Duverger's law, and all that.
We constantly bicker and hardly ever get anything passed in terms of legislation and have a system that is in some (note I said SOME) ways little better than China or any other one-party state.
Our system disenfranchise a massive segment of society and forces people to conform to a failed system.
Radicalism is not necessarily a bad thing.
Maybe. But I would have thought a strong Dixiecrat party would be untouchable as actual coalition partners, while preventing or mitigating the Republican's Southern Strategy.