US choose Parlamentarism??

[iori]

Are you a Ron Paul supporter?

Gods no, that man annoys the hell out of me.

Okay, whats failed about it?

1. Does'nt represent the full breadth of ideologies.
2. Forces people to conform to the two party dichtonomy.
3. Leads to highly polarized bickering that prevents things from getting done.
4. Is'nt always democratic (winning a plurality is not democracy.).

 

[David S Poepoe]

1. Does'nt represent the full breadth of ideologies.
2. Forces people to conform to the two party dichtonomy.
3. Leads to highly polarized bickering that prevents things from getting done.
4. Is'nt always democratic (winning a plurality is not democracy.).

If only these four points then the system hasn't failed.

1. There is no reason that the 'full breadth of ideologies' have to be represented. There are some that we don't want.
2. There are more than two parties the last time I check and their platforms have changed over the decades.
3. The 'highly polarized bickering' is really only within the last few decades and debate is better than bills enacted without opposition.
4. This country is a republic, its not a democracy.

 

[iori]

If only these four points then the system hasn't failed.

1. There is no reason that the 'full breadth of ideologies' have to be represented. There are some that we don't want.
2. There are more than two parties the last time I check and their platforms have changed over the decades.
3. The 'highly polarized bickering' is really only within the last few decades and debate is better than bills enacted without opposition.
4. This country is a republic, its not a democracy.

I'm tired, those are just the thigns I thought of off the top of my head.

Also, we're not a Republic or a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic.

 

[some kind of chimp]

Also, we're not a Republic or a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic.

You do realize that you just said that we are not a republic, we're a republic, right?

 

[Typo]

Maybe. But I would have thought a strong Dixiecrat party would be untouchable as actual coalition partners

I don't see why

 

[Hapsburg]

Any social effect on the country? Like a more european style United States? With Health Care? Free Education?

We already have those things. Healthcare: Medicaid and Medicare. Education: public school.
In any case, those things aren't results of a particular system of government. They're a result of nationwide industrialisation.

if Parlamentarism had been choose before the civilwar. Would there have been a civilwar at all?

The civil war was pretty much an inevitability because of how the constitution was written. Unless you had it expressly forbid slavery, a civil war will happen by the 1860's.

 

[Sam]

I don't see why

I would hope that outright segregationism - as opposed to Nixon-style winks and nods - would be unpopular in most of America by the early seventies. Then again, I may be too optimistic.

 

[Snake Featherston]

A likely result would be a more even balance for the two parties, instead of the GOP which can at least campaign, if it can't govern, whereas the Dems can govern but not campaign.

Another result would be, given the creation of political machines, a much vaster version of the corruption and gerrymandering that marked the early British Parliaments which would likely entrench certain elements of US society. Thus in a way the Slave South might be better off, given it would likely be harder to alter US parliamentary boroughs in favor of abolition given the tepid results of Reconstruction in our time. And the Indian Wars would be much more brutal than in OTL for that same reason.

 

[Snake Featherston]

if Parlamentarism had been choose before the civilwar. Would there have been a civilwar at all?

It would have come, but would have come later. One of the primary causes was a deep threat to Southern pre-eminence and then later a balance of power in the sectional split. Parliaments present an awesome opportunity for rotten boroughs and other less-than-savory aspects of parliamentary rule to immeasurably strengthen the Planter Aristocracy. It took nearly 80 years IOTL for the Southern aristocrats to become threatened enough make the CSA viable. Under a parliament, you might see a version of the Fall of the Roman Republic with the MPs of the Old South playing the role of the Patrician Aristocracy. Only instead of the Caesars, you'd see a somewhat-freer regime like the Jim Crow South emerge instead.

 

[Kenichiro Harada]

I sort of thought that the Parliment system did not exist until the British Empire started to decline. Not around the time of American Independence..

 

[Dave Howery]

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.

you think that because all you ever read about are the bills that are bickered about; the news never talks about the vast majority of legislation that gets through the Federal government with few problems. Rarely does the government get so gridlocked that nothing at all works its way through... most of what does get bickered about are hot button issues (like health care) and the budget...

 

[Desmond Hume]

If only these four points then the system hasn't failed.

1. There is no reason that the 'full breadth of ideologies' have to be represented. There are some that we don't want.

I have to challenge you here. Who exactly gets to decide what ideologies "we" don't want? Who exactly are "we"? And what gives "us" (or "them") the right to decide that? What if a different "we" does want those ideologies? Why does the majority have the right to silence them? These are the people who could be better represented in a parliamentary system.

 

[David S Poepoe]

I have to challenge you here. Who exactly gets to decide what ideologies "we" don't want? Who exactly are "we"? And what gives "us" (or "them") the right to decide that? What if a different "we" does want those ideologies? Why does the majority have the right to silence them? These are the people who could be better represented in a parliamentary system.

So if the American Communist Party and the American Nazi Party meet the minumum requirements its fine to seat them in Parliament? Shall this just be a new Weimar Republic writ large across the continent?

Mind you, if any party met the requirements and won the vote to be seated I don't have a problem with it. I would suspect that coalitions between parties will serve as a more stabilizing element than broad political platforms. As pointed out earlier I don't see where the rise of the political machine will be hindered, which would be a greater good for the smaller parties than a multitude of them.

 

[iori]

You do realize that you just said that we are not a republic, we're a republic, right?

I was saying we are'nt a true republic, we have aspects of a republic, but we're also a constitutional democracy as well.

If we were a true Republic we'd be much less democratic.

 

[Aranfan]

I was saying we are'nt a true republic, we have aspects of a republic, but we're also a constitutional democracy as well.

If we were a true Republic we'd be much less democratic.

Where in the world did you get that idea? Republics are nations without kings (or queens). The US has no kings or queens in its government. Heck, we don't even have nobility. We're a true Republic, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

 

[iori]

Where in the world did you get that idea? Republics are nations without kings (or queens). The US has no kings or queens in its government. Heck, we don't even have nobility. We're a true Republic, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

We are'nt a Republic in the traditional sense, if we were more of our representatives would be indirectly elected (like how Senators used to be elected by the state legislatures), among other things.

We have a Republican form of government, but we are'nt a Republic.

 

[Spike Torch]

So if the American Communist Party and the American Nazi Party meet the minumum requirements its fine to seat them in Parliament? Shall this just be a new Weimar Republic writ large across the continent?

Why not that's democracy? If they win seats it's because people want them to, if you dn't want them in then you have to argue against them and provide an attractive alternative.

Mind you, if any party met the requirements and won the vote to be seated I don't have a problem with it. I would suspect that coalitions between parties will serve as a more stabilizing element than broad political platforms. As pointed out earlier I don't see where the rise of the political machine will be hindered, which would be a greater good for the smaller parties than a multitude of them.

This completely contradicts the first paragraph.

 

[David S Poepoe]

This completely contradicts the first paragraph.

True, one is the argument and the other is my opinion.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Why not that's democracy? If they win seats it's because people want them to, if you dn't want them in then you have to argue against them and provide an attractive alternative.

I'm a bit puzzled by your first sentence and its probably due to construction. Are you saying 'Why is not that democracy?'. What you are driving at is true and its how basically the two parties national are, they cannabalize ideas from other parties in order to gain support and its kill possible rivals.

 

[minifidel]

We are'nt a Republic in the traditional sense, if we were more of our representatives would be indirectly elected (like how Senators used to be elected by the state legislatures), among other things.

We have a Republican form of government, but we are'nt a Republic.

Yes, the US is a republic in the traditional sense, because in the traditional sense, a Republic is simply a government without a monarchy.

Even in the more "modern" sense of the word, the idea of a representative government, the US is a republic, because unlike, say, France, there are no plebiscites or referendums at the federal level.