Most parliamentary systems have been willing to adapt and change the ways they do things over time. Some, like the UK, have not been constrained by a written constitution that is unbending,.

Again, see my point above about Canada not being the only parliamentary system on the planet---of which I know you are aware, naturally, but you seem to think that they're all similar to Canada. Again: they are not. You've never voted in Japan, or Italy, or...hell, Iraq for that matter. An Iraqi or Israeli election ballot might actually blow the mind of a Canadian, who comes from a country where the electoral system is relatively simple in comparison. Also, not all parliamentary constitutions have been as successful as Canada. Do you see, now, why I have argued with you above? My argument was never "Canada's system sux"; it was that you have been speaking of parliamentary systems as if Canada is the same as all or most of them. Again, that is not true, Ricky. Do a little ORIGINAL research (e.g., not just read a book full of someone else's opinions based on the facts, find the original facts yourself. You're smart enough to do it, and you're kind of wasting your intelligence by totally relying on someone else to say it for you! that is meant as a compliment, not an insult btw.)

Whatever Fukuyama may say, Ricky, that is why it never pays to agree with someone else just because they are a smart person, a professor, something like that. "They're a professor, so they must be right." Nothing against them, they typically are incredibly intelligent people, but still fallible, even when they write books. And for all I know you have misunderstood something he might have said, is that possible? To me Fukuyama sounds like an incredibly smart guy who is "thintelligent" but then again, I admit I cannot pass judgment on him in entirety without having read at least one of his books.

But I refuse to argue about something I haven't read: that's pretty stupid. I refuse to get into an argument about Fukuyama since I have not read him. The paragraph you quoted is mostly rubbish, Americans typically don't regard their system as a miracle (some do, but Mr Fukuyama nullifies his own point by trying to make it a blanket statement). Perhaps the way civics was taught back in the 1950s, yes. But not now I'd more than simply wager. However, if he's saying what I think you are saying he is saying, I do not agree. Here is why.

The US Constitution is NOT and has never been static: over 226 years, the American Constitution--by which I mean more than just the rules written on the actual pieces of parchment, amendments included--has evolved. In a sense, it's not too dissimilar from it's "unwritten" British counterpart. Why? It's not unwritten, but it's ALMOST unwritten. A constitutional lawyer studies a lot more than those four pieces of parchment to get his/her J.D. Just like the British constitution, the massive bulk of the American "constitution" is not in the "basic rules" but in court precedents, judgment and the legislation intended to carry out its basic provisions.

I must admit that a lot of Americans [fallaciously] go about thinking that the present system was actually designed that way. (See my point above!) Three, co-equal branches that check and balance each other, yadda yadda. Not true! It was never designed that way! The present government of the US looks nothing like the one that came into operation when the 100 or so men who sat down to do business in 1789 (the members of Congress, the Supreme Court, the president, the executive officers, etc.) On paper it's the same, but it isn't. That is why you are incorrect when you say it's unbending. That's a complete fallacy, which is why I am starting to question if I should bother to pick up his book of his in the first place. It is possible for a smart person with a well-researched book to still end up being wrong, isn't it?

hacker

Again, see my point above about Canada not being the only parliamentary system on the planet

You know Hacker you are remarkably obtuse. I hae refered to all parliamentary systems as the line you quoted points out. And I have, as again the line you quoted points out, specifically stated that there are differences. see

Most parliamentary systems have been willing to adapt and change the ways they do things over time. Some, like the UK, have not been constrained by a written constitution that is unbending,.

hacker

But I refuse to argue about something I haven't read: that's pretty stupid

I was using a reference. I could have referenced Ornstein and Mann, or Prestowicz, or Zakkaria who make similar points... to Fukuyama. I used him because he summarizes the ideas we've been discussing...
The central ideas, which you don't address with either evidence or an appeal to authorities or experts are the following....

The first is that, relative to many other liberal democracies, in the US the judiciary and the legislature (including the roles played by the two major political parties) continue to play outsized roles in American government at the expense of Executive Branch bureaucracies....Over time this has become a very expensive and inefficient way to manage administrative requirements.

The second is that the accretion of interest group and lobbying influences has distorted democratic processes and eroded the ability of the government to operate effectively.

....The third is that under conditions of ideological polarization in a federal governance structure, the American system of checks and balances, originally designed to prevent the emergence of too strong an executive authority, has become a vetocracy....Stronger mechanisms are required to force collective decisions but, because of the judicialization of government and the outsized role of interest groups, we are unlikely to acquire such mechanisms short of a systemic crisis. In that sense these three structural characteristics have become intertwined.

If you don't understand the central points without examples let me know. Your unearned condescension notwithstanding, I'm very familiar with the changes in US governance structure over time. They are not glowing examples of the flexibility of your system of governance. Rather they generally indicate how hard adapting is when the Constitution is so constraining, and how easy it is for small groups to effectively manage the system using the systemic levers available.
What I'm saying is that the system is currently in a period of decay away from democratic control of society, which is evidence in media references to "gridlock", " excessive litigation", including litigation of almost every piece of legislation and the decline in living standards over the last 35 years of the working and middle classes due to a loss of political clout by those groups..

Sigh/le sigh...

What I'm saying is that the system is currently in a period of decay away from democratic control of society, which is evidence in media references to "gridlock", " excessive litigation", including litigation of almost every piece of legislation and the decline in living standards over the last 35 years of the working and middle classes due to a loss of political clout by those groups..

Again not necessarily arguing with your stated complaints in the above reply. Decline in living standards: agree. Gridlock: agree. Decay away from democratic control of society? Well, that depends on one's definition of democracy (please don't quote me a dictionary, I have one myself, and you probably know what I mean by that). Oh and excessive litigation: I really can't speak for that one. I'm not a lawyer (though what sort of litigation are you talking about? challenging laws in court? That's what is supposed to be done, Ricky. Look up Marbury v. Madison if you don't understand. We don't have legislative supremacy in this country.)

The problem with your argument about the "constraints" of the constitution is that, if our constitution was so constraining, the present government would still look exactly like it did April 30, 1789 (Washington's inauguration). It doesn't, does it?

You know Hacker you are remarkably obtuse. I hae refered to all parliamentary systems as the line you quoted points out. And I have, as again the line you quoted points out, specifically stated that there are differences. see

Actually, Ricky, from what you've said so far (what I am trying to argue with) it almost sounds like you believe the world's parliamentary systems are similar to Canada's. They're not. There are many variations. It's like saying the US is just like Brazil. (both presidential systems)

I could quote Bueno de Mesquita/Smith because these two are, in my opinion, actual 3-dimensional thinkers when it comes to politics. From what you have quoted from your sources, they sound like they know what they're talking about (the minutiae, the facts, and some of their conclusions) but not the big picture in general. You cannot judge the forest by looking at a couple of trees.

Anyway if it's OK if I can ask a question about Canada...???!!!

hacker

Oh and excessive litigation: I really can't speak for that one. I'm not a lawyer (though what sort of litigation are you talking about? challenging laws in court? That's what is supposed to be done, Rick

You could do a little research.
I doubt that the authors of the constitution thought that the US would end up with more lawyers than the rest of the world combined. And that every law, and regulation was going to be litigated.
I'll quote here...

America's runaway litigation system harms the economy in at
least four ways. First, the specter of undeserved, ruinous
litigation makes it more difficult for small businesses to grow
and become competitive on a global scale.
Second, even those American businesses that are large
enough to compete globally are saddled with litigation
liabilities that their foreign rivals do not face.
Third, America's lawsuit climate discourages foreign direct
investment in the U.S. economy.
And, finally, American companies' domestic liability for
their actions abroad places them at a competitive disadvantage
relative to foreign competitors seeking to do business in the
same foreign markets.
The real losers in all of this are ordinary Americans.
American consumers are hurt in the form of higher prices, U.S.
workers in the form of lower wages, and American retirees in
the form of low returns on retirement accounts and pension
funds.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hh ... g79725.htm


Hacker

Decay away from democratic control of society? Well, that depends on one's definition of democracy

When corporations lobbying efforts, and political funding are far more influential than public opinions wants and needs... And demonstrably so ... then the effect of the political power of voting is diminished.
Examples? - Gun control. Certain measures are very popular but the NRA threatens congressmen with primaries if they move out of line.
- Banking laws. Even though popular, consumer protection laws are fought every step of the way by representatives beholden to their donors in the industries (insurance, finance and banking)
-Subsidies for certain agricultural products are maintained because of the political import of early primaries.
When laws that are passed suffer through 5 to 7 years of litigation before they can be effective ...it makes for an uncertain business climate, and makes the cost of governance much higher. It also means that a corporation with a good team of lawyers can thwart or at least delay laws passed for the common good by a majority of representatives.
Then there's the misshapen power of the senate. where Vermont and Wyoming possess the same power as California and New York. And where one senator can hold up legislation.

Hmmm well I won't argue with you about the litigation. That's awful stuff. Do keep in mind though, if the founding fathers didn't imagine America having the world's most lawyers (is that # or % now?) they'd certainly delight in it: most of 'em were lawyers.

Seriously Ricky I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Don't think that I'm ignoring the facts you report. I simply feel your why is not entirely accurate, and maybe I do not always make myself 100% clear (again, not Mark Antony, etc.) I can see we agree on a lot of points, however. Like the litigation for one. Lawsuits are out of control. Then again, we inherit the British legal tradition and there's a lot of things that aren't in the constitution that go on anyway.

Keep in mind about VT having the same power as CA, as a resident of MD....the people of Maryland know how to run Maryland, not 53 congressmen from 3,000 miles away (guesstimate!) I agree it can get obstructive, but everything in government is a double-edged sword and there aren't absolutes. By that I mean, we need checks and balances (I clearly don't agree with your negative opinion of the checks designed into the system). The other edge of the checks and balances sword is of course what you mentioned, sometimes there's obstruction and gridlock. I'm not saying we ought to tolerate that and say "oh well...." but it can be improved upon, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The US is a federation not a unitary state I mean. I know Canada isn't a unitary state either, but your government simply experiences federalism through a different path than the US does (or rather, did.)

I have to agree with some of your usage of "dysfunctional" but I still do not entirely concur that the system is irreparably dysfunctional. The three of you (Sass, Dan, you) are wrong when you say the last 2 congresses were do-nothings. What the problem was, was that one house was Dem, the other, Rep. Therefore, very few finished bills (500 last time I think one of you showed me). That is the down side to checks and balances. The House and Senate were actually designed to be the checks within the legislative branch; not the presidency vs. congress from without. Few Americans realize that, as some civics classes tend to repeat the myth that our current "constitution" is exactly what's written on the paper; not out of corruption ( I don't mean money-corruption when I use that word) of the original intent. And maybe that's for the better? After all, we don't want to go back to slavery and property requirements for voters, do we?

And I might point out, we've already banned filibusters during nomination votes (the "nuclear option").

I cannot seem to find it myself; how many bills so far have been passed in this congress? They don't exactly have a body count--sorry, running total--on the http://www.house.gov or http://www.senate.gov websites.

Trust me, I'm no jingoist! I am just as critical of the US government as you are. Remember however, that sometimes joe average, even though he might not have a PhD, may notice little things Dr Fukuyama and his friends may not. Seems to work out that way that things don't look the same from the top of the ivory tower as they do at the bottom of the snake pit.

Also keep in mind that, I do not care how well-written or carefully-crafted a constitution is. At the end of the day, if the people in power decide to corrupt it, they can! That was the point of my original post where we crossed swords (the one where I devolved emergency powers on you to write a new US Constitution), alas, it got a bit off topic very quickly so I didn't quite make my point entirely.

If I may ask, has a GG of Canada ever "intervened" in politics, the way that Sir John Kerr did in Australia in 1975 when he fired Gough Whitlam's Labour government?

Also, do the provincial legislatures ever use proportional representation or other methods? or are they all "first past the post" from single-member ridings, like the House of Commons?

hacker

If I may ask, has a GG of Canada ever "intervened" in politics, the way that Sir John Kerr did in Australia in 1975 when he fired Gough Whitlam's Labour government?

I think just once...

In 1926, Liberal prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, facing a non-confidence vote in the House of Commons over a scandal in his party, requested that Governor General the Lord Byng of Vimy dissolve parliament and call an election. Byng, however, refused his Canadian prime minister's advice, citing both the facts that King held the minority of seats in the house and that a general election had been held only months earlier; he thus called on Arthur Meighen to form a government. Within a week however, Meighen's Conservative government lost its own non-confidence vote, forcing the Governor General to dissolve parliament and call elections that saw Mackenzie King returned to power.

hacker

Also, do the provincial legislatures ever use proportional representation or other methods

No.
British Columbia recently voted down in a referendum a move to a first choice/second choice ballot.
Trudeau has promised to try and change the election process including the voting method. We'll see.

hacker

I have to agree with some of your usage of "dysfunctional" but I still do not entirely concur that the system is irreparably dysfunctional

.
here's an illustration of dysfunction on one issue.

Comprehensive immigration reform has long been a bipartisan issue. In 2013, a group of Congressmen from both sides of the aisle got together and procured a framework for reform that passed in the Senate but has since been stalled in the House. Among the “Gang of Eight” Congressmen who worked on the legislation is Marco Rubio, a candidate for the 2016 presidential election.

and yet

In a series of interviews Sunday, Rep. Ryan (R) of Wisconsin revealed that he has no intention of working with President Barack Obama on comprehensive immigration reform, an issue for which Obama had issued executive orders last year.
"I think it would be a ridiculous notion to try and work on an issue like this with a president we simply cannot trust on this issue," Mr. Ryan said in an interview aired on the CBS program "Face the Nation."
"He tried to go it alone, circumventing the legislative process with his executive orders, so that is not in the cards. I think if we reach consensus on how best to achieve border and interior enforcement security, I think that's fine," Ryan added

Beyond the fact that Ryan is lying when he says Obama was trying to go it alone.....There is a general support for immigration reform among the electorate. But because a minority, who are conservative republican voters, are opposed to any kind of compromise on ideological ground.
here's a background on how opinion fells.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... sy-charts/

In a functioning government, like a majority parliament offers, a policy would be chosen and enacted. It might prove popular over time and become an election issue. Or it might work ...

In the US, the issue is never solved. Nor is a solution really ever attempted. Congressional republicans don't feel they can compromise or even been seen to compromise for fear of being primaries...

Balls (les balles).........all right, Ricky, let's agree to disagree, I agree there's stuff rotten, I'm just not the doomsayer that you are. I do have some friends who actually work on the Hill...I'll ask them their opinion. (They are not Republicans, btw, if you were curious.)

Anywho...so no PR anywhere in Canada? Interesting. I guess Canadians are, in that aspect, similar to Americans, we like FPTP, no complicated...stuff.

The GG who refused the PM's request for the election in 1926: sounds like he was a Briton not a Canadian, right? (Lord Byng leads me to believe he's not Canadian but that's just a guess I will hazard.) That's not done anymore, is it? Always a local these days? (iow, a Canadian is always the GG not "London's man" anymore).

I'm told that in Downunderland, the GG is picked pretty much by executive fiat (or whatever is the correct word) of the prime minister. Same in Canada? Or does some sort of body get together to compromise on the "recommendation" to the Queen? (After all, we're talking about the effective head of state for Canada, right?)

PS, I wouldn't trust the Washington Post as a definitive or unbiased enough source to really be giving us this information (that you linked above). If you have ever read the Baltimore Sun as well....well, you'd get my point, I think...or maybe not. Both are the print equivalent of "Fox News for Democrats".

hacker

The GG who refused the PM's request for the election in 1926: sounds like he was a Briton not a Canadian, right? (Lord Byng leads me to believe he's not Canadian but that's just a guess I will hazard.) That's not done anymore, is it? Always a local these days? (iow, a Canadian is always the GG not "London's man" anymore).

Vincent Massey became the first Canadian born GG. And the first Canadian. In 1952. Before hat the appointments were rewards to English nobles or successful soldiers etc. There was an act in 1947 that ended that practice
The Queen appoints the GG on the advice of the PM now. He tends to choose distinguished Canadians ...but they come from everywhere. Jean Beliveau famously turned down the job. (Look him up)
Since Massey there have been two foreign born GGs. Both Women. One born in Haiti and one born in Hong Kong. (Also both television personalities before they became GG)

hacker

I'm just not the doomsayer that you are

.
I'm only doom and gloom about the mechanics of the federal government. Various state governments have and can be been effective.
And the market and the court of public opinion can make things happen in the US very quickly. Witness the power of commercial interests to beat down homophobic regulations in places like Indiana for instance...

Well that's part of the reason for my non-doomsayer position: some state governments have proven more effective. And none of them have improved on the federal government by trading their presidential constitutions for parliamentary ones, is my point. Maryland has trimmed the power of its executive branch by reducing the vote needed to override a veto from 2/3 (66.67%) to 3/5 (60%). Course that's not really necessary since Maryland is such a solidly Democratic state that there's already 70% Democrats in the Senate and well over 60% in the House of Delegates, anyway. But still, decent idea. (A GOP governor in the State of Maryland is typically, in my observation, a figurehead most times!) We have also eliminated the congressional "sausage" with "all bills must relate to one subject, expressed in the title, all amendments to it must be germane" etc etc (not an exact quote) basically, the same thing they put in the confederate constitution, believe it or not. That has been my point all along: it doesn't require a parliamentary constitution for it to happen! See????

But I digress.

I'm curious about your local government, as far as cities at any rate. Is the exec branch of a city separate from the council? Like in the large cities in the United States? Or it is more of a "weak mayor" system, like the guy I just helped get elected mayor. He actually will have less power as mayor, as the mayor is more like the president of the council. Not like in Baltimore, where she runs the executive branch of the whole city (shittily I might add.)

hacker

Course that's not really necessary since Maryland is such a solidly Democratic state that there's already 70% Democrats in the Senate and well over 60% in the House of Delegates, anyway.

If the federal government branches enjoyed this kind of unanimity shit would get done at the federal level too. The last time this occurred was for a brief 30 day period at the beginning of Obama's first term.
Perhaps not the shit most people would want, as there is still the power of the corporate lobby to control the legislation...

hacker

We have also eliminated the congressional "sausage" with "all bills must relate to one subject, expressed in the title, all amendments to it must be germane" etc etc (not an exact quote) basically, the same thing they put in the confederate constitution, believe it or not. That has been my point all along: it doesn't require a parliamentary constitution for it to happen! See????

No. But it will take reform, as your example illustrates. Probably of the parliamentary rules in the Senate, and if you want the levers for over riding a veto changed...well that's constitutional.
When you've got Senators like ted cruz using parliamentary rules to obstruct for no greater purpose than theatrics ....
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/09/3 ... s-Ted-Cruz

You see my point now?

anyway, how's Trudeau working out for y'all? You do not hear much news about Canada as far South as the Free State.