Self governance is no longer possible.

[brycejones]

The war was to get away from their rule, not away from their system of governance. Everyone knows this.

Not everyone it appears....

 

[1prophet]

Watch a Parliamentary session or two. It's hard to argue it's not a better-run, more accountable system than the American equivalent.

Didn't stop them from jumping into bed with Bush during the Iraq war.

 

[Jaskalas]

Now I don't really understand the details of the UK government, but at least when they hold a vote it seems to make a difference. Imagine if after 2008, when people said FU to Bush / Republicans for the horror of Bush, President Obama could have actually had a system that allowed him to do the sort of things he wanted / that his voters (majority thereof) wanted.

Wouldn't it be a more healthy country if, when one party pisses them off so badly, voters can actually grant power to another? Because if the Iraq war couldn't tip the scales... nothing can.

 

[Genx87]

Now I don't really understand the details of the UK government, but at least when they hold a vote it seems to make a difference. Imagine if after 2008, when people said FU to Bush / Republicans for the horror of Bush, President Obama could have actually had a system that allowed him to do the sort of things he wanted / that his voters (majority thereof) wanted.

Wouldn't it be a more healthy country if, when one party pisses them off so badly, voters can actually grant power to another? Because if the Iraq war couldn't tip the scales... nothing can.

not at all.

Mob rule is the last thing we want.

 

[Jaskalas]

not at all.

Mob rule is the last thing we want.

The previous President commits a great wrong, against us and the world. Our system can barely wag a finger in response after a great electoral backlash. Surely it seems as if we almost have no rule.

Now, the founders crafted a system intended for LIMITED government. It seems logical that ours is not a system best suited for the mass micromanagement of modern America.

 

[ivwshane]

Eh our election laws crafted by these two parties makes it rather difficult to impossible for 3rd parties to become viable. Social media is starting to erode some of that advantage. And how our national debates are run is corrupt. To get on the debate stage requires 15% polling. The CPB is run by both parties.

The difficulty is the amount of support required to get on the ballot, which again, is a function of democracy. Televised debates are a different matter altogether and is an issue but tv is not a requirement for democracy and we've had 100+ years of elections where there wasn't TV or even radio.

To get on ballots in every state requires a lot of effort for which smaller parties may not be capable. I could be wrong but I think this is the first election the Libertarian party is on all 50 states.

Again, this is democracy working. There is a reason why the libertarian party is gaining traction and its not because things magically got easier, it's because more people are being attracted to the platform.

That isnt a sign democracy and freedom of choice is working. It is a sign the two entrenched parties have built barriers to entry for other smaller parties.

You could remove the barriers and the results would be the same. If people were clamoring for a third party they could easily write in their vote. That doesn't happen because that's not what the majority of voters want.

 

[agent00f]

Like GenX87 said, our system makes a viable third party very difficult to start. You can't get on the ballot or on national debates unless you have a huge support, you can't have a huge support until you've been on the ballot, etc. The winner-takes-all laws in 48 states reinforce this even more. You can't gradually become a stronger 3rd party, since with a winner-takes-all approach you get 0 electoral votes. Instead you have to miraculously go from nothing to a very strong 3rd party. The barrier to entry is just too high.

But there are even more difficult challenges even once you got a third party started. Our electoral college essentially forces us into a 1-party or 2-party system. You need an absolute majority to win. If we had say four viable parties with a hypothetical electoral college vote distribution of 70, 100, 168, and 200 votes then our one strong point of democracy in our representative democracy is erased. The popular vote doesn't count, and the house votes for president. As long as we have more than 2 viable parties, this will happen and we'd almost never have democratically elected presidents. Which brings us back to the OP's post.

Take your pick: (a) a one or two party system or (b) the loss of your power in voting for a president. I'd personally choose option (c) ditch the electoral college, winner-takes-all, our terrible public funding state, inability to form coalitions, and other system-wide barriers to viable 3rd parties.

The problem isn't actually the electoral college per se, because for the most part that more or less relatively reflects the pop vote due to how the stats work out.

The core reason we have a 2 party system is first past the post voting. This has been known for a while: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Now I don't really understand the details of the UK government, but at least when they hold a vote it seems to make a difference. Imagine if after 2008, when people said FU to Bush / Republicans for the horror of Bush, President Obama could have actually had a system that allowed him to do the sort of things he wanted / that his voters (majority thereof) wanted.

Wouldn't it be a more healthy country if, when one party pisses them off so badly, voters can actually grant power to another? Because if the Iraq war couldn't tip the scales... nothing can.

Referendums like the one in britain are relatively rare, with only 3 or so ever, and they're technically non-binding.

The core problem after 2008 was total obstructionism which should be fixed at the congressional level. The major drawback to your proposal isn't just mob rub of direct democracy but executive power.

 

[nickqt]

+ As is evidence by our choices of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, the American public who voted for these people in the primaries and additionally has even allowed them to get where they are now, should no longer be allowed in the decision making regarding the leadership of the nation.

+ The majority of the population is no longer capable of self governance due to ignorance, low intelligence and laziness.

+ A benevolent dictatorial government similar to what China has seems like the logical choice.

+ Self governance is a privilege which the populace has abused and should now lose based on the actions and track history of said populace. The population at large is not capable of decision making which has the greater good of the country in mind.

+ Ideally, a council of people would be "found" or "chosen" and installed into power and would have total decision making authority. A complex artificial intelligence or group of genetically engineered humans would be the best choice.

+ Humanity will not last another 100 years with the current system due to the existence of nuclear weapons, and the population at large in the United States can no longer be trusted to safeguard our nuclear arsenal.

Stay home instead of voting this election, chief, as you are clearly exhibit one as someone who "should no longer be allowed in the decision making regarding the leadership of the nation", as you are literally saying that the population should no longer govern itself.

Thanks in advance for staying home!

 

[pcgeek11]

Adopting a Parliamentary system wouldn't tie you to England. Nor was the War about the Parliamentary system.

England has a stupid system. We have our own.

I never said nor suggested that the war was about the Parliamentary system.

 

[pcgeek11]

The war was to get away from their rule, not away from their system of governance. Everyone knows this.

No shit Sherlock. I never said it was about their system of governance.

However it was in a large part that Taxation issue and all the trading problems imposed on the colonies by the British.

 

[piasabird]

So you want Hitler to lead us?

 

[shortylickens]

Eventually things we get so bad in America that we finally elect a real leader, not a dipstick.

 

[sandorski]

England has a stupid system. We have our own.

I never said nor suggested that the war was about the Parliamentary system.

You implied that the system was what you were getting away from. Seems like your inner American Exceptionalism is what drives you. Which is stupidly being different for the sake of being different.

 

[Moonbeam]

Eventually things we get so bad in America that we finally elect a real leader, not a dipstick.

Self hate makes for a world of doom and gloom. Relax and be happy. You know I love you and that means you couldn't be anything other than OK.

 

[Jhhnn]

Eventually things we get so bad in America that we finally elect a real leader, not a dipstick.

There's a name for that-

https://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/rwa/

 

[Genx87]

You could remove the barriers and the results would be the same. If people were clamoring for a third party they could easily write in their vote. That doesn't happen because that's not what the majority of voters want.

When the majority of people are only presented with two options. Why does it surprise you they only pick two options? Remove the barriers of entry and these 3rd parties do better. Put Hillary Clinton stage against Jill Stein. Put Gary Johnson on stage against Drumpf. It would highlight how horrible both of these candidates truly are from the entrenched parties.

Either way your idea of freedom and democracy working in this instance is laughable.

 

[Genx87]

The previous President commits a great wrong, against us and the world. Our system can barely wag a finger in response after a great electoral backlash. Surely it seems as if we almost have no rule.

Now, the founders crafted a system intended for LIMITED government. It seems logical that ours is not a system best suited for the mass micromanagement of modern America.

Our system barely wagged a finger in response because both of the entrenched parties are so damn close on the issues. That said the result isnt unsurprising though. Even if other parties were able to cash in on the failures of our two party system. The system is by design supposed to be slow and resistant to mob rule.

 

[ivwshane]

When the majority of people are only presented with two options. Why does it surprise you they only pick two options? Remove the barriers of entry and these 3rd parties do better. Put Hillary Clinton stage against Jill Stein. Put Gary Johnson on stage against Drumpf. It would highlight how horrible both of these candidates truly are from the entrenched parties.

Either way your idea of freedom and democracy working in this instance is laughable.

Can you tell me why both and independent and a libertarian right now are both above five percent? Is it because only the uber smart know about these candidates? Can you explain why an independent from Vermont was able to be elected multiple times? Can you explain why Ross Perot wasn't elected despite having just as much air time as Bush and Bill?

Your whole point is easily refuted by history. Now if you'd like to complain about the media and how you think every tom dick and Harry should be given as much air time as anyone else have at it. The point remains that if the majority of the people truly wanted a third party then a majority of the people would vote for a third party.

Btw, it's not my idea of freedom, it's simply reality, a reality you seem to want to ignore.

 

[pcgeek11]

Well you are entitled to your Opinion. We fought a war to get away from England.

You implied that the system was what you were getting away from. Seems like your inner American Exceptionalism is what drives you. Which is stupidly being different for the sake of being different.

I didn't "imply" shit.

im·ply
imˈplī/
verb
verb: imply; 3rd person present: implies; past tense: implied; past participle: implied; gerund or present participle: implying

Strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).

What I said was we (USA) fought a war to get away from England. Anything else was made up in your own tiny mind.

Now to expand on that thought I will say I'm sure our forefathers would have maintained the Parliamentary system If they had thought it was a good thing. They did not and I agree with them.

We also do not have a King or a Queen. We don't want those either.

 

[sandorski]

I didn't "imply" shit.



What I said was we (USA) fought a war to get away from England. Anything else was made up in your own tiny mind.

Now to expand on that thought I will say I'm sure our forefathers would have maintained the Parliamentary system If they had thought it was a good thing. They did not and I agree with them.

We also do not have a King or a Queen. We don't want those either.

Ok, they didn't care for it, but so what? The problem with the current US system is that it is in near perpetual stalemate. Issues go unaddressed or completely half assed if it gets addressed at all. The Parliamentary system avoids that.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'll agree we do need some changes.

Primarily this: Each bill presented should stand on its own with no attachments and be voted on period.

 

[cbrunny]

Parliament is vastly superior to the current American system in essentially every imaginable way. It is simply indisputable.

Whether or not having parliament would actually have changed anything in American history is a different question entirely. Surely a lot would be different, though it is essentially impossible to rewrite 250 years of history. Parliament lends itself more to moderates than extremists in countries with small numbers of political parties.

 

[fskimospy]

Our system barely wagged a finger in response because both of the entrenched parties are so damn close on the issues. That said the result isnt unsurprising though. Even if other parties were able to cash in on the failures of our two party system. The system is by design supposed to be slow and resistant to mob rule.

While I agree that third parties would do better if we removed the obstacles, there are two important things here: the primary obstacle is the fundamental way our constitution set up elections, the first past the post system. Until you amend the constitution to get rid of that we aren't going anywhere.

Secondly, saying the two parties are so close on the issues is crazy. In all of US history they have only been measured as farther apart immediately before the civil war. On everything from taxes to health care to social policy they are very, very far apart. I let myself be fooled into thinking the two parties were the same in 2000, and America paid a pretty heavy price for so many people thinking the same. Don't be fooled into thinking it now.

 

[pcgeek11]

I think it is funny how all the Canadians want the USA to change to a fucking Parliament System.

LOL

 

[werepossum]

I think it is funny how all the Canadians want the USA to change to a fucking Parliament System.

LOL

With Trump v. Hildabeast, a parliament system is looking awfully good to me too. Four years is a looong time, and that's best case scenario.