If the U.S. had a parliamentary system

[Nordengrund]

Hello NSG! It's been awhile since I last created a thread here. Something that I have been thinking about lately is if the United States would be better off having a parliamentary form of government rather than the congressional system we have now. I'd imagine that if this were to happen (though it is probably pretty unlikely) then the U.S. would probably use semi-presidentialism consider how important the influence POTUS and that he is pretty much the symbol for the nation.

The President would still be the head of state, but the U.S. would also have a separate head of government. It seems that parliamentary systems are more flexible and can allow swifter legislation and a government that is more likely to have the head of government and the legislature to be of the same party (sorry if my knowledge of parliamentary systems is horrible) and be able to get more done or else face the possibility of being removed via a vote of no confidence.

Would you say that the United States would be better off with a parliamentary republic or if we kept the current presidential system, but reformed it?

I think we should stick with the presidential system we have now, since I doubt it is going to change anytime soon, and I'd expect such change to be expensive and I don't think the average American would understand how the new system works.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

While not giving an opinion one way or another, it has to be said that a change towards a parliamentary system would be impossible in the current American political system. It would go hand in hand with a proportional system of voting, which would destroy both the Democratic and the Republican parties. Neither party is going to vote for their own destruction, so the change is impossible to make. And this without mentioning American conservatism, which opposes any such change, or the solid US Constitution, which is almost impossible to change even without the party divide. In short: it's most likely impossible, until some unspeakable tragedy occurs that forces change on the nation.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

No.

[Novus America]

While not giving an opinion one way or another, it has to be said that a change towards a parliamentary system would be impossible in the current American political system. It would go hand in hand with a proportional system of voting, which would destroy both the Democratic and the Republican parties. Neither party is going to vote for their own destruction, so the change is impossible to make. And this without mentioning American conservatism, which opposes any such change, or the solid US Constitution, which is almost impossible to change even without the party divide. In short: it's most likely impossible, until some unspeakable tragedy occurs that forces change on the nation.

Parliamentary systems do not necessarily have proportional voting, see the UK.
However it will not happen, as it would require a new constitution. And that is not going to get passed, for a whole host of reasons.

[Chameliya]

Personally, I'm a fan of the parliamentary system. But it would be a fool's errand to try and implement it in the United States.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

While not giving an opinion one way or another, it has to be said that a change towards a parliamentary system would be impossible in the current American political system. It would go hand in hand with a proportional system of voting, which would destroy both the Democratic and the Republican parties. Neither party is going to vote for their own destruction, so the change is impossible to make. And this without mentioning American conservatism, which opposes any such change, or the solid US Constitution, which is almost impossible to change even without the party divide. In short: it's most likely impossible, until some unspeakable tragedy occurs that forces change on the nation.

Parliamentary systems do not necessarily have proportional voting, see the UK.
However it will not happen, as it would require a new constitution. And that is not going to get passed, for a whole host of reasons.

Well, it doesn't need to be, but unless it is attached to a system of proportional voting, I don't think there is going to be any change. Well, other than a guarantee that the president is always of the same party as Congress, which creates another host of issues.

[Valgora]

While not giving an opinion one way or another, it has to be said that a change towards a parliamentary system would be impossible in the current American political system. It would go hand in hand with a proportional system of voting, which would destroy both the Democratic and the Republican parties. Neither party is going to vote for their own destruction, so the change is impossible to make. And this without mentioning American conservatism, which opposes any such change, or the solid US Constitution, which is almost impossible to change even without the party divide. In short: it's most likely impossible, until some unspeakable tragedy occurs that forces change on the nation.

Parliamentary systems do not necessarily have proportional voting, see the UK.
However it will not happen, as it would require a new constitution. And that is not going to get passed, for a whole host of reasons.

The constitution's success is because of its ability to change. That's why there are amendments. The U.S. wouldn't need a new constitution, it would need amendments to the constitution. However, that's unlikely to happen.

[Novus America]

Parliamentary systems do not necessarily have proportional voting, see the UK.
However it will not happen, as it would require a new constitution. And that is not going to get passed, for a whole host of reasons.

The constitution's success is because of its ability to change. That's why there are amendments. The U.S. wouldn't need a new constitution, it would need amendments to the constitution. However, that's unlikely to happen.

Well these amendments would be so great as to basically require a whole new thing. It would be a de facto new constitution. And sure it can change, but I do not see a change that radical happening. No amendment every passed has ever been that big of a change.

[Pherdistan]

I could see this happening without amending the constitution, although it might be questionable whether it can happen as a matter of fact.

Just create the post of First Secretary, reduce the de facto powers of the President and transfer the rest to the FS.

As to proportional voting, a party list from each state, or STV if you don't like lists, can be performed within the current constitutional system. It would just require a change of the states, or Congress amending its requirements to include being elected proportionally.

The EC could work similarly, and would, in a multiparty system, guarantee a coalition victory, since the elections would just keep going to Congress.

The Senate might be an issue. IRV or two-round seems as good a solution there.

Basically, I could see it working under simple legislation alone, without amendment, although the likelihood of that happening is low.

[Valgora]

I could see this happening without amending the constitution, although it might be questionable whether it can happen as a matter of fact.

Just create the post of First Secretary, reduce the de facto powers of the President and transfer the rest to the FS.

As to proportional voting, a party list from each state, or STV if you don't like lists, can be performed within the current constitutional system. It would just require a change of the states, or Congress amending its requirements to include being elected proportionally.

The EC could work similarly, and would, in a multiparty system, guarantee a coalition victory, since the elections would just keep going to Congress.

The Senate might be an issue. IRV or two-round seems as good a solution there.

Basically, I could see it working under simple legislation alone, without amendment, although the likelihood of that happening is low.

It would require the changing of the constitution by adding amendments. The system the two house system the U.S. has is explained and set up in the constitution. Therefore, either there would need to be a new constitution or amendments added to it.

[Pherdistan]

Well, yes, but huge discretion is given to the states. No mention is made of single-member plurality districts being necessary, nor is the winner-take-all system anything except how state legislatures have chosen to award their state's electors. Note Maine's constitutional switch to IRV for elections in the state, as well as it and Nebraska's allotment of EC votes by district and the statewide result. Hell, when it had 2 representatives in the House, Delaware had them elected on a general ticket.

Nothing in the Constitution is preventing the creation of an apportionment system such as the one I outlined above. It only says that two houses exists, not how they are to be elected.

[Novus America]

Well, yes, but huge discretion is given to the states. No mention is made of single-member plurality districts being necessary, nor is the winner-take-all system anything except how state legislatures have chosen to award their state's electors. Note Maine's constitutional switch to IRV for elections in the state, as well as it and Nebraska's allotment of EC votes by district and the statewide result. Hell, when it had 2 representatives in the House, Delaware had them elected on a general ticket.

Nothing in the Constitution is preventing the creation of an apportionment system such as the one I outlined above. It only says that two houses exists, not how they are to be elected.

Sure you can make some major changes with legislation alone. Just no a full parliamentary system. As you will still have a separate president with broad constitutional powers.

[Pherdistan]

Maybe not full, but a semi-presidential would work well. And there's plenty of monarch's with weighty reserve powers who rarely interfere with politics. Queen Izzie is a good example.

[Kravanica]

Ehhh, parliamentary systems suck.

[Noraika]

Definitely would be an improvement over the current system, but also throwing in some proportional representation, and making the office of the President ceremonial, would be further improvement

[Kravanica]

Definitely would be an improvement over the current system, but also throwing in some proportional representation, and making the office of the President ceremonial, would be further improvement

What the fuck is the point of having a president if he's ceremonial?

[Noraika]

Definitely would be an improvement over the current system, but also throwing in some proportional representation, and making the office of the President ceremonial, would be further improvement

What the fuck is the point of having a president if he's ceremonial?

Personally I'd prefer a constitutional monarchy, but usually the ceremonial president serves as the Head of State, representing the nation as a sort of 'chief diplomat', as well as overseeing the more ceremonial functions of state, while the Prime Minister, as Head of Government, manages without distraction the affairs of the government administration.

[Kravanica]

What the fuck is the point of having a president if he's ceremonial?

Personally I'd prefer a constitutional monarchy, but usually the ceremonial president serves as the Head of State, representing the nation as a sort of 'chief diplomat', as well as overseeing the more ceremonial functions of state, while the Prime Minister, as Head of Government, manages without distraction the affairs of the government administration.

Yet regardless the prime minister still serves as the primary one representing the interests of the country abroad. If there is a meeting at the United Nations then he goes. If there is a meeting with a foreign leader then he goes. Ceremonial heads of state are completely and utterly pointless if they aren't a monarchy.

[Noraika]

Personally I'd prefer a constitutional monarchy, but usually the ceremonial president serves as the Head of State, representing the nation as a sort of 'chief diplomat', as well as overseeing the more ceremonial functions of state, while the Prime Minister, as Head of Government, manages without distraction the affairs of the government administration.

Yet regardless the prime minister still serves as the primary one representing the interests of the country abroad. If there is a meeting at the United Nations then he goes. If there is a meeting with a foreign leader then he goes. Ceremonial heads of state are completely and utterly pointless if they aren't a monarchy.

Never said I disagreed with you there.

[Greed and Death]

Hello NSG! It's been awhile since I last created a thread here. Something that I have been thinking about lately is if the United States would be better off having a parliamentary form of government rather than the congressional system we have now. I'd imagine that if this were to happen (though it is probably pretty unlikely) then the U.S. would probably use semi-presidentialism consider how important the influence POTUS and that he is pretty much the symbol for the nation.

The President would still be the head of state, but the U.S. would also have a separate head of government. It seems that parliamentary systems are more flexible and can allow swifter legislation and a government that is more likely to have the head of government and the legislature to be of the same party (sorry if my knowledge of parliamentary systems is horrible) and be able to get more done or else face the possibility of being removed via a vote of no confidence.

Would you say that the United States would be better off with a parliamentary republic or if we kept the current presidential system, but reformed it?

I think we should stick with the presidential system we have now, since I doubt it is going to change anytime soon, and I'd expect such change to be expensive and I don't think the average American would understand how the new system works.

Lets think of the consequences of a parliamentary system.

First the ACA would have been repealed before implementation.

Also if the US had a parliamentary system wouldn't that mean there would also be supremacy of Parliament ?
That would me the defense of Marriage act is constitutional. States would therefore be allowed to block gay marriage as the national govnerment says so. Next Abortion the federal govnerment has been silent about that if not outright hostile blocking funds and what not, it is very likely under a parliamentary elective system abortion would still be illegal sort of like Ireland. Desegregation likely would not have been started in the 1950s more likely it would have started when congress got around to it in the 1970's.

So in summary why I like the easy repeal of the ACA the rest of what comes with a parliamentary system does not suit my fancy.

[Alvalero]

Definitely would be an improvement over the current system, but also throwing in some proportional representation, and making the office of the President ceremonial, would be further improvement

What the fuck is the point of having a president if he's ceremonial?

President of Ireland's duties may be a good place to start - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ireland

[Jelmatt]

Hello NSG! It's been awhile since I last created a thread here. Something that I have been thinking about lately is if the United States would be better off having a parliamentary form of government rather than the congressional system we have now. I'd imagine that if this were to happen (though it is probably pretty unlikely) then the U.S. would probably use semi-presidentialism consider how important the influence POTUS and that he is pretty much the symbol for the nation.

The President would still be the head of state, but the U.S. would also have a separate head of government. It seems that parliamentary systems are more flexible and can allow swifter legislation and a government that is more likely to have the head of government and the legislature to be of the same party (sorry if my knowledge of parliamentary systems is horrible) and be able to get more done or else face the possibility of being removed via a vote of no confidence.

Would you say that the United States would be better off with a parliamentary republic or if we kept the current presidential system, but reformed it?

I think we should stick with the presidential system we have now, since I doubt it is going to change anytime soon, and I'd expect such change to be expensive and I don't think the average American would understand how the new system works.

Lets think of the consequences of a parliamentary system.

First the ACA would have been repealed before implementation.

Also if the US had a parliamentary system wouldn't that mean there would also be supremacy of Parliament ?
That would me the defense of Marriage act is constitutional. States would therefore be allowed to block gay marriage as the national govnerment says so. Next Abortion the federal govnerment has been silent about that if not outright hostile blocking funds and what not, it is very likely under a parliamentary elective system abortion would still be illegal sort of like Ireland. Desegregation likely would not have been started in the 1950s more likely it would have started when congress got around to it in the 1970's.

So in summary why I like the easy repeal of the ACA the rest of what comes with a parliamentary system does not suit my fancy.

A parliamentary system wouldn't necessarily imply parliamentary sovereignty. That's just a weird thing in the UK which many (even most) other parliamentary states don't have. A parliamentary system just means that the executive and legislative branches are fused. It might violate the separation of powers, though really I find only judicial independence actually serves the purpose of the separation of powers, that is, to prevent arbitrary and uncontrolled exercise of power. Presidential systems actually more often turn authoritarian than parliamentary ones, after all.

[Hyggemata]

Abolition of states should be first on the agenda.

[Hyggemata]

Lets think of the consequences of a parliamentary system.

First the ACA would have been repealed before implementation.

Also if the US had a parliamentary system wouldn't that mean there would also be supremacy of Parliament ?
That would me the defense of Marriage act is constitutional. States would therefore be allowed to block gay marriage as the national govnerment says so. Next Abortion the federal govnerment has been silent about that if not outright hostile blocking funds and what not, it is very likely under a parliamentary elective system abortion would still be illegal sort of like Ireland. Desegregation likely would not have been started in the 1950s more likely it would have started when congress got around to it in the 1970's.

So in summary why I like the easy repeal of the ACA the rest of what comes with a parliamentary system does not suit my fancy.

A parliamentary system wouldn't necessarily imply parliamentary sovereignty. That's just a weird thing in the UK which many (even most) other parliamentary states don't have. A parliamentary system just means that the executive and legislative branches are fused. It might violate the separation of powers, though really I find only judicial independence actually serves the purpose of the separation of powers, that is, to prevent arbitrary and uncontrolled exercise of power. Presidential systems actually more often turn authoritarian than parliamentary ones, after all.

Parliamentary sovereignty derives from the sovereignty of the Crown-in-Parliament. It is a feature of the Westminster system, but not of all parliamentary systems. ROC (Taiwan) before the 1990s is typically considered to have a parliamentary system on the central level (but presidential system in local government), but parliament is not sovereign. The people, though their ability to change the constitution, are sovereign.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

me am too sleepy to quote norden properly

Hello NSG! It's been awhile since I last created a thread here. Something that I have been thinking about lately is if the United States would be better off having a parliamentary form of government rather than the congressional system we have now. I'd imagine that if this were to happen (though it is probably pretty unlikely) then the U.S. would probably use semi-presidentialism consider how important the influence POTUS and that he is pretty much the symbol for the nation.

The President would still be the head of state, but the U.S. would also have a separate head of government. It seems that parliamentary systems are more flexible and can allow swifter legislation and a government that is more likely to have the head of government and the legislature to be of the same party (sorry if my knowledge of parliamentary systems is horrible) and be able to get more done or else face the possibility of being removed via a vote of no confidence.

Would you say that the United States would be better off with a parliamentary republic or if we kept the current presidential system, but reformed it?

I think we should stick with the presidential system we have now, since I doubt it is going to change anytime soon, and I'd expect such change to be expensive and I don't think the average American would understand how the new system works.

I love semi-presidentialism! But only because my ideal state uses it.
Anyways, the non-ceremonial chief executive of the state is usually the one of the same party as the legislature, largely due to being a member of it, in parliamentary systems. In anything that is more than quasi-presidential you end up getting "cohabitation" as the frenchies call it, or as we call it, gridlock!
I don't have a Wikipedia article on parliamentarianism open atm, just one on Waluigi, so I'll say what you're saying sounds more or less spot on with the no-confidence thing. I feel a parliamentary system would enable relatively internally coherent political factions to do a lot if they had enough legislative heft. We don't have that in the US, so it would probably do very little to change anything.
It would require many constitutional amendments to enact. And that's before the PR nutbags (aka ME!) decide to come out of the forests of obscurity and start imposing open list on everyone to seal the nail to the coffin of our party labels.

While not giving an opinion one way or another, it has to be said that a change towards a parliamentary system would be impossible in the current American political system. It would go hand in hand with a proportional system of voting, which would destroy both the Democratic and the Republican parties. Neither party is going to vote for their own destruction, so the change is impossible to make. And this without mentioning American conservatism, which opposes any such change, or the solid US Constitution, which is almost impossible to change even without the party divide. In short: it's most likely impossible, until some unspeakable tragedy occurs that forces change on the nation.

*looks at Commonwealth of Nations*
No it doesn't.

Abolition of states should be first on the agenda.

Federalism is essential. In America anyways. Without the states we would have the political seesawing of Ohio on a national scale.