sass

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

Oh I don't know if its that bizarre. It works in Germany

The German parliament’s lower chamber has at least 598 members. Under Germany’s mixed proportional and direct electoral system, 299 members are directly elected in their districts and the other 299 members enter parliament via party lists through proportional representation

.

And the point I made about "collective responsibility" is exactly what happens in most UK elections.
You can't tell me that MPs are elected exclusiviely on their ability to represent their constituencies. Theya re elected, primarily, because at the time of the election they represent a party that is the preference of the electorate.

A list is not that different in that regard.

Well no they are not elected. On the other hand, a parliamentary minister, if I understand everything correctly, is elected as an MP---not as a minister: he or she does not actually "run" for the position of minister (it would be quite strange if one did, of course). One could argue that a minister is a trifle "more" elected than a member of the American cabinet and I would agree. But of course in a presidential system the job does not need to be as political, per se. They can be technocrats without any popular power base. The advantage of one of your ministers is that he has such a popular power base. The advantage of ours is that he/she does not need to be so, and can actually know what they're doing rather than fillling a ministerial post. OK, in theory. I'm sure John Kerry knows exactly what he is doing. Things are going so swimmingly at State.

And for once I think I will have to agree with Ricky. It's more on party image that one can be elected.

But for my part I very much doubt that we would need to scrap the constitution to solve America's problems. My whole point was that the idea itself is...overkill at best.

How to keep judicial appointees, like justices of the Supreme Court, from being "political", would be to require 2/3 (or even just 3/5) instead of just a simple majority to confirm the nominee. No one would be approved by the Senate without some support on both sides of the aisle.

As far as gridlock over the budget one could give the power over it to Congress exclusively. In this state the budget bill is not presented to the governor, he cannot veto it. That would prevent wrangling between the President and Congress over the budget as happened over the winter. Even in "The Federalist Papers" Hamilton describes the legislature as "the purse of the community" so why not.

There's probably other things but I cannot think of them right now. It's time for a two hour lunch.

By the way, someone said on this thread that parliamentary democracy results in a strong government with the ability to act.

Can you please define "strong government" and its associated "ability to act".

hacker

Can you please define "strong government" and its associated "ability to act".

A majority government in a parliament, can pass legislation with majority votes.
The ability of the minority to thwart action or stop legislation is generally limited.
Compared to the US where individual senators can thwart some legislation and where "super" majorities are required ... And where the Executive is constantly checked by the two houses...

OK, thanks Ricky; you have defined the right of the majority to act, and to some lesser degree, the ability to act. But not what a "strong government" is. It might not have been you who said it,maybe it was Sassenach, about parliamentary democracy producing "strong government." If you could define your idea of strong government a little more, please? (either of you? or both? or anyone? lol)

Fair enough. Oh, and continue with your proposed constitutional framework. It's been pretty good so far. I do not agree that Americans would necessarily like it, but as I said willing to listen (and consider well, which I have).

I do not agree on the unicameral Congress. In a parliamentary democracy, a unicameral legislature (in a parliamentary democracy) the government (and the HOG/President of the Cabinet, as I called him, in particular) have the ability to ram or railroad things right through it. I found a set of "parliamentary papers" on the website of the Australian Senate, and one of them was in defense of bicameralism. I forget which number it was but if you feel like a quick skim-through, it's interesting. It was actually a huge set of papers on different topics. Having ADD it would be a rather momentous task for me to do more than read one or two of them....but it seems that this Mr. Harry Evans, whoever he is, believes in a strong upper house for Australia, because of the recent increase in the power of the government.

Oh yes, speaking of which, what checks against the government would be built in to this constitution? I know I said, not a discussion of a particular bill of rights, I'm talking about any built-in mechanisms that would check or slow down the government's ability to do something terribly wrong.

And the point I made about "collective responsibility" is exactly what happens in most UK elections.
You can't tell me that MPs are elected exclusiviely on their ability to represent their constituencies. Theya re elected, primarily, because at the time of the election they represent a party that is the preference of the electorate.

A list is not that different in that regard.

History is littered with examples of individually unpopular politicians losing safe seats (and for that matter of individually popular politicians holding onto vulnerable seats even when their party as a whole is unpopular). Of course people typically vote for a party, but the fact remains that individual politicians elected from a party list are wholly lacking in individual accountability.

Hacker, I think it's blindingly obvious what 'strong government' means. It means a government that has the ability to enact its agenda. Parliamentary systems don't necessarily produce this type of government of course. Nobody would ever accuse Italy of producing strong governments for example. As a rule though, if a governing party is able to command a majority in parliament then they'll usually be able to pass most legislation, set budgets etc without the need for fudge, compromise and perpetual crises. Whether you see this as a good thing will of course be dependant upon how highly you value the freedom to act decisively over constitutional checks and balances. The American system was specifically designed to limit executive power and most Americans have been raised to view this as a good thing. It is a good thing I suppose, but it has drawbacks, which you can clearly see at the moment because right now America is virtually ungovernable.

Again, my most egregious apologies for this post which is quite long. And I realize I use run-on sentences sometimes; I had an English professor warn me about that...

A list is not that different in that regard.

Firstly, I am going to take up for Rickyp's POV in this respect. [Yes, gentlemen, you may well pick yourselves off of the floor. Now: I do not entirely understand how this ties in with "safe seats" if someone will explain that to me. Personally, I would think ricky's 250 party-list congressmen would not be very "safe" at all, since their party's performance would affect the number of them (how many out of the 250 at-large congressmen, I mean) would belong to a particular party. Now of course, if the United States suddenly used Ricky's constitution (let's call it the Constitution of 2014, to replace the Constitution of 1787). While I do not [yet] live in a parliamentary democracy, I know for a fact that Germany is not the only western or "westernized" country whose parliament is half single member FPTP (or single-member but "preferential", such as Australia's House of Representatives) and half at-large, party-list members. (If I am not mistaken, all 120 members of the Israeli Knesset [Parliament] are elected as such, NONE of them are from districts/ridings/constituencies/etc!) Now of course, Israel is a very small country, population 7,821,850,* far smaller in size and population than Germany (or the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, etc.) so maybe it is logical that the entire country is a whole district of the Knesset rather than individual single-member seats. It's just what the People of Israel [or at the time, "the Jewish bit of Palestine"] wanted, perhaps. But, without having lived under such a government, I can still assume that an example like that supports Ricky's position? Again, even being a poli sci major for a while, I cannot precisely remember our discussions on Germany in the first comparative politics course I took. That was quite a while ago (I had been going to college part-time, and almost forever). But I would think (or rather HOPE) that our new at-large, party-list congressmen would have a sense of collective responsibility.

Hacker, I think it's blindingly obvious what 'strong government' means. It means a government that has the ability to enact its agenda. Parliamentary systems don't necessarily produce this type of government of course. Nobody would ever accuse Italy of producing strong governments for example. As a rule though, if a governing party is able to command a majority in parliament then they'll usually be able to pass most legislation, set budgets etc without the need for fudge, compromise and perpetual crises. Whether you see this as a good thing will of course be dependant upon how highly you value the freedom to act decisively over constitutional checks and balances. The American system was specifically designed to limit executive power and most Americans have been raised to view this as a good thing. It is a good thing I suppose, but it has drawbacks, which you can clearly see at the moment because right now America is virtually ungovernable

Yes, I can clearly see at the moment, and have clearly seen for quite a while, that there are indeed drawbacks to the American system. I still refuse to take the alarmist position that the present constitution [of 1787] is entirely "incurable" if it remains presidential.

I was told by one of my professors--definitely not a conservative Republican, nor the type of conservative making political decisions after having too many Long Island Ice Teas if you get my drift---that the founding fathers were less concerned with majority rule and more concerned with individual liberty. I would agree with that, and I do not accept the view some people have that majority rule necessarily equates to Liberty or Freedom (for just the individual OR the group as a whole). Be that as it may, I do share some of your convictions that in a free society it is necessary to have a government strong enough to act in the interests of the majority of the people who elected it. And be that as it may, however, you are not entirely correct in some of your statements about "the freedom to act decisively" [maybe I have misunderstood you when I say what I am about to say] is stymied by checks and balances (again, perhaps I misunderstood your paragraph above?) And, alas, I still contest you assertion that the United States is virtually ungovernable.

I also contest your assumption (or educated guess at best) that our system was designed to limit executive power. It was not. While Alexander Hamilton spends most of his time in The Federalist Papers (the ones covering the executive branch specifically) desperately and vehemently convincing "Publius'" readers that no, the President of the United States was not, nor would he morph into, a Louis XIV-style monarch; it is still evident from reading The Federalist Papers(depending on how much of them you read, and if you don't read many of them I cannot blame you!) as well as a copy of the Constitution of 1787 [as amended], that the executive branch did NOT worry our august founding fathers (or at least the 38 out of 55 of them who consented to sign the finished product). Not at all! If anything they assumed that, if any of the three branches of government were to get "out of control"---by that I mean aggrandize itself to the point of stomping on our liberties and freedoms (OK, the white people's liberties and freedoms)---or to run amok in some way, it would be the LEGISLATIVE branch, and NOT the presidency!

How do I know this? just look at the length of Article I, that which covers the legislative branch of the federal government. It is the most detailed and specifically-worded article out of the seven in the original constitution (it has been amended since then of course, but the amendments relating to the Executive, XII, XX, XXII and XXV, mostly deal with changes in the term of office, the mode of his election and his succession or "disability" if not actually dead; none of them actually curb the AUTHORITY or POWERS of the presidency!) It contains 10 sections. In comparison, Art. II (presidency) contains 4 sections and Art. III, (the federal judiciary) contains only 3.

OK, what's the Point, Mr. Hacker? The whole system was not designed to check executive power, but legislative, in general. The modern view of three, co-equal branches of government checking and balancing each other was not the original intent (remember in the first post of this thread, I said about how the original ideas of presidential, and even parliamentary, governments have "corrupted" over time---I wasn't talking about money, campaign finance rules notwithstanding). There is a whole section dealing with powers specifically DENIED to CONGRESS....the articles covering the executive and judicial branches do not contain any such prohibitions. Why? Because the authors of the Constitution of 1787 had their sights set on the powers of Congress, and keeping Congress from getting out of control.

And why do I say it's curable? Remember what I said about Maryland's state constitution? The states are mini-presidential systems in and of themselves. The governor of Maryland, thank God, does not even see the budget bill. Upon its passage by the State Senate (after beginning in the larger House of Delegates) it becomes law. Bazinga. Governor O'Malley cannot do a damn thing to it, as we must thank our lucky stars.

Of course, Maryland, I might point out, disproves your poinit that you need to get a single party to control the executive and legislative (and even judicial) branches of government. Maryland's government is not near as "efficient" as you gentlemen have advertised parliamentary democracy to be, and this is a one-party state. MD has been a "blue state" (Democratic) since Andrew Jackson was President. And with the current gerrymandering plan, there will be even less Republicans in both houses of the General Assembly to come even close to obstructing the will of the majority.

And yet, it doesn't seem to act quite as efficiently as you would assume it would under those circumstances....hmmmm......

P.S. Rickyp: you are doing a very fine job. Keep going, esteemed dictator to revise the Constitution of the Republic! I do not agree with all of your conclusions, but you've obviously put quite a bit of thought into it and brought up some decent points.

*Footnote: to avoid getting sued, audited, or my hot phone conversations recorded by CIA/NSA/FBI, data above courtesy of CIA World Factbook and the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration.

Compared to the US where individual senators can thwart some legislation and where "super" majorities are required

Super majorities are not required except to ratify a treaty, 2/3 of those present (not exactly 67 senators, either). Also, to override the President's veto, requires a 2/3 vote of both houses. That's the only two times in the federal constitution, and it's still only 2/3 of THOSE PRESENT. Now an impeachment trial requires 2/3 of the total membership or 67 Guilty votes to convict an thereby remove the occupant from office, or to expel a member of either chamber (but that seems only wise, you do not want to allow representatives and senators to expel one of their own by just a simple majority, or to convict and remove from office the President of the United States by a simple majority, right?)

That's it dude. No supermajorities are required to pass legislation. Can pass by one vote. Even to grant advice and consent to a presidential appointment, be it a judge or a cabinet/executive office requires a simple majority of those present. Invoking cloture, according to the Constitution, requires 1/5 of those present if I read the constitution correctly.

With 60 needed to reach quorum and push legislation forward, I think RickyP is speaking to that.

Considering the way the left really enjoyed the same luxury when the shoe was on the other foot, I have little support for changing the rules at this point,

Perhaps if the Senate was REQUIRED to vote on legislation given by the House...

I thought that it says in the Constitution:

and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day,

Which means that 51/100 senators can be present to vote on legislation, or 218/435 representatives. In any case, guys, it sounds to me like the problem is less constitutional and more so procedural. Certainly nothing you'd scrap the constitution over; or throw the baby out with the bathwater.

JimHackerMP wrote:I thought that it says in the Constitution:

and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day,

Which means that 51/100 senators can be present to vote on legislation, or 218/435 representatives. In any case, guys, it sounds to me like the problem is less constitutional and more so procedural. Certainly nothing you'd scrap the constitution over; or throw the baby out with the bathwater.

True on procedure...

If you wouldn't mind Ricky (since I said I started this thread mostly to gather information) if I can pick your brains on Canada, as I did Sass on the UK. I think you said you do have some experience in Canadian local politics, right?

Are there term limits for prime ministers? I realize that a federal election can happen prior to any fixed amount of time (in the UK, someone said, there is a 5 year maximum you cannot go since the last election, without having an election) but is there a limit to the number of parliaments a prime minister can serve as prime minister?

I might have asked this but how many major parties are there, again in parliament, like, 4? Encyclopedia Britannica says there's a Conservative, Liberal, and New Democratic parties, as well as the Bloc Quebecois, which hails only from ridings in Quebec. What do they generally "stand" for? (E.B. says the NDP stands for an expansion of the welfare state, but didn't get too much into the Conservative or Liberal parties).

Are there term limits for prime ministers?
NO

I might have asked this but how many major parties are there, again in parliament, like, 4? Encyclopedia Britannica says there's a Conservative, Liberal, and New Democratic parties, as well as the Bloc Quebecois, which hails only from ridings in Quebec. What do they generally "stand" for?

The Bloc Quebecoise was created to represent Quebecs narrow interests in Parliament. They tend to be a left wing party, and with the recent poor performance of the separtistes in the provinicial elections, appear to be declining into irrelevance.
The NDP are the left wing party.
The Liberals are centrist. Generally they campaign from the left centre and rule from the right centre.
The Conservatives are a right witn party. At one time they were the Progressive Conservatives but an internal split created the Reform (hard right wing) and Conservative party. Eventually they reconciled but most of the former left wing (red tories) seem to have left...
Another party , the social credit party, had representation for years, They were a kind of reform before Reform...
The Green have 1 very popular MP, their leader.

hacker

, it sounds to me like the problem is less constitutional and more so procedural. Certainly nothing you'd scrap the constitution over; or throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If the constitution allows a chamber of congress to write procedures that can confound the progress of legislation despite overwhleming [popularity and majorities in the congress, then are the precedures at fault or the consitution that allowed the procedures?

If overwhelmingly popular legislation like back ground checks on gun owners cannot pass through Congress .... (92% popularity I call overwhelming) than is it fair to say that the views of the public are not represented in Congress. And if the aim of the Constituion is to create a "Representative Democracy" than isn't this a symptom of failure?
And gridlock generally?

Define "overwhelming majority"?

So then Canada is a 3 1/2 party system, in a manner of speaking?

Is there never any obstruction from the minority in Canadian parliament?

What weapons do the minority in the House of Commons have to check the power of the majority?

And what about "minority governments"? Brad said that they happen from time to time and yet still have the right to govern, constitutionally speaking. (my Canadian buddy I frequently talk to online).