Should the U.S. switch to a parliamentary system?

[Cyrano]

After Nixon was driven from office, politicians, the media and most citizens took it as proof that "Our system works." I beg to differ.

Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and all the other founding fathers could never have foreseen the cabal that now rules our country.

The fact that Bush and Cheney will remain in office for the next two years is, to a great degree, proof that our system is broken. The former is arguably a sociopath, and the latter is as close to the definition of "evil" as one can get.

I don't pretend to fully understand England's parliamentary system. But it seems to me that the likes of Bush & Cheney would long ago have been thrown out of power under such a system. And probably brought to trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

My point is that, even though the Dems have taken over the congress, we are still in great peril. The fact that Bush/Cheney still have the power to launch nuclear weapons is terrifying. And it seems that they are bent on using those weapons against Iran.

If that scenario doesn't represent a broken, failed system, I don't know what does.

[Strawman]

1. Ideally, yes. It would provide better representation, less gridlock

But it will never happen

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. True, and sadly, true again.

[cassiepriam]

3. The system must be changed, now too much power in one man.

And if that man is mentally ill you can see what happens.

[originalpckelly]

24. Indeed, the fact that there is no one to challenge Bush's use of executive power...

shows a massive hole in our separation of powers system. We need to divest more power away from the central government, but there will always be some power at the federal level for necessity.

I think we need to seriously think about a multi-headed collegiate executive, in other words, the two parties which receive the first and second largest margin of votes in an election should be given a Presidency. But the two Presidencies will have differing powers. The minority Presidency, will be there to represent the minority party and hold the majority executive accountable.

Collegiality is a principle which worked for the roman republic, which actually is believed to have failed for other reasons than collegiality.

Here is more info on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiality

[cassiepriam]

36. Yes something like the Roman system, senate etc, would be good...

Any thing to prevent a mentally ill man from
installing a dictatorship.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

50. Rome had its share of mentally ill dictators

And some plain-old incompetents.

Overall, they did pretty good for a long time.

[cassiepriam]

59. Their senate system lasted longer than it looks like ours might...

[krispos42]

52. There are people to challenge Bush's power

They have, quite simply, found it convient to go with the flow instead, reaping the benefits while pounding the podium.

If any of the checks and balances in any system refuse to do their job, the system does not work as advertised.

Our system does have the inheirent ability to correct itself, to fix itself, but we have to have the gut and balls to do it.

Some people say "the country can't afford a scandal/impeachment/etc". Well, as soon as you decided that, the people you are suppose to keep an eye on will do whatever they want to, confident that, if caught, the "the country can't afford..." mentality will surface and protect them.

Well, if the country can't afford a scandal, then it sure as hell can't afford the actions that cause a scanal in the first place.

I watch "Clear and Present Danger" once in a while, when it's on TBS or USA or whatever. Where is our Jack Ryan? Where is the man that buck the powers and pressures of world leaders, stand up before a Congressional committee, swear an oath to tell the truth, and save our Constitution and our nation?

ITMFA!!!

[SteppingRazor]

4. I don't think so

I'd like to see the end of the electoral college and proportional representation elections. But I think our system itself is fine.

As for Bush and Cheney being prosecuted for war crimes if this were Britain -- you don't see Tony Blair in chains, do you?

In any case, both a parliamentary system and the election reforms I mentioned would require massive change to the Constitution. A parliament would practically mean scrapping the document entirely and starting over. So, while we can certainly debate the hypotheticals, I don't think there's much practicality in it.

[Strawman]

7. You could do PR within the state congressional delegations

And use impeachment as the rough equivalent of a no confidence vote. That is about as close as you could get without a revolution. Again, not sure how that could practically happen.

[krispos42]

53. Modify, don't change the electoral college

The EC keeps big states from bullying small states. Having said that, I think it would be much fairer to distribute the electoral votes based on the percentatges of presidential votes.

For example, in the state that have only 3 electoral votes, like the Dakotas, Vermont, Wyoming, etc., have a law saying that between 0 and 16.6% gets zero votes, 16.7% to 49.9% gets 1, 50% to 83.3% gets 2, and 83.4% to 100% gets all three.

You would need a lot of brackets, obviously, for California, but we have computer that can figure out the percentages to all the decimal places we need.

In this case, Bush would only have gotten 13 electoral votes from Florida, not all 25. The votes from states like California, Texas, and New York would have been similarly divided up. Bush would have gotten votes from Gore in California and New York, but Gore would have gotten votes from Texas and Florida. Bush took 43.3% of California and 35.3% of New York, while Gore took 49% of Florida and 39% of Texas.

Old way:

Gore gets California and New York for 54+33=87 electoral votes
Bush gets Texas and Florida for 32+25=57 electoral votes

Gore gets 60.4% electoral votes, Bush gets 39.6%.

However, the actual totals of the four states is:
Gore: 15,314,899 or 52.8%
Bush: 13,683,232 or 47.2%

If the electoral votes had been more proportionally appointed, Gore might have won because he won the popular vote.

I like the concept of the electoral college because it means that in a close election, not all of the votes have to be recounted. Recounting can be done only in close states, minimizing errors and fraud. Think Mexico.

But the winner-takes-all system sucks.

[Glorfindel]

5. Absolutely

It would be a HUGE improvement. We could even keep the Senate as a kind of House of Lords, available for deliberation and consultation, able to delay legislation but not to veto it, with a ceremonial president for head of state to make speeches and appear at important events. The real political power would rest with a prime minister who could be voted out for poor performance at any time. But, sadly, it will never happen.

[emcguffie]

13. You can have two houses any which way you want.

You don't have to have the same houses as the UK does.

Parliamentary systems the world over have different kinds of legislative houses.

However they choose to set them up. Some have one, most have two -- an upper and a lower.

[Esra Star]

41. Two houses is good. It is definitely necessary.....

The Westminster system has been adopted and refined by many countries and states.
I, personally, am very interested in the New Zealand system. They seem to have covered
most or all of the bases.
I think it's called the "Herr Clark" system.
It seems to be more representative than other systems

[emcguffie]

48. Obviously you know what you are talking about.

I, on the other hand, do not. Beyond what I posted. I only know that because I was collecting stats re: how many women were running for political office and getting elected in post-conflict countries. I was getting that info from the IPU.org site.

Doing that I noticed all those houses and systems.

It has occurred to me that it probably can be much more directly representative than our system, which apparently was not meant to be so.

I certainly like the way the PM has to answer questions in the UK system. Can you imagine that?

At the same time, in the UK they really seem to have become a society where the citizens are literally under surveillance all the time.

Forgive me for getting a little weird here, but there is one psychic with a pretty good track record who predicted that we would do away with the presidency when we get good and tired of them grabbing all this power they were not intended to take. This particularly woman was right about the hurricanes, so I tend to give her a little bit of credence. Right now I don't remember her name, sorry.

[Esra Star]

58. In the UK the Queen is the equivalent of the US president.....

The mistake that was made in America was to give the president political power.
If you had a president who was nominally apolitical, the real debate would go
on on the floor of the house.
I think this would be much better.
Another feature in the UK is that the queen is forbidden by law to enter the house of commons.
Whilst this feature is symbolic, it is very powerful. (symbolically)

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. That would require a huge rewrite of the US Constitution

Personally, I think a parliamentary system would be better. But that would require changing the Constitution to implement. With the control that neo-cons still hold, and the already extreme influence that industry, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, the food conglomerates and other special interest, I'm not sure a convention would be a good idea right now.

[RC]

17. I am sure..

I can visualize a Constitution full of anti-abortion, minimum wage, tax exempt BS for the rich and big business, pollution exemptions etc. And an end to any real safety net in this country. Nothing to do with health and well being of the average and below citizen.

[Xithras]

32. Or some nightmare like the EU Constitution

500 pages long and full of so many shalts, therefores, declarations, noteds, subsections, and special rights for corporations and whiny members that there are separate guidebooks available just to explain what it actually means in normal English/German/French. There's information in there about power plants, limitations on the voting rights of Denmark, to the BANKING SYSTEM. Instead of creating the foundation for a transnational goverment and then using that government to debate and pass laws, the drafters of the EU constitution just dumped everybody's pet issues directly into the constitution itself. I have no doubt that something similar would happen here, and that corporations, the wealthy, and their bought and paid for pet politicians will cram every self-interested caveat into it they could muster.

[Cyrano]

37. Sigh. Unfortunately, I must agree with you. Sometimes I wonder if

there's any way that our species will ever stumble into some kind of live and let live system.

I guess what depresses me is the "Christian" claim to the phrase "Do unto others ..." Fine words, but somehow, it never seems to come about.

I often wonder if humanity is capable of fulfilling the ideals suggested by the better parts of our nature.

[El Fuego]

22. A parliamentary system looks attractive now that they've thrown out the Constitution

[Xithras]

25. Which would, arguably, permit secession.

The articles of admission for nearly every state in the union declared their being bound to the US Constitution. Rewrite the Constitution and it could easily be argued that you're severing the legal bond that holds the nation together. I have little doubt that most of the nation would stick together, but I also have little doubt that there would be strong moved by Hawaii and some of the southern and midwestern states to form a new nation...or several of them. Rewriting the Constitution could make the joke about JesusLand into a reality.

[originalpckelly]

27. I completely agree on this point, we are too unstable to do this now...

doing so might be the death knell for America.

[Mikey929]

8. Great

That's great. You admit you don't even know about the parliamentary system, and yet you are apparently willing to toss out 200+ years of our political system and replace it. Brilliant analysis. Maybe you should do some homework on the system you're advocating before suggesting such a massive overhaul of our government. Just a thougt.

[Cyrano]

23. And my suggestion was also, just a thought. Read the original post. It was a question.

[DemExpat]

9. I like the parliamentary system here

but I certainly hear a lot of talk about its perceived shortcomings - how nothing gets done because of the many diverse viewpoints represented in the government! (And the latest government here has fallen several times to be re-formed - not conducive to continuity in some respects)

Lots of discussion here now and then of whether The Netherlands needs to go towards a more US 2 party system.....:crazy: ...... but its true, governments topple over issues here when leaders have done something "unnaceptable"....and a 30% approval rate for Bush would probably translate into a vote of "no-confidence" here and the government would fall and new elections ordered.


But no system seems to be perfect.

DemEx

[Hippo_Tron]

10. No, because we have the longest surviving constitutional republic in history

France tried a full parliamentary system after World War II and it was such a disaster that they begged Charles De Gaulle to come back and so he re-wrote the constitution to include a strong executive as well as a Parliament.

And I haven't heard any serious threat from Bush about nuking Iran.

[happyslug]

43. Rome was a Constitutional Republic.

Yes, even under the Emperors, Rome was always officially a Republic from the overthrow of its last King in 509 BC, till the day the last city (Constantinople) fell to the Turks in 1453. The Roman Senate, sitting in Rome itself, survived till 580 AD (Yes 100 Years after the Last Roman Emperor in the West and was still passing laws at that time). In the East, a new Senate was formed by Constantine, but it never had the power or prestige of the Senate in Rome. Anyway what power it did have died when Justinian confiscated most of the Assets of his Senators. Even with this blow the Senate Survived but in name only and generally only meet when Constantinople had a new Emperor, even this meeting of senior survived till the Fourth Crusade in 1204 AD. Thus Rome was a Constitutional Republic from 509 BC till at least 580 AD (over a 1000 years), if we exclude the Senate in Constantinople (and 1700 years if you include the later Empire).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_senate

Venice Republic for over 1000 years (727-1797, This republic was destroyed by Napoleon as he did the Dutch Republic (1588-1795) and the Swiss Confederation (Replaced by a Centralized "Republic" controlled by France). Napoleon made all three satellites of France.
See for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Seven_United_Netherlands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Switzerland
http://www.swissworld.org/eng/swissworld.html?siteSect=800

And how can we forget San Marino, the oldest Republic in the world (Still existing since 301 AD):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino

Republics have gone in and out of favor throughout history. In many ways the "Kingdoms" of the Middle ages were more republican in nature for most of the Kings became kings do to competency than by blood right (The Holy Roman Empire ALWAYS elected its "Emperor", Karl IV in 1356, formed the election process which stayed the same till Napoleon abolished the Holy Roman Empire in 1806). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

During the "Dark Ages" most "kings" were elected by their nobles (or by mass meeting of their people depending on the size of the Group he was "King" of). Such Elected Kings survived to modern times, for example Poland till its Final Partition in 1792.

While the US has the LONGEST EXISTING CONSTITUTION, they have been Republics that have lasted longer then the US (Even the US Constitution was de facto rewritten after the US Civil War by the Civil War Amendments).

[Double T]

11. The current system of government has morphed into total political corruption..........

with corporate america and their lobbyists controlling the legislative, executive and probably even the judicial branches of government; the whole damn thing is a pathetic mess. 'WE' as a nation, need to completely revise our system of government to include term limits for ALL political and judicial positions and the abolishment of lobbyists, many who were previously politicians. Too much power for too long always leads to corruption and abuse.

[Deep13]

12. A fragmented executive like the states have might be better.

For some reason I was thinking of that while in the can today. The entire executive branch essentially works for Bush and not the public. The different department heads can't keep tabs on each other because they work for the same asshole.

[originalpckelly]

14. No, we shouldn't. Parliamentary systems are not as good because...

there is a combination of executive and legislative powers.

[originalpckelly]

16. Think Republicans in '94. No Bill Clinton. Get the idea?

[quinnox]

15. Unfortunatley the British system is not the nirvana

some seem to think it to be. As another reply pointed out, Blair remained in power for years despite being very unpopular and caught lying for the Iraq war. The U.S. democracy works rather well, perhaps the best system yet devised for government. There might be a tad too much power in the presidency, but if there is a nut that gets in they can impeach him.

[originalpckelly]

19. I know, it violates the theory of separation of powers...

It does separate judicial from legislative/executive power, but it doesn't separate legislative and executive powers. Our government is a more advanced form.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Too much power in the presidency isn't a result of the system, it's the interpretation

Our Presidents were on the whole much weaker until World War II, granted there were certainly some variations of this. After Andrew Johnson the presidency was such a weak office that the Speaker of the House functioned as a virtual Prime Minister for a long time.

[557188]

35. Britain doesn't have a monopoly on Parlimentary types

The British model isn't a very good one. Its a restrictive two party system pretending to be three parties.

A Parliamentary system with PR is the best system in the world. People talking about Separation of Powers nonsense only do so because they are American and don't know any better. Our culture is to fear Government and want gridlock. It pushes our culture to the right, as it helps fuel the whole idea of fear. Fear is what the Right Wing uses to keep control. I'd argue the system, right now, gives even more power to our president than it does to a Prime Minister.

A good Parliament never has these problems. A coalition run Parliament is a thing of beauty as it gets things done and also polices itself.

[Ian David]

18. My idea is to add a Parliament as a third house of Congress

My plan for a Three-House Congress (House, Senate, and Parliament)

1) A law can be passed by a simple majority of any two or more houses of Congress.

2) Parliament can Veto any law passed by the House and Senate with a 2/3 majority

3) Parliament can, with a 2/3 majority, vote to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors in either The House or Senate

4) Either of the other two houses (with a 2/3 majority) can vote to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors in Parliament

5) Representatives to Parliament would be elected without regard to congressional "District"-- perhaps even without regard to State.

6) The District of Columbia, and each territory, protectorate, or possession of The United States, would each be guaranteed at least one member of Parliament.

7) In addition, children, between the ages of 12 and 18, would get to elect a special non-voting seat in Parliament, who would get to speak on behalf of their interests, and would be in charge of a National Civics Education Program for children.

[originalpckelly]

21. I think what you are calling for is not a real parliament...

but a deliberative executive, instead of being a single person charged with executive power, it would be the parliamentary body.

[Ian David]

46. No, it would be a whole house of parlimentary representatives. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. Absolutely Not. Our Current System Is Just Fine. Its Representatives, Maybe Not Quite So Much.

But the system itself is perfectly fine.

[Astrad]

26. Party discipline might be more important

If there was party discipline when Clinton came in the US would have some form of public health care.

One advantage of a parliamentry system is the leader has to take questions in the house. I just can't imagine Bush surviving the daily question period. In a parliamentry system you can still get bad leaders you're just less likely to get really stupid leaders.

[happyslug]

28. Only if we keep the two year election cycle.

The six (or more) year election cycle of most parliamentary system permit Government to enact unpopular law and then wait Six years for people to forget about them. Furthermore the Two year cycle may mean constant electioneering (The most common complaint against our system) but constantly electioneering means the Politicians will stay more responsive to the the people who elect them.

[Crabby Appleton]

29. No - I like checks and balances nt

[Nutmegger]

30. Publicly FUND elections.

Get rid of the corporate money machine.

Enact instant run-off voting.

Get rid of these horrid electronic machines.

Our system is fine but is choking underneath the corruption.

[originalpckelly]

39. Excuse me, but isn't the problem with this that Americans are dumb enough...

to fall for political ads? Politicians wouldn't be using them, if they didn't work. If we actually were to pay attention to the affairs of the country instead of making decisions about candidates solely based upon what we (and I mean most Americans) see on TV, we might actually have been in Congress a long time ago. Secondly, I don't want to pay for Republican political advertisements, which is exactly what public funding does.

[Infinite Hope]

31. I think it's clear the founders DID foresee someone like Bush.

In fact, documents from the time show they figured such a person would come far sooner and our democracy would be short-lived. Watch more History Channel and read more books.

[William769]

33. No.

[cassiepriam]

38. We also must have a free press and free elections.

And an end to lobbyists.

[porphyrian]

40. This is exactly what impeachment is for.

Why change the system when the solution is built in?

[LeftishBrit]

42. Our system hasn't been the greatest lately

We only got rid of Thatcher with great difficulty and are only now about to get rid of the extremely unpopular Blair, with no guarantee that his successor will be more than slightly better.

I can see where the grass is greener on *your* side of the fence. You have a written constitution; term-limits for your presidents; and at least the possibility (and at present the reality!) of a Congress of a different party from the president. The president is not also the party-leader in Congress. In all these ways, there are more checks on presidents' powers than prime ministers' powers. Our parliamentary system developed as a democratic balance to the rule of the monarch; but monarchs have been merely 'highly-paid models for postage stamps' for many years now, and we now need to worry more about finding some balance to the rule of the Prime Minister. The PM has less world power than the President of course; but Thatcher and Blair amassed a lot of domestic power compared with most of their predecessors (hence e.g. the disapproving nickname 'President Tony'); and at the worst, our PM could indeed be described as combining Bush's and Pelosi's domestic powers in one person.

There are also things about our system that are better. Against your term-limits, we have a system that makes it much easier (though not easy) to remove a PM in the middle of his/her term. The PM's party has more power over him/her than the President's party. While it is theoretically possible for an incumbent president to lose a primary, has it ever happened? By contrast, it is not unknown for a sitting PM or party leader to be deposed by his (or in the famous case of Maggie, her) party. One big difference in our favour IMO is that the political spectrum is wider; and despite the fact that our current PM rules from the far-right of his party, there is a genuine left-wing here that scarcely seems to exist in the USA. Also, lobbyists have less power than in the USA (though too much); and frank corruption seems to be much less frequent. Finally, we use the relatively fraud-proof paper ballots in our elections.

A common problem with both our systems is that the electoral system is not fully representative; makes it difficult for third and alternative parties to be adequately represented; and can lead to a PM or president having power disproportionate to their actual electoral majority.

[Goblinmonger]

44. The major advantage to federalism is the clear seperation of powers

A parlimentary government does not have a clear distinction between the executive and legislative branches. Additionly, it can be argued the the judical branch ain't all that different either, but that really depends on the variety of parlimentary gov.

That being said, I like parlimentary government. I think I would give up the seperation of powers to have a more clear accountability of politicians to the people.

[LostinVA]

45. Yes, but it won't happen

[Cyrano]

47. After reading the varied viewpoints as to whether or not we should have

a parliamentary form of government, I must say that I still don't know whether or not our system is better than some sort of parliamentary system.

Perhaps, it all comes down to human nature, human decency and the awareness and intelligence of those in positions of power -- not to mention that of those being governed.

Nonetheless, as I inferred in my OP, I'm fearful that those who currently control our nuclear arsenal will actually use it.

What's needed, regardless of the label we put on it, is a form of government in which madmen will not be given the unilateral power to actually use those nuclear weapons.

At this very moment, we have two men in power (Bush & Cheney) who wouldn't give a second thought to destroying planet Earth. It seems likely that one of them is totally nuts, and the other is totally "evil." But the reality is that they can do whatever they want to do for the next two years. Who's going to stop them?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Yes. More power to the people. And it would make 3rd parties more viable.

Which would make the country more democratic.

[Mme. Defarge]

51. Wouldn't a transparent

election process and campaign finance reform have prevented the mess we are currently in?

[liberalpragmatist]

54. If we were starting from scratch, YES, but in the current situation, NO

I personally think the best system would be something similar to the British model but a little different. A parliament, elected by a mixed-member proportional system (ala Germany and New Zealand), which would likely produce 2 major parties, but also allow smaller parties to get into parliament and join in a coalition government. I would have either (1) a figurehead president appointing a Prime Minister from the majority bloc in parliament, which is how most countries have it, or (2) parliament electing a President for a fixed 4-year term (basically combining the president and the Prime Minister); in this option, perhaps someone like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would oversee the process or perhaps the outgoing president or the outgoing highest member of the president's cabinet, acting as chief of transition.

In truth, I don't think that the American focus on separation of the executive and legislative branches is really all that; most countries are governed just fine under a parliamentary system and as long as you have judicial separation to protect constitutional order, having the executive and legislative branches linked is a superior system.

So I'd keep a largely parliamentary system, with the lower House supreme. The upper chamber - the Senate - would remain more powerful than the House of Lords and I would suggest that all laws would need its approval as well. Additionally, the Senate would be allowed to introduce legislation too, and senators (as well as House members) could serve as cabinet ministers. However, I'd make the Senate more proportional to population (the big state/small state conflict the founders foresaw never actually emerged). And I'd allow a supermajority (60%+) in the House to require only a 40% pass in the Senate.

As for the judiciary, I think one should require a supermajority (more than 60%) to confirm a justice and there should be a 20-year term for justices. Justices should continue to be confirmed by the Senate.

What I've just described, however, is what I would design if the country were only now being founded. I'm a bit of a Burkean in some ways; our experience is with presidential government and that has shaped our political culture. I think as a result, a presidential system is now better suited for Americans.

And I would suggest that many of the problems you highlight could be solved with a little constitutional tinkering or with just legislative action alone. Firstly, one could make ballot access for third-party candidates easier, and require instant-runoff voting in most races. One could publicly fund campaigns and allow states to create multimember districts in the House of Representatives (elected by proportional representation). On a constitutional level, one could abolish the electoral college.

I would also suggest (something that many DU'ers will probably disagree with) that we expand the House term from 2 to 4 years. Simply put, it's incredibly difficult to get anything DONE with a 2-year term. I know DU'ers liked that when the Republicans were in charge, but a 4-year House term would greatly enhance the ability of the legislature to get things done; otherwise house members are focused on winning reelection every year.

One possible avenue for this is suggested by a constitutional amendment that was proposed in Congress a few years back (never taken up on the floor) that would have broken down the House term cycle like this: 2 - 4 - 4. In other words, there'd be a 2-year term at the beginning of each decade, and once reapportionment took place after the census, there'd be elections for back-to-back 4 year terms. So, for example, there'd have been House elections in 2000, 2002, and 2006. This is actually how many state legislatures operate.

The downside to this is that it alters the relationship between the presidency and the election calender. In alternating decades, presidents will either have a term coterminous with that of the House or they'll face midterm elections in the House. For example, Clinton in 1992 may have been elected alongside a 4-year House, then been reelected in '96 with the same House. Bush, on the other hand, would have been elected with a 2-year House, then faced midterm elections in '02 and '06 (with no House election in '04). Ultimately, it might mean that candidates for president would have a much greater desire to run in a decade in which the terms were coterminous than in a decade in which the terms were not aligned.

[krispos42]

55. No, but we need instant runoff voting and maybe few more changes

We need to allocate electoral votes proportionally to how a state votes, as well. We have computers, figure it out!


I would also like to see a law stating that congressional districts cannot be defined by more than 6 lines, a line being defined as:

A straight line between two arbitrary points;
A segment of a state or national border;
A segment of a river or major waterway.

No more of this jerrymandering shit. Make the districts NOT look like a plate of spaghetti, please!


I have a concept that I am not quite sure how to put into practice, but it goes something like this:

There is a third member of Congress. Not a lawmaking body, but a law-reviewing body, that acts as a filter between the Congress and the President.

After a bill is passed by both Houses, it goes to my pet committee. The committee is unelected, and is drawn randomly from the jury pools of each state, one per state. The committee's sole job is remove unrelated measures from the states purpose of the bills that go to the president. They serve for 1 year, and they receive the same pay they were making in their home job for their trouble, or a certain minimum, whichever is greater. They cannot take any money or gifts from anybody, either.

If some legislator decided to throw in money to conduct a federal study on the migratory habits of the blue-nosed bow-legged titmouse into a defense spending bill, the committee can vote to strip the measure out of the bill before the president signs it. If the Congress tries to slip some Iraq War money into an enviromental-regulation bill, that also get the boot. Congress could not veto the committee's removal of a section of a bill, only try to get that part to pass either on it's own merits (the much-vaunted 'up-or-down vote'), or to combine the stripped part into a bill that is relevent.

The committee would not decide if a piece of legistation is good or bad, just if it is appropriate or not regarding the goals and stated intent of the bill. I think it would kill a lot of earmarks, as well as sneaking law changes into unrelated bills.

We could build a nice, self-contained building in DC to house the committee. Meeting rooms, offices, a voting chamber, apartments, etc.

[genie_weenie]

56. I don't recall signing the Constitution myself.

And I still haven't received my copy of the Social Contract.

And no truer word was written than this:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation.

[Disturbed]

57. Countries with a parliamentary system of government

Countries with a parliamentary system of government

Unicameral system

This table shows countries with parliament consisting of a single house.
Country Parliament
Albania Kuvendi
Bangladesh Jatiyo Sangshad
Bulgaria National Assembly
Burkina Faso National Assembly
Croatia Sabor
Denmark Folketing
Dominica House of Assembly
Estonia Riigikogu
Finland Eduskunta
Greece Hellenic Parliament
Hungary National Assembly
Iceland Althing
Israel Knesset
Latvia Saeima
Lithuania Seimas
Malta House of Representatives
Moldova Parliament
Mongolia State Great Hural
New Zealand Parliament
Norway Storting
Papua New Guinea National Parliament
Portugal Assembly of the Republic
Saint Kitts and Nevis National Assembly
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines House of Assembly
Singapore Parliament
Slovakia National Council
Sweden Riksdag
Tanzania National Assembly
Turkey Grand National Assembly
Ukraine Verkhovna Rada

Bicameral system

This table shows countries with parliament consisting of two houses.
Country Parliament Upper chamber Lower chamber
Australia Parliament Senate House of Representatives
Austria Parliament Federal Council National Council
Antigua and Barbuda Parliament Senate House of Representatives
The Bahamas Parliament Senate House of Assembly
Barbados Parliament Senate House of Assmebly
Belize National Assembly Senate House of Representatives
Belgium Federal Parliament Senate Chamber of Representatives
Canada Parliament Senate House of Commons
Czech Republic Parliament Senate Chamber of Deputies
Ethiopia Federal Parliamentary Assembly House of Federation House of People's Representatives
Germany Bundesrat Bundestag
Grenada Parliament Senate House of Representatives
India Parliament Rajya Sabha Lok Sabha
Ireland Oireachtas Seanad Éireann Dáil Éireann
Iraq National Assembly Council of Union <1> Council of Representatives
Italy Parliament Senate of the Republic Chamber of Deputies
Jamaica Parliament Senate House of Representatives
Japan Diet House of Councillors House of Representatives
Malaysia Parliament Dewan Negara Dewan Rakyat
the Netherlands States-General Eerste Kamer Tweede Kamer
Pakistan Majlis-e-Shoora Senate National Assembly
Poland Parliament Senate Sejm
Romania Parliament Senate Chamber of Deputies
Saint Lucia Parliament Senate House of Assembly
Slovenia Parliament National Council National Assembly
South Africa Parliament National Council of Provinces National Assembly
Spain Cortes Generales Senate Congress of Deputies
Switzerland Federal Assembly Council of States National Council
Thailand National Assembly <2> Senate House of Representatives
Trinidad and Tobago Parliament Senate House of Representatives
United Kingdom Parliament House of Lords House of Commons