sass
.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

same one you are i expect.
that if frequency of elections are seen as a symptom of instsbility and/or a weakness in a political system (as hacker has alluded to...) then the 2 year election cycle in the US is a fundamental weakness.

That wasn't my point at all. I was just pointing out that coalitions are the norm rather than minority governments because the latter is inherently unstable.

sass

I was just pointing out that coalitions are the norm rather than minority governments because the latter is inherently unstable.

Ah.Sorry.
I know that coalitions are the norm in many states. And that he current UK government is a coalition. However isn't this the first non-wartime coalition in the UK

Canada has had thirteen different minority governments, most recently experiencing its longest period of minority government with three successive minority governments between 2004 and 2011.Only in war time has there been a coaltion...

I can see the same thing for MPs here.

What, polarization? or an iPad app? I thought it was rare, if I understand Sass. correctly, for MPs to vote against their party?

that if frequency of elections are seen as a symptom of instsbility and/or a weakness in a political system (as hacker has alluded to...) then the 2 year election cycle in the US is a fundamental weakness.

That is not what i meant. In a parliamentary democracy, elections every two years (over a pattern of years, not just once or twice) would be symptom of instability. In the U.S. it's normal, because they are at SET DATES; everybody knows when the next one is, and the President is not empowered by the Constitution to dissolve Congress (as I put it "thankfully"). Besides, that is only one chamber; as you know the senators have 6 year terms, one-third of them being up for grabs at a time.

What I was saying was, if there is gridlock in a particular Congress (and it does not immediately happen the day after they are sworn in, you see) you do not have to wait long, since their definite term of office is only two years. It's better for the United States presidential system to turn over--well, have the ability to turn over--the entire House of Representatives every two years like clockwork. That's a strength.

And yes, of course, one could argue that the incumbency rate is 90% (probably lowered because of the statistical inclusion of the last election, in which the House turned over rather more than usual...the data would all depend on how it's massaged but 90% is in my opinion close enough)

In a parliamentary democracy--probably one with greater than 3 parties in this case--it would be a sign of instability, if, over a pattern of years, there were elections every two years. Now if it happened twice in a row, and then didn't for quite a while, well, OK...but a parliamentary democracy in which the median average of one parliament lasting two years on average before dissolution (for one reason or another, motion of no-confidence, whatever...) would be in the very least "a bit of a bumpy ride". Understand what I mean?

And yes I know the Basic Law was not supposed to be an almost-copy of the Weimar constitution, quite the reverse. I was also told that two of the largest changes were designed to remove the instability from the system that was prevalent in the 1920s--the fact that you must have a constructive no-confidence motion (the motion to remove the current chancellor & friends, must contain the name of the new one) and the 5% threshold for your party to get seats in the Bundestag.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Research_and_Education/~/link.aspx?_id=5EA771462D0A44E3BDDF3C05852000F7&_z=z

From the Australian Parliament's website "Papers on Parliament". One of this particular series shows predicting presidential races, another lessons to be learned from Canada's minority governments.

BTW Speaking of Australia, I did mention I think that a fellow Redscape member, long ago, gave me a nice run-down on the workings of the Australian federal (and state to some extent) governments.

If I had to pick a parliamentary democracy to live under, no offense, it would be Australia. Though its Constitution Act of 1900 (or the Constitution of 1900) was written prior to the Statute of Westminster (1931?), it seems to have a nice little blend of some of the features of American and British governments. Not in any sense is it a presidential government, that's not what I mean by that. But they seem to have blended a few aspects of the American Government at the time (and it's been amended since of course), and kind of works, or was designed to work, similar to the way that the U.S. Government was if you actually sit down and read a few of The Federalist Papers. I think I pointed out before that the U.S. Government was not designed to give Congress the power to check the President--of course they did, but it really seems they (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, jr., and, to some extent, John Jay) were worried more about the carefully-designed Legislative Branch overpowering the President to the point where he was unable to do his job. Believe it or not, when Madison and Hamilton speak of "checks and balances" they were actually not speaking of between the three branches of government. Of course they wanted the separation of powers into three distinct spheres of influence, but Madison did not actually equate the separation of powers between Executive, Legislative and Judicial with "checks and balances" necessarily: that was to come from WITHIN the legislature, not between the legislature and the chief executive! The two houses of Congress were designed to check each other.

It is my personal belief that, by doing so, they actually ended up being able to check the power of an office which, by the mid twentieth century, had come to possibly dominate the system in some ways, though perhaps not in every way (namely, the Presidency). The classically-educated founding fathers looked at the ancient republics of Greece, and at the Republic of Rome (you can tell a lot of the features of the latter were incorporated into the 1787 Constitution believe it or not).

There were no political parties in the legislature until the 4th Congress (1795-1797; the last two years of the Presidency of George Washington). The House of Representatives website only says which senators and representatives were "Pro-Administration" and "Anti-Administration". In that, we were inheriting [more or less] the British tradition of one side being H.M. Government, the other, H.M. Opposition.

Supposedly, the checks and beliefs in the Constitution, according to Madison, were between the Senate and the House; not the Congress (as a whole or in part) and the President.

Ugh, sorry I'll try to "combine" my posts in the future....not make 5 discrete responses in a row!

hacker

That is not what i meant. In a parliamentary democracy, elections every two years (over a pattern of years, not just once or twice) would be symptom of instability. In the U.S. it's normal, because they are at SET DATES; everybody knows when the next one is, and the President is not empowered by the Constitution to dissolve Congress (as I put it "thankfully"). Besides, that is only one chamber; as you know the senators have 6 year terms, one-third of them being up for grabs at a time

You can't have it both ways, Either frequent elections are a sign of instability or they aren't.
Just because the election schedule is known, doesn't mean you generate stability. The fact policiians are ALWAYS campaigning, due to the short terms, creates an atmosphere where governing cannot occur with compromise and acomodation. And contribures to gridlock.
And the difference between an election that is forced and a scheduled election is that the forced election is an attempt to over come gridlock. An attempt to actually resolve gridlock.
A scheduled election is just business as usual. And since incumbancy is so high... once gridlock has been achieved the constant elections don't seem to resolve gridlock...

I know that coalitions are the norm in many states. And that he current UK government is a coalition. However isn't this the first non-wartime coalition in the UK

I was referring to systems which result in multiple parties getting seats and where outright majorities are rare. That was what we were talking about at the time.

But yes, I do think the 2 year electoral cycle in the US is problematic. As I said earlier, it may well be better to have all Congressmen elected at the same time every 4 years, ideally at the same time as the Presidential election. This would maximise turnout and would in theory lead to a greater chance of the same party controlling the House and the Presidency, meaning that they might even be able to achieve something. It would also probably serve to reduce the costs involved and cut down on the perpetual cycle of electioneering. Not a miracle cure by any means, but I think it would help and it wouldn't represent a major departure from normal American practices.

rickyp wrote:hacker

A scheduled election is just business as usual. And since incumbancy is so high... once gridlock has been achieved the constant elections don't seem to resolve gridlock...

http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/

Congressional power does change from one side to another. The Senate will change after mid-terms. Your point, although noted, is wrong.

Even the Democrats had complete control at the beginning of the Obama Administration.

You can't have it both ways, Either frequent elections are a sign of instability or they aren't.

In that case...please pass me the cake fork and a serviette.

Guys, the difference is the fact that, as the three [or more] of us seem to agree (if I understand us correctly), a parliamentary system works differently than the American presidential model (or, at the insistence of some of you, fails to work...as you know my opinion is one of "the jury it still out on it" so to speak) and therefore what's good for the Eagle is not necessarily good for the Gander...and vice-versa. Also, please forgive me if the following is a little, er, "lecture-y"; I know you know, I'm just attempting to articulate my reasons as to WHY the 2 year Congress is not a bad thing...in Washington...but not so in Ottawa or Westminster.

But yes, I do think the 2 year electoral cycle in the US is problematic. As I said earlier, it may well be better to have all Congressmen elected at the same time every 4 years, ideally at the same time as the Presidential election. This would maximise turnout and would in theory lead to a greater chance of the same party controlling the House and the Presidency, meaning that they might even be able to achieve something. It would also probably serve to reduce the costs involved and cut down on the perpetual cycle of electioneering. Not a miracle cure by any means, but I think it would help and it wouldn't represent a major departure from normal American practices.

Electing everybody all at once to the same four-year term (President/Vice-President, 435 representatives, all 100 senators) would not solve the gridlock; meanwhile, it would destroy the "separation of powers" which is the very bedrock of the Constitution. And if I understand you correctly you are advocating a change to it, not wholly scrapping it. I have to disagree for several reasons:

1) A lot can change in four years; it's too long to wait. And if things did grind to a halt in the House and/or the Senate, you'd be waiting twice as long. A lot can happen in four years! Plus, with a four year term, public opinion would be much easier to ignore in favor of---as some of you asserted--corporate donations and so forth. The people would have even LESS control over their members of Congress than they have now! If you think corporate control of Congress is a problem, then we'd be stepping out of the frying pan and into the fire with a term that's twice as long.

2) It is still possible, after an election, for the Senate to go Democrat and the House, Republican, and vice-verse, with your idea. Why? Because congressmen represent their districts (there are only 7 states which have one representative because their population is very low) while the two senators jointly represent the entire state (electing both at the same time would not change that). Blue states would normally elect their two Democratic senators, ditto the Republicans' two Republican senators. So Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein would remain CA's two senators. However, out of 53 congressmen, there are, and still will be, plenty of GOP congressmen. Not all of them are Democrats. And of course, the converse of that in Republican states: they still elect a bunch of Democratic congressmen from still-Dem. enclaves. In other words, you could still be totally wrong about it would produce a House, Senate and Presidency of all the same party and therefore "able to act".

3) now, if you WERE correct in your assumption that they'd end up mostly from the same party, the White House and BOTH chambers of Congress, thereby solving the gridlock, you'd create an even bigger problem: the Imperial Presidency [see Encyclopedia Britannica under "Nixon, Richard, entire presidency of".] It would be much easier for presidents to ram things through Congress when the three institutions we're talking about (House, Senate, Presidency) are in the hands of the President's party. That's the whole damn point of Presidential republics! You said you wanted to amend the Constitution, not scrap it, right? Well, this would effectively scrap the whole thing.

4) the Senate does have some advantages, thanks to its longer term of office and more gradual turnover. It's the chamber that has to do presidential nominations (or reject them). It's the chamber in which the members--thanks to being elected from a broader constituency--have a greater personal power base and depend less on party. That I think we discussed a little earlier, in relation to party polarization and so forth. That aspect of the Senate still hasn't been entirely erased (not yet at any rate).

and 5) that is exactly how Maryland's constitution works (or fails to, rather). Everyone (Governor/Lt. Gov, House, Senate) elected at once for the same four year term. The only thing I have been able to do to help clean up the mess is lend help toIt's been a one party state (Democratic) since before the Civil War. And it is run like one, too. They should change the name from "General Assembly" to "Politburo".

Assuming the government as it is now really IS dysfunctionally gridlocked all the time, your plan would take us from ineptitude to dictatorship pretty quickly. And suppose the Republicans won the elections for President, House and Senate? Could ram anything through they want? Would that change your mind? Would you really want the GOP in such total control of the machinery of government?

UNLESSSSSS.........the Congress were to have the ability to make a motion of no-confidence in the President. That would be the ONLY possible protection against the evils of the changes you are advocating. Of course, then the Congress would be too powerful. President still needs to run the country as head of government. Either which way the president would be way too powerful, or the Congress would. If the latter, the President cannot be a figurehead and still run the government. He might not have been intended originally to be as powerful as he is today, however, he'd be even less powerful than that. If the former, he'd be the Divine Son of Heaven.

The only two results would be either dictatorship or the tyranny of the majority...take your pick.

Ok sorry to have gotten lecture-y but I hope you can see why it's a bad idea.

it would destroy the "separation of powers" which is the very bedrock of the Constitution.

Well, no. Congress would still have the same powers and the President would still have the same powers.

1) A lot can change in four years; it's too long to wait. And if things did grind to a halt in the House and/or the Senate, you'd be waiting twice as long. A lot can happen in four years! Plus, with a four year term, public opinion would be much easier to ignore in favor of---as some of you asserted--corporate donations and so forth. The people would have even LESS control over their members of Congress than they have now! If you think corporate control of Congress is a problem, then we'd be stepping out of the frying pan and into the fire with a term that's twice as long.

I don't think this is really true. For starters, Congress has already been gridlocked for 3 and a half years and will have been in that state for 6 years by the time of the next Presidential election (I'm assuming the Dems don't sweep back to power in November of course, but they won't). I fail to see how things could be any worse with a 4 year electoral cycle. But anyway, there would still be midterms, they just wouldn't be for the House. The opportunity to change the balance of the Senate would come about every two years and there would of course be various state level elections.

I don't agree about this change handing more power to corporate donors. Lengthening the electoral cycle in the House is likely to reduce the need for each Congressman to have to start trawling for donors from the moment they get their feet under the desk. It would be naive to assume thatmthis change might do much to reduce the power of corporate lobbyists but I don't see that it would make things any worse. you've baldly asserted that it would without any attempt to explain why.

2) It is still possible, after an election, for the Senate to go Democrat and the House, Republican, and vice-verse, with your idea.

I know this. It's also still possible, and would almost certainly happen a fair bit, that the Presidency goes one way and the House would go the other. I'd say that there would be a greater likelihood of both going to the same party though, and remember that I'm proposing it in conjunction with a proper independent commission to draw up the Congressional districts, which ought to make more of them competitive. It isn't intended to guarantee single party control of the Federal givernment, just to slightly improve the prospects of an effective government being formed.

3) now, if you WERE correct in your assumption that they'd end up mostly from the same party, the White House and BOTH chambers of Congress, thereby solving the gridlock, you'd create an even bigger problem: the Imperial Presidency [see Encyclopedia Britannica under "Nixon, Richard, entire presidency of".] It would be much easier for presidents to ram things through Congress when the three institutions we're talking about (House, Senate, Presidency) are in the hands of the President's party. That's the whole damn point of Presidential republics! You said you wanted to amend the Constitution, not scrap it, right? Well, this would effectively scrap the whole thing.

Don't be silly. You're reading way more into this than I'm proposing and waxing hyperbolic for no reason.

4) the Senate does have some advantages,

I'm not proposing to change the Senate, what I said was the House should be elected simultaneously on a 4 year cycle.

and 5) that is exactly how Maryland's constitution works (or fails to, rather). Everyone (Governor/Lt. Gov, House, Senate) elected at once for the same four year term. The only thing I have been able to do to help clean up the mess is lend help toIt's been a one party state (Democratic) since before the Civil War. And it is run like one, too. They should change the name from "General Assembly" to "Politburo".

That has nothing to do with the electoral cycle and everything to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Maryland population vote Democrat, resulting in uncompetitive elections and corrupt single party rule. It would be the same no matter how you spaced out the elections, buit that doesn't mean that you can project from that to the national stage.

Assuming the government as it is now really IS dysfunctionally gridlocked all the time, your plan would take us from ineptitude to dictatorship pretty quickly. And suppose the Republicans won the elections for President, House and Senate? Could ram anything through they want? Would that change your mind? Would you really want the GOP in such total control of the machinery of government?

It wouldn't be a dictatorship because they'd have won the elections and have a mandate to govern. I don't think you really understand the concept of representative democracy. Besides which, if you strip out all the bible-bashing and the moral judgementalism then I could happily vote Republican. You're not going to scare me that way.

The only two results would be either dictatorship or the tyranny of the majority...take your pick.

This is nonsense of the first water. Literally all that I proposed is that the House should be elected on a 4 year cycle at the same time as the President and that the district boundaries should be drawn up by an independent body. That's all. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you have so little faith in your fellow Americans and the robustness of your democratic traditions that you can only see such a comparatively minor tweak as this resulting in dictatorship ? That's ridiculous. I'd say the bigger danger is that it won't achieve anything at all, although I suspect it would subtly improve the functioning of the Federal govt.

hacker

The only two results would be either dictatorship or the tyranny of the majority...take your pick

.
Wot? Aren't there any otehr choices>?

You really don't get representative government or the reason that the constitutions and Bills of Right work.
A majority government isn't a tyranny. They just get to pass laws for the period that they have a mandate. Its a limited period and if they've passed bad laws, the people vote them out ....
The "Tyranny of the Majority" happens when the majority pass laws that effect the basic rights of individuals as protected in the constituion. If this happens the affected monorities and their supporters (not members of parliament or congress, the affected minority groups) the actual people who's rights are being denied have recourse to the Courts. And the Courts and the Constituion protect against this "tyrannany ofthe majority".
But for a majority government to be denied the ability to pass laws through procedural finagling or the use of super maorities .... not that is a denial of democracy.
That happens in the US right now. (See background check law). Not so much in other first world democracies. They might be dysfunctional to an extent, and in Italy gridlocked. But that gridlock is a reflection of the gridlock in the electorate.
When popular laws can't be passed because the minority denies the majority wishes ... thats gridlock that frustrates democracy.

Well don't I feel like a dork. When you capitalized "Congressmen", in the small text, combined with lack of sleep that entire night & day, I read it as "Congress" thinking you meant, put everyone on the four year election cycle (thereby assuming that "Congress"--if you had said that which, OK, you didn't--meant all of it, both chambers). Which, as I said, is what Maryland does. Sorry about that...but let's move on, all right?

And speaking of Maryland:

That has nothing to do with the electoral cycle and everything to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Maryland population vote Democrat, resulting in uncompetitive elections and corrupt single party rule. It would be the same no matter how you spaced out the elections...

Absolutely brilliant. I would actually pay for your plane ticket to the United States, if I could be present at some sort of function [cocktail party, whatever] if you said that to the Governor's face, or some other prominent Democrat, and I could watch. Spot-on, dude...no joke.

and remember that I'm proposing it in conjunction with a proper independent commission to draw up the Congressional districts, which ought to make more of them competitive.

Which I have agreed with multiple times.

Don't be silly. You're reading way more into this than I'm proposing and waxing hyperbolic for no reason.

I am trying to illustrate a point, if getting a little off the ground via exaggeration. If I'm not as articulate as all of you, you'll have to forgive me. But "hyperbole" is also spot-on, buddy. My intent is not to say that the good people of the United States would, should that single electoral change be made you suggested, be clicking our heels and raising our right arms in salute. My intent is to illustrate that making changes to the American Constitution with the intent to empower the Majority to get rid of what you see as an immense amount of obstruction by the Minority, and that that would create a better federal government, then I think you are not correct. Yeah I did say that with too much exaggeration/hyperbole. Noted.

Besides which, if you strip out all the bible-bashing and the moral judgementalism then I could happily vote Republican. You're not going to scare me that way.

Dude, I'm gay, and I live in a county run by them. I think "preaching to the choir" would be the appropriate idiom. Why else would I be burning up a crapload of gasoline/petrol driving halfway across the state to Blue Territory to help a particular politician get elected? (I know I didn't specifically explain that but I am now...) I still hold some (well, a few) Republican views, but I cannot stand the way some of the bastards go around doing...precisely what you just said.

you have so little faith in your fellow Americans and the robustness of your democratic traditions that you can only see such a comparatively minor tweak as this resulting in dictatorship ?

Oh I have faith in them all right. See above where I mentioned my excessive hyperbole. Also:

This is nonsense of the first water.

You already said I was waxing in my hyperbole (by which I am assuming you mean getting increasingly exaggerative). It is also because I misunderstood your suggestion about the election cycle for the House of Representatives, all right? And I don't think you really need to say it like that, no? I said BS earlier in this thread and it was pointed out that I went too far (and I at least apologized for it).

And Ricky, with:

You really don't get representative government or the reason that the constitutions and Bills of Right work.

Actually I do. And you really do not get dictatorship, or the reason they [constitutions & Bills of Rights] have failed in some instances. For instance, Sass. said:

It wouldn't be a dictatorship because they'd have won the elections and have a mandate to govern.

Um, yeah, dictatorships can result from winning a democratic mandate. Now, we had a particularly enlightening discussion as to whether a coalition government, founded on the largest plurality party in parliament, is or is not less democratic than a Canadian-style "minority government." Be that as it may, I can think of a VERY prominent historical example which disproves the above statement by Sassenach---depending on where you sit on minority governments vs. coalition governments.

OK, Guys, perhaps it is because I am an incredibly inarticulate.....whatever [see?] who occasionally resorts to hyperbole to attempt to get my point across; but if I have failed to do so, maybe that's why (I'm just inarticulate). But that should not detract from the validity of my argument. All right, you don't want hyperbole or misunderstanding? Here goes a very brief, precis of what I have been trying to say in this thread up to now.

But unfortunately it will have to wait until some time after lunch. It is 3:20 p.m. and I am well overdue for lunch.