denisdman wrote:
Rick is dead on.
As for changes to our system, you are inviting more serious problems. The only changes that I have seen at the state level that may make sense are:
-Independent mapping for Congressional Districts. Illinois will vote on this in a referendum in November unless the courts block the current proposal.
-Open primaries that are now the law in California. Presumably, this change moves candidates to the middle instead of the extreme. If you are not aware of the system, simply, all candidates run in the same primary regardless of party, and the two highest vote getters square off in the general. Thus you could have two Dems or two Repubs running against one another. It forces candidates to move to the middle to attract votes in both parties.
If you try to change the system to a more parliamentary or proportional representation system, the following flaws crop up:
-Coalition governments. While that sounds great, it gives outsize power to small minority parties as they become kingmakers. It is actually how the Nazis rose in Germany.
-Small interest group parties like in Brazil where there are several dozen parties in government. In those cases, you have to buy off many small parties just to get anything done. This means dolling out graft and plum ministerial jobs. With no one party in control, you cannot drive any serious agenda.
-Extremely weak governments that fall quickly. Japan had a run where no prime minister lasted a year. Australia has been dealing with non stop PM changes. Portugal, Belgium and Spain cannot form governments because of no clear winner in elections. I think Belgium is close to two years without a government.
The main problem with the U.S. System is that political climate is one of brinkmanship. It is almost a cultural aversion to compromise (sound like Springfield?). For whatever reason, folks think they can get 100% of what they want instead of finding middle ground to give both sides something in any piece of legislation. The system is not designed to have one party control all branches of government and ram through changes. That is the inherent checks and balances built into the Constitution that makes for stability in government and laws.
The biggest problem with our system is that the executive branch has become way, way, way more powerful than it was ever intended to be. A silver lining to a Trump presidency might be that we'll finally learn to exit the business of choosing an emperor.
You're citing Belgium and Brazil as examples of parliamentary system failing when we would have far more in common with the UK and Canada, whose parliaments seem about as solid as can be, than with small or developing nations.
I share your concern with the kingmaking minority parties, as one of ours would invariably be some sort of Dixiecrat/Neo-Confederate faction of southern white supremacists. People like them could indeed have outsize authority in how our government comes together, but then again, don't they already?
_________________
Molly Lambert wrote:
The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
What? She did every one of those things, and she might be the most entitled politician I've ever seen. Her behavior this election is essentially "how dare someone challenge my throne". Your bias is blatant and obvious.
