How's that working out right now? When incredibly popular legislation can't get passed ...because on insitutionalized gridlock .... your system is dysfunctional.

What legislation is that? And who told you it was "incredibly popular"?

And enough of the "dysfunctional" stuff. I still believe some people---not necessarily here but this seems to be a human tendency---tend to look at other countries through the eyes of their own. What is "dysfunctional" to one country may actually work in another. Parliamentary democracy does work differently than that of the United States "presidential" model.

And of course good news does not sell newspapers. When politicians are all working together for the good of their country, it rarely makes the front page. Thus, we only hear about Obama throwing a tea kettle at Boehner's head...not shaking his hand. Er, figuratively speaking...

Also, that was a very badly written article. I do not think that it made a very strong argument. It draws a lot of assumptions like "most americans did not even want a federal government." That's wrong: they just disagreed on the particulars. It was agreed, by 1788, that something had to change, else the United States would dissolve or at least partition. And there already was a federal government; it just was not able to force the execution of its own laws (no executive branch, no judiciary, etc.) Again, lots of generalizations and little evidence to back it up. You're right: it was a short read (thankfully).

OK humor me here, Ricky. If the United States government is so dysfunctional, as you eloquently put it, how would you have designed it to be better, if a new Constitution were being written right now, and you had the good luck to be granted dictatorial powers to write it?

I am being totally serious and you have my word that I'll keep my mind open and objective, and should I choose to criticize or question any of it, it will be done in an entirely constructive manner.

hacker

What is "dysfunctional" to one country may actually work in another.

I think it behooves you to demonstrate why you think that this .....

91% of Americans support President Obama’s proposal that criminal background checks should be required for all sales of guns.
Last Thursday, this measure failed to pass the United States Senate, despite having the support of a majority of Senators. How can a minority of legislators in one house of one branch of the government defeat popular legislation on behalf of an even tinier minority of Americans

represents a properly functioning system of governance.

hacker

Also, that was a very badly written article. I do not think that it made a very strong argument. It draws a lot of assumptions like "most americans did not even want a federal government." That's wrong: they just disagreed on the particulars

Well, I bow to the University professor as an authority. But if you have actual evidence for your criticism maybe i'll rethink his authority.

But when you say something like this

And there already was a federal government; it just was not able to force the execution of its own laws (no executive branch, no judiciary, etc.)

I wonder if you even notice the irony?
A government tha exists but can't actual exectue any of its own laws, isn't a government.

hacker

if a new Constitution were being written right now, and you had the good luck to be granted dictatorial powers to write it?

They could do worse I suppose. Off the top of my head.
Structure:
Parliamentary democracy, based on mixed representation. Said representation to be based on 50% direct election of a representtive from a district. 50% based upon proportional representation of voting intention by party at large. (nationally) Off the top of my head i'd divide the nation into 250 electoral districts of fairly equal population and elect on majority of a choiced ballot . the rest, another 250 members would be appointed from a party list of qualified candidates and appointed based what percentatge of the total vote thy receive.(each .4% of vote)
Each candidate qualified to run as a direct representative would be given a campaign fund to spend as would the national parties putting up slates of candidates. (The actual funding formula would be based upon the previous elections results... X dollars for each vote received . New parties would be given an exemption to fudn raise for their first election only. Donations not tax deductable and capped to the amount funded to the second place party in the last election.)
Cabinet officers to be chosen from memebrs of the Parliament. (Congress)
Term of office 5 years unless the governing party loses a vote of confidence. Votes of confidence to be limited to actual motions introduced expressing general non-confidence.


State Senate for representation of state's interests to the President of the parliament. (A formal federation that provides states goverments a direct say in state/federal interaction). This would be a council of Governors or Governors representatives meeting as a Senate. They would not have a legislative function other than in amending the constitution or in petitioning the federal government for action on issues. Or states/federal "contracts" for programs.

So Ricky, can you explain to me why you want there to be two distinct classes of representative, only half of which are actually accountable to anybody ?

sass

So Ricky, can you explain to me why you want there to be two distinct classes of representative, only half of which are actually accountable to anybody ?

I'll assume you mean that of the members of congress half are directly elected from a district,
and half are from a "party list".

The "party list" are not unaccountable. First they are accountable to the party leader and the party as a whole, and secondly they are collectively accountable to the electorate. Not too disimilar to all parliamentary parties even in FPTP elections like England. After all, the party is usually the first determinate in selecting one's voting preference anyway.
You know in a way thats not teribly different than someone being nominated in a "safe riding". The kind of riding a party fnds for a blue chip cabinet candidate who isn't a great politician.
I think that we need to attract talented and worthy people to government. And by that I don't mean just administration but to the policy making section. I think there is a distinct talent set for a politician who has to fight an election on the street level. And that kind of person isn't always the kind of person who offers the array of talents that a governing party might genuinely require. By offering these kind of qualified policy makers through the party lists, i think there would be more shrinikng violets with great talents brought into policy making positions.
Imagine a congressional committee on science made of of actual scientists instead of the merry band of nit wits that currently populate the bench at a congressional hearing on matters of science....
I still think that constituency work has a very valuable role however, and the balance of providing a congressional district with a person who consituents know is "their guy" to petition specifically is important.
Both congressmen have one vote. I would guess that the district elected memebrs would be the two major parties, at least till minor parties get established.
However the proportionally elected would represent a great many minor parties, at least in some numbers. Libertarians might have 12 congressmen based on the votes ofthe last election.
With small, independent groups like this .... even a minority govenrment would have the opportunity of striking a compromise wth a significant number of parties to approach. Unlike today where party discipline ad the fear of primary challenges enforces a strict discipline that has ensured gridlock.
Anyway, Hacker said I was King .... so what i say goes okay?

Ricky, I mean it 100% truthfully when I say, outstanding job! I don't agree with all of it, but that was well done.

Anyway, Hacker said I was King .... so what i say goes okay?

Damn right. Though not King, Ricky, just America's new dictator legibus faciendis et reipublicae constituendae causa, trans: "dictator for the making of laws and for the settling of the constitution"--the title conferred by the Roman Senate on Lucius Cornelius Sulla in 81 B.C. to revise and set right the Republic's constitution. Fortunately for Ricky, the constitution has never much humored President Obama, so he will be spared the humiliation and ritual disembowelment of a typical confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate.

The founding fathers of the American as well as the German "Weimar" republics understood that words, however symbolic, can have a powerful impact on people's minds and decision-making process. I can guarantee you that if the word "parliament" replaced "Congress" as the title of the legislative body in the Constitution of Sept 17, 1787, the thing never would have been ratified. So it was very wise of you to stick the old republican titles, just as the Weimar leaders stuck the old imperial ones ("an imperial order in republican dress").

Now, firstly, the proposed Constitution of 2014 (I will not cover every question in this one, single reply), to see if I have understood you correctly:

Still a bicameral Congress, with a Senate and a House of Representatives (however, rather curiously, the Senate has no formal legislative authority). The House of Representatives is to have half of its 500 members elected from party-oriented, proportional representation lists, and the other half, from 250, single-member congressional districts (first-past-the-post) into which the United States is divided. May I ask, Ricky, if the boundaries drawn for the 250 congressional districts may, or may not, cross state lines? And by what or whose authority will the boundaries be drawn? You have brought up the gerrymandering thing quite often, so let's be clear about how to redistrict after each decennial census. Good idea about the cap on campaign financing; except that you are a little ambiguous: $X per vote received. About how much would that be? And remember that (see below especially) you have about twice as many constituents per congressman as there are now!

The Senate, which represents the interests of the states, truly federal manner, if I understand your intent correctly. Only, you are allowing the actual governors to be members? (or to appoint their legates by their own authority?) How many members: 50? One each? or two per state to the same 100? No actual legislative function, then---only to amend the Constitution or "petition the federal government" (how?) for action on certain issues. I do not understand what you mean "or states/federal "contracts" for programs." I can barely see the point of having such a body.

Sass, I have to admit you have a point when you say that half of the congressmen wouldn't be "accountable" to anyone. In the U.S. it isn't exactly a question of accountability, it's that people need to know who is "their" congressman, to whom they can go for help. With 250 at-large congressmen, well if the party leader is the person to whom they are accountable, that would personally worry me. I don't even know who the chairmen of the Democratic and Republican parties are at this point. They certainly are not accountable to me!

How would committee assignments be handed out among congressmen? Would these party-list congressmen (or at large congressmen, if you will) be on committees just as would be the district-elected ones?

Also, you realize that with 250 congressional districts, instead of 435, the number of citizens to one congressman would skyrocket from 709,760 (that's just taking the 2010 census population and dividing by 435) to 1,234,982? That would make advertising twice as expensive, the districts would also be twice as large and therefore easier to gerrymander, even if you did have an independent boundary commission.

The executive branch: OK since this is a parliamentary democracy the cabinet would be members of the House of Representatives (I assume that a senator or whatever, since the body has no formal legislative duties, would never be a member of the Cabinet?) Fair enough, and I assume the the Head of Government would have great leeway in whom (s)he picks as members of the executive? Let' have a better title than Prime Minister, by the way. Americans will not like that one. HOG (head of government) for now. How will (s)he pick these cabinet members (Secretaries, we'll still call them, and keep pretty much the same ones I guess)?

And wither the Head of State? We might use the term "President" because just about every parliamentary democracy that's not a monarchy uses that term for the HOS. We could even have what would almost literally equate to "American royalty": the HOS must be elected from among the descendents of one or more of the "better" presidents--Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Adams, FDR, even better Kennedy, just not the likes of Harding or Millard Fillmore--either for a very long term of office (20 years) or for life. And I am assuming that this HOS, like the Canadian Governor-General, will be 95% ceremonial in his or her duties and powers? Also, HOW would the HOS be elected? or appointed?

Sorry if I got a little particular, but, as they say, "the devil is in the details" so if we're going to write a new constitution, let's get it right.

Secondly, that little "academic" article you showed me:

Well, I bow to the University professor as an authority.

I don't and I would advise you he's not worth the risk of hurting your back in the process. And I hope to hell they haven't given him tenure, yet (though that would explain a few things).

A government tha exists but can't actual exectue any of its own laws, isn't a government.

Well, we never said the United States had that problem, did we? Just MAKING them in the first place. There is a difference, which is one of the basic principles of separation of powers. And I think the "gridlock" is between, not only the two main political parties, but between the President and his enemies in Congress, in making laws, the budget, etc. Executing laws, well that's not a problem. Certainly not for President Obama, even if they were made by Congress or by executive fiat.

Otherwise, good job, keep going...!!!!!

Some more:

Votes of confidence to be limited to actual motions introduced expressing general non-confidence.

What does that mean?

I know what a vote of no-confidence is in general: the house wishes the government to be replaced. How or if the motion carries works differently from one country to another.

In Germany, there is a rule called the "Constructive No-Confidence Rule", which means, the motion of no-confidence in the incumbent chancellor & ministry, must include the name of who the new chancellor will be, should the motion carry. This was built into the Basic Law (constitution) to solve the problem that the Weimar Republic often encountered: a motion of no-confidence would topple the chancellor/government, but it would be weeks or more until a new chancellor was named.

By the way you did not tell me Ricky (though I don't mean to get off topic): what legislation were you talking about and who told you it was popular at all?

Hacker

By the way you did not tell me Ricky (though I don't mean to get off topic): what legislation were you talking about and who told you it was popular at all

This is what I quoted. Why isn't this clear?
It was back ground checks and the pols (pew indicated that Americans wanted them, overwhelmingly)

For all its international power, the United States government seems increasingly powerless to make laws for the benefit of its own people. The recent failure to implement popular gun control measures in the wake of the Newtown massacre is a poignant example. 91% of Americans support President Obama’s proposal that criminal background checks should be required for all sales of guns.
Last Thursday, this measure failed to pass the United States Senate, despite having the support of a majority of Senators. How can a minority of legislators in one house of one branch of the government defeat popular legislation on behalf of an even tinier minority of Americans who are convinced that the government wants to round up gun owners and put them in camps?

The Senate, which represents the interests of the states, truly federal manner, if I understand your intent correctly. Only, you are allowing the actual governors to be members? (or to appoint their legates by their own authority?) How many members: 50? One each? or two per state to the same 100? No actual legislative function, then---only to amend the Constitution or "petition the federal government" (how?) for action on certain issues. I do not understand what you mean "or states/federal "contracts" for programs." I can barely see the point of having such a body.

On matters that are entirely federal, they have no authority. On matters that have to do with the constituional power balance between States and the federal Government this body acts as an equal partner with the Federal government and represents the states. SInce the Governors do that individually , they gain a seat in this collective body when they gain power. What this does is formalize a one to many relationship (1 to 50) to a 1 to 1 relationship, and ensures that the States are dealt with equally by the Federal government. At the moment States have an unequal relationship, and their authority over some matters seems to have eroded over time.

Still a bicameral Congress, with a Senate and a House of Representatives (however, rather curiously, the Senate has no formal legislative authority). The House of Representatives is to have half of its 500 members elected from party-oriented, proportional representation lists, and the other half, from 250, single-member congressional districts (first-past-the-post) into which the United States is divided. May I ask, Ricky, if the boundaries drawn for the 250 congressional districts may, or may not, cross state lines? And by what or whose authority will the boundaries be drawn? You have brought up the gerrymandering thing quite often, so let's be clear about how to redistrict after each decennial census. Good idea about the cap on campaign financing; except that you are a little ambiguous: $X per vote received. About how much would that be? And remember that (see below especially) you have about twice as many constituents per congressman as there are now

I would call the only legislative body the Congress, headed by a President (The first person on a parties list of proportional representatives and the aprty leader. )
An independent permanent electoral commission would draw boundaries. I suppose they could try and keep them within state boundaries. I don't think that would lead to all that many problems otehr than meaning only one member froma place like Wyoming ..where I think they now have 2.
Financing levels per vote would be what ever is decided is appropriate. Period. It would be paid for by eleiminating the tax deductibility of political donations, and eliminating lobbying expenses as a deductible business expense.
As for the increased number of constituents per directly elected members ...so what? How many direct constituents does a Senator for California or New York currently have?

hacker

That would make advertising twice as expensive, the districts would also be twice as large and therefore easier to gerrymander

,
Mathemartically the larger a district the harder it is to gerrymander. (Danivon the mathematician can explain that to you) Plus, it would be an independent commission drawing up these borders.
As for the cost going up...no. You have a budget given to you as a candiate for a political party. You spend that budget and nothing more. Now that might mean a greater dependence on media access, or public forums, rather than paid advertising. I see that as a good thing. It will also mean a diminished active campaign period. I see that as a good thing.

As for your comments on language and labels A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... So call them what you will. It would still shrink the current size of government, and shrink the lobbying and professional political industries... (starved of funds) All good things. And end gridlock. And increase the actuall democratic power of ordinary people by ending the requirement for political donations to power a political party.

rickyp

A government that exists but can't actual execute any of its own laws, isn't a government.

hacker

Well, we never said the United States had that problem, did we

Actually I'm quoting you, so yes. You did. This was your comment about the original Federal structure of the USA.

The "party list" are not unaccountable. First they are accountable to the party leader and the party as a whole, and secondly they are collectively accountable to the electorate. Not too disimilar to all parliamentary parties even in FPTP elections like England. After all, the party is usually the first determinate in selecting one's voting preference anyway.

My point was that there's no individual accountability. Whether or not you manage to get elected depends entirely on how much in favour you are with the leadership. If an individual politician is enormously unpopular with the electorate but happens to be placed high up the list then they can never be voted out except in the unlikely event that their party suffers a catastrophic meltdown.

Your bizarre hybrid proposal would mean that half of the elected representatives would be answerable to the electorate and the other half would be solely answerable to the party leadership, which is incredibly weird and would lead to a two tier system.

I think that we need to attract talented and worthy people to government. And by that I don't mean just administration but to the policy making section. I think there is a distinct talent set for a politician who has to fight an election on the street level. And that kind of person isn't always the kind of person who offers the array of talents that a governing party might genuinely require. By offering these kind of qualified policy makers through the party lists, i think there would be more shrinikng violets with great talents brought into policy making positions.

Bless...

You do realise that party list systems already exist right ? Care to point out one single example anywhere on earth where this charmingly naive expectation actually happens ? Back in the real world what happens is that the top dogs get the top slots on the party list and the aspiring party hacks get the lower slots before trying to work their way up the greasy pole by sucking up to the leadership to get a better slot next time round.

Oh, and ironically, the Westminster system already has the mechanism to bring in talented people and promote them to the government without them having to win an election, we call it the House of Lords. The Lords committees are packed with esteemed scientists, business leaders and all the rest, and there are always one or two people receruited to the Lords specifically to bring their valuable experience to a ministerial job. The American system also has it in a different way because they don't draw their executive from the legislature so the President can nominate whoever he likes to the top jobs. Your system would be worse than either.

The American system also has it in a different way because they don't draw their executive from the legislature so the President can nominate whoever he likes to the top jobs. Your system would be worse than either.

Sigh...yet another misunderstanding of the American system. The president may not pick anyone he likes. They must have approval of the Senate. Yes, yes I know what you are going to say: if the President is drawn from the same party as has a majority in the Senate it's a rubber stamp.

First of all, probably not (at least not to the extent you seem to be assuming). While I am not privy to the President's off the record phone calls and private conversations with members of the Senate who he must convince to vote in favor of his nomination, well, let me put it this way:

If you had just been sworn in as a brand-new president of the United States, and you had to put together a new administration with as many top posts as the United States Government, would it not be logical to "sound out" leading senators, first, to "test the water" on how members of the Senate, even of your own party, feel about this or that potential nominee? That is probably why it looks like "child's play" to get a nominee through the Senate when the President and a majority of the Senate are the same party. A lot of politics goes on behind the scenes like that.

The other choice, of course, would be to appoint who you really, really WANT to without consulting the members of the Senate. It would have the same effect as writing hundreds of names of the wall, putting on a blindfold, and then throwing as many darts as you have cabinet posts to fill. (In other words, roll the dice and see if they get confirmed.) You don't do that: it will waste time. And there have been cabinet and judicial appointments who have been rejected.

If I were to look at parliamentary government through the eyes of my own, which would not be a very objective way of looking at things, I would say the prime minister of Canada or the UK is actually worse because, once he has the electoral mandate to form a government, he can put "whoever he likes" in the cabinet/federal ministry. The subjective side of me would look at that and think "oh, how terribly dictatorial." But since I'm a little more objective than that, I'm going to assume, hopefully correctly, that there is [at least] some input from some other source into who the PM appoints to the Cabinet/Ministry in your own countries, or [at most] some sort of accountability built into the system. Is there? I'll ask the question before making the assumption.

Sassenach, I think you are raising some good points, especially about the non-district congressmen (the 250 party list/at large members of Congress). Accountable to the party leaders (as in your proposed constitution) vs. accountable to special interests (as with the current United States evil, corrupt presidential system). Sass is dead right on that one Ricky, and I think the correct description would actually be "out of the frying pan and into the fire."

State's governors do not have the time to be part of some council like that. They have more important things to do than to participate in the federal government, however ephemerally.

Also: so unicameral? No upper house? How many countries of the world that are parliamentary democracies have no upper house? How would the government be held to accountability?

By the way, let's call the presiding officer of this (unwisely) unicameral Congress Mr./Mme. Speaker; the head of government the President of the Cabinet, and the head of state...His/Her Excellency, the Chief of State (or just "the Chief", for short). And unless I have missed something, you did not detail his or her election/appointment (and any emergency or other authority, or lack thereof). Believe it or not, that part is also important, even if the Chief is a 100% figurehead (Emperor of Japan) or 95% (Federal President of Germany). (Anyone who thinks the duties of even a ceremonial head of state is immaterial in a parliamentary system should ask Paul von Hindenburg.)

My suggestion would be a quasi-monarchy of sorts. Some process (will take suggestions here) to nominate candidates for Chief of State, they must be a descendent of certain previous United States presidents (the presidential ones) on an approved list of American "dynasties" (as I said, a Kennedy or Roosevelt or a Hemmings descendant, not Millard Fillmore, or William Henry Harrison or something like that). The term would be fairly long, at least 15 years (good reason for this I think) and some sort of way to hold elections upon his/her untimely death due to the long term of office (some of the Kennedy relatives aren't spring chickens). I think such a long term of office would be better than a 5 year Governor General more-or-less appointed by [and removable by] the head of government of the day. This would ensure that the Chief outlasts at least one or two governments/administrations. Still a mostly ceremonial head of state (unless Ricky objects...its up to him, after all). The Chief could be removed for extreme obstructionism (like he/she would not get away with what the Australian G-G did in 1975, firing the entire cabinet) but still have leeway to stop the President of the Cabinet (HOG) and/or members of his government from doing something illegal. How would the Chief be elected? removed? powers/duties? let's get specific. Smaller part of the Constitution I know but like I said we need to settle this one.

I assume, also that there would be an independent federal judiciary? How would the Supreme Court be appointed?

You don't need to sigh at me Hacker, I know full well how your system works. I said the President can nominate anybody he likes, which is true. The point is that there's a mechanism by which talented individuals can be drafted into government without them having to have won an election.