Do you think we would be better off with a parliamentary system?

[Zuni]

Like in the UK, where the PM and the Cabinet are all MPs? Or do you like the idea of a seperate executive/legislative branch? Do you think Head of State/Head of Government should be seperate?

[Maat]

1. I think about it ... but I need to know more.

And ... no royalty ... like the other countries have. Could we dethrone the King (legally, by popular vote, of course)?

[Zuni]

5. definetly no royalty

[emad]

2. It would be a bold and radical Democrat who changed the system

so that all of the President's cabinet would be drawn from democratically elected politicians - who could be voted out of office by their constituents if needs be.

Then you wouldn't have the risible situation of non-accountable energy industry stooges and sycophants flanking the No 1 public office and kowtowing to billion-dollar pressure groups hell-bent on rewriting the rules of democracy in the cause of their own agendas.

[Zuni]

6. but a President won't get to choose his own team

having people make choices for the president could cause people he can't work with to be in the cabinet
perhaps the people could vote on the Pres's choice?

[emad]

9. One ticket, naming running partner, Sec of State, Sec for Defence

and National Security Advisor?

[Zuni]

10. I like that idea

The Pres. having to pick major cabinet posts like he picks a VP. I think that is better than we have now, where often people do not have any clue as to cabinet picks pre-election

[emad]

13. The ultimate dream ticket so that voters know exactly who they

are getting, in advance.

Now that's an agenda that would radicalise Democrat politics for generations to come.

[Beware the Beast Man]

3. I think the US should have a consulate, like the old Roman Republic

Two chief executives; one to handle international policy and one to focus on domestic issues.

[Zuni]

4. or perhaps a PM and a President

one to hander the day to day buisness of running the country, one to handle diplomacy and be C-in-C

[Nye Bevan]

7. No-- the US system is better

The biggest problem with a parliamentary system like the UK is that you can end up with an "elective dictatorship". When a political party has an overall majority in Parliament (i.e. more than half of the seats) they can pretty much do whatever they want. They control the Cabinet as well as the House of Commons, and MPs in the UK very rarely vote against the wishes of their party, because their main priority is to advance their own careers. Backbench (junior) MPs can eventually hope to become junior ministers, and to rise through the ranks to eventually become cabinet ministers. Nothing will derail this career path faster than voting against bills the Government wants to pass.

The checks and balances in the UK amount to the House of Lords (which can always be overriden by the House of Commons, as in the case of the fox hunting ban), and the European Court of Human Rights which can overturn UK laws, but only in very limited (and rare) circumstances.

Having lived under both systems I firmly believe that the US separation of powers is a far superior system.

[Zuni]

8. excellent points

[Orsino]

11. The US system is hopelessly broken.

I see a move to break up the two major parties as democracy's last hope (or next-to-last, after verifiable voting). We *have* an "elective dictoatorship" much like the one you described.

[Nye Bevan]

17. Imagine a Prime Minister Bush.....

.... and a Parliament with a Republican Party majority, which obediently passes into law any bill he sends to them. With this system we would not be talking about social security "reform", for example; it would already be law. That's how it works in the UK-- any majority party has awesome power, and usually ends up misusing it (for example, Mrs Thatcher's poll tax, which ended up being her undoing).

Adapting the famous Winston Churchill quotation, the US does have the worst system, except for all the others.

[Orsino]

18. Don't have to imagine it...

Social Security "reform" is already a done deal. Simple majorities already present in both houses will passit, and the Dems may not even be allowed to touch it on the way.

As a partial solution, I was thinking of more than two parties in a parliamentary system.

[Kellanved]

12. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages

While a Parliamentary system does neither exclude strong checks and balances (some Parliamentary systems have stronger Checks and Balances than the US) nor does it inhibit a separation of the Legislative and the Executive branches, it does normally mean that the individual MP have far less individual importance.

The main advantage of a parliamentary system is the possibility to use proportional representation, a system more democratic than the pure majority vote.

[GOPBasher]

14. I think it's definitely a better system.

In that system, you can vote for you favorite party, regardless. In this two-party, winnner-take-all system, many people have to hold their noses and vote for the Dem or Repub, even if they don't like the candidate, because they end up just voting "against" the other party. That doesn't happen in the parliamentary system. You can vote for whomever you want. And then various parties consolidate and form a majority government. If we had that here, we'd probably have a big coalition of Dems and Greens or something like that, and that would represent "the left." Maybe the Republicans and some other party would have a coalition of the right. And whomever had the majority would rule the country, both in the parliament and as Prime Minister.

[sniffa]

15. no, DU works fine the way it is

shouLdn't this be in the ATA section? :P

[American Tragedy]

16. I like the proportional representation of a parliamentary system

but I strongly favor the separation of executive and legislative powers in the American system.

Sometimes I wish that Chief of State and Head of Government were two different entities, especially when the President acquires a sort of gross personality cult. On the other hand, the Chief of State is such a frivolous position that it's hard to justify creating another office to occupy it.