If the U.S. had a parliamentary system

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

Unitary states, in my experience, tend towards being the foundation for a more ethnic kind of nationalism. But I'm probably wrong.

Well yes, a unitary state cannot be as diverse usually. And also tend to be much smaller.

The US is simply to big and diverse to be a unitary state.

China is technically a unitary state on paper but is not a democracy and de facto it works as a federation, and the central government has limited control over and even knowledge of what the sub entities are doing. Chinese economic statistics for example are calculated by local governments, the central government just adds them together and nobody knows how much is really true.

Large unititary states inevitably run into serious problems with administration.

I wonder if it is any coincidence that Suharto is the biggest embezzler of government money in world (and Indonesian) history, given the administrative structure of the country. But I agree that unitarism would not turn out too well here. I've heard similar comments about China's government structure before, but I didn't know their economic activity was locally calculated.

[Noraika]

Name another country of SIMILAR population size that does better. Say 100 million plus. And the larger, most successful ones like Germany are FEDERATIONS. And the US is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, but none the less the problem is not a federal structure.

We do need to make reforms to do things better, but this can be done within a federal structure. Canada, Switzerland and Germany all do fine with a federal structure.

The problems have nothing to do with being a federation.

If you car needs a oil change, tearing off the doors would not fix it.

Nearly all our problems could be fixed with simple legislation within the current constitution.

The US is VERY bad in comparison to most developed nations. It's, by objective measures, one of the worse countries to live in within the developed world. The Eastern Balkans aren't usually used as an example of something you should strive to be like.

Canada and Germany are both highly centralized federations. The states barely manage anything and serve a largely administrative purpose to the will of the federal government. They handle just the implementation of federal law, such as managing the infastructure and police and schools, but the federal government makes the rules for that implementation. Germany especially is extremely neutered with its state powers in all actuality. I'm glad you can recognize that a (de facto) unitary structure, would be useful.

The US doesn't need an oil change...it needs an engine change. A single part that moves the country as a whole.

[Novus America]

Name another country of SIMILAR population size that does better. Say 100 million plus. And the larger, most successful ones like Germany are FEDERATIONS. And the US is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, but none the less the problem is not a federal structure.

China. Has been unitary for most of the past 2,000 years, whose economy has grown at a rate surpassing 10% for the past two decades. You don't need the state capitalism and dictatorship elements, but it proves that unitary states can also perform well.

We do need to make reforms to do things better, but this can be done within a federal structure. Canada, Switzerland and Germany all do fine with a federal structure.

Canada's federal structure is founded upon a parliamentary system of government. Sigged.

China is also still very poor compared to the US, with much lower living standards, is brutal authoritarian regime, and its economic growth based on export based protectionism, pollution and cheap labor is not sustainable nor humane. It is not a model to emulate.

Also has had literally dozens of absurdly bloody civil wars and often collapsed.

Also as I noted above we cannot trust its economic statistics as the central government does not even know what the truly are. It is a de facto federation as the central government has only limited control over the regional ones.

It is not a example to follow.

Parliamentary system v. federal system are two separate issues.
You can make reforms and be successful within a federal system.

[Hyggemata]

Novus America, I'm not arguing that local autonomy can't be allowed to exist. You need to clear your mind of that if that is your impression of what I'm saying.

Local autonomy can and should exist, because, as you say, managing everything centrally will be impracticable. But local autonomy shouldn't exist to the detriment of national interest. That is to say, while local government can make certain decisions, even a great number of them, they shouldn't be allowed to make such decisions whose effects will be adverse to the entire nation. As long as the national interest is not damaged, the central government should not intervene. There are many things within a state government's remit that can objectively hurt the nation as a whole if done in a specific way. I'm not suggesting that the state's autonomy in this area be annulled, but that they be subject to federal review if they cause an externality.

Or else, it's trade warfare and predatory legislation happening all over again.

[Noraika]

I'd be happy with a German or Canadian system, where the Federal Government makes almost all major or important decisions but allows for implementation and for management to be done locally, and even allow for minor or inconsequential decisions to be handled by the states/provinces, but if we're going to describe federalism as a 'good thing', then the US has far too much of a good thing. Unity in law is important on many issues.

[Swindenland]

It would never be implemented.

But I'm strongly favouring parliamentary systems, because in presidential systems too much power is vested in only one person, legislation passes faster and according to World Bank they tend to have less corruption. Also federal parliamentary republics still give quite some power to federal states. Wouldn't it be great, if there were more than 2 parties with seats in the US?

Anyways, here's a fun diagram showing how the American parliament would look like:

[Novus America]

Name another country of SIMILAR population size that does better. Say 100 million plus. And the larger, most successful ones like Germany are FEDERATIONS. And the US is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, but none the less the problem is not a federal structure.

We do need to make reforms to do things better, but this can be done within a federal structure. Canada, Switzerland and Germany all do fine with a federal structure.

The problems have nothing to do with being a federation.

If you car needs a oil change, tearing off the doors would not fix it.

Nearly all our problems could be fixed with simple legislation within the current constitution.

The US is VERY bad in comparison to most developed nations. It's, by objective measures, one of the worse countries to live in within the developed world. The Eastern Balkans aren't usually used as an example of something you should strive to be like.

Canada and Germany are both highly centralized federations. The states barely manage anything and serve a largely administrative purpose to the will of the federal government. They handle just the implementation of federal law, such as managing the infastructure and police and schools, but the federal government makes the rules for that implementation. Germany especially is extremely neutered with its state powers in all actuality. I'm glad you can recognize that a (de facto) unitary structure, would be useful.

The US doesn't need an oil change...it needs an engine change. A single part that moves the country as a whole.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ment_Index
It is not nearly that bad.

Actually the states well "provinces" in Canada and Germany manage quite a lot.

And have their own police.

As far as schools
"Education is within provincial jurisdiction and the curriculum is overseen by the province"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada
"The responsibility for the education system in Germany lies primarily with the states (Länder), while the federal government plays a minor role."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

You are simply wrong.

Maybe learn more about how Canada and Germany work first.

And again the US can fix nearly all of our problems within our existing system. We just need some better legislation. You are falsely attributing problems to the wrong thing and proposing a grossly unrealistic "solution" that you could never get passed anyways.

[Noraika]

The US is VERY bad in comparison to most developed nations. It's, by objective measures, one of the worse countries to live in within the developed world. The Eastern Balkans aren't usually used as an example of something you should strive to be like.

Canada and Germany are both highly centralized federations. The states barely manage anything and serve a largely administrative purpose to the will of the federal government. They handle just the implementation of federal law, such as managing the infastructure and police and schools, but the federal government makes the rules for that implementation. Germany especially is extremely neutered with its state powers in all actuality. I'm glad you can recognize that a (de facto) unitary structure, would be useful.

The US doesn't need an oil change...it needs an engine change. A single part that moves the country as a whole.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ment_Index
It is not nearly that bad.

Actually the states well "provinces" in Canada and Germany manage quite a lot.

And have their own police.

As far as schools
"Education is within provincial jurisdiction and the curriculum is overseen by the province"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada

You are simply wrong.

Maybe learn more about how Canada works first.

And again the US can fix nearly all of our problems within our existing system. We just need some better legislation. You are falsely attributing problems to the wrong thing and proposing a grossly unrealistic "solution" that you could never get passed anyways.

Adjust that HDI to account for inequality. The US ranks alongside Poland and Bulgaria.

The point is they're nowhere near as decentralized as the US is (where at least in mine the local governments handled education and failed horribly) and aside from actually going to Germany, and having spoken about it to Canadians, I can tell you that they don't nearly have the problems we do with rampant abuse of state's power.

[Hyggemata]

China. Has been unitary for most of the past 2,000 years, whose economy has grown at a rate surpassing 10% for the past two decades. You don't need the state capitalism and dictatorship elements, but it proves that unitary states can also perform well.

Canada's federal structure is founded upon a parliamentary system of government. Sigged.

China is also still very poor compared to the US, with much lower living standards, is brutal authoritarian regime, and its economic growth based on export based protectionism, pollution and cheap labor is not sustainable nor humane. It is not a model to emulate.

It's not a model to emulate, but I never said emulate it. In fact, I specifically excluded the aspects of the country that are inapplicable to the USA.

Also has had literally dozens of absurdly bloody civil wars and often collapsed.

Civil wars happen in countries all the time. It is not a feature exclusive to unitary states.

Also as I noted above we cannot trust its economic statistics as the central government does not even know what the truly are. It is a de facto federation as the central government has only limited control over the regional ones.

No central government ever has complete control over local government.

It is not a example to follow.

Parliamentary system v. federal system are two separate issues.
You can make reforms and be successful within a federal system.

It does happen to be the issue addressed by the OP, though.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

The US is VERY bad in comparison to most developed nations. It's, by objective measures, one of the worse countries to live in within the developed world. The Eastern Balkans aren't usually used as an example of something you should strive to be like.

Canada and Germany are both highly centralized federations. The states barely manage anything and serve a largely administrative purpose to the will of the federal government. They handle just the implementation of federal law, such as managing the infastructure and police and schools, but the federal government makes the rules for that implementation. Germany especially is extremely neutered with its state powers in all actuality. I'm glad you can recognize that a (de facto) unitary structure, would be useful.

The US doesn't need an oil change...it needs an engine change. A single part that moves the country as a whole.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ment_Index
It is not nearly that bad.

Actually the states well "provinces" in Canada and Germany manage quite a lot.

And have their own police.

As far as schools
"Education is within provincial jurisdiction and the curriculum is overseen by the province"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada

You are simply wrong.

Maybe learn more about how Canada works first.

And again the US can fix nearly all of our problems within our existing system. We just need some better legislation. You are falsely attributing problems to the wrong thing and proposing a grossly unrealistic "solution" that you could never get passed anyways.

A unitary United States would be a piece of shit. Southerners would have legalized slavery in every state if it had been implemented before 1861, and now the Reds and Blues would take turns ripping each others' programs to shreds.
I contend as well that the problems of the US's government aren't systematic but legislative. It's a struggle for political gain which at times masquerades behind the cover of "constitutionality" and "states' rights". Not that those things aren't concerns, but that such is a good cover for many more things than I, at least, would like to see provided for within those terms.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

It would never be implemented.

But I'm strongly favouring parliamentary systems, because in presidential systems too much power is vested in only one person, legislation passes faster and according to World Bank they tend to have less corruption. Also federal parliamentary republics still give quite some power to federal states. Wouldn't it be great, if there were more than 2 parties with seats in the US?

Anyways, here's a fun diagram showing how the American parliament would look like:
(Image)

Can't see the image, but I agree that it would be nice to see reduced corruption and greater party diversity.

[Hyggemata]

The US is VERY bad in comparison to most developed nations. It's, by objective measures, one of the worse countries to live in within the developed world. The Eastern Balkans aren't usually used as an example of something you should strive to be like.

Canada and Germany are both highly centralized federations. The states barely manage anything and serve a largely administrative purpose to the will of the federal government. They handle just the implementation of federal law, such as managing the infastructure and police and schools, but the federal government makes the rules for that implementation. Germany especially is extremely neutered with its state powers in all actuality. I'm glad you can recognize that a (de facto) unitary structure, would be useful.

The US doesn't need an oil change...it needs an engine change. A single part that moves the country as a whole.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ment_Index
It is not nearly that bad.

Actually the states well "provinces" in Canada and Germany manage quite a lot.

And have their own police.

Almost all provinces have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is managed by the federal government. Provinces are free to expel the RCMP and establish their own police forces, but they don't do it for the sake of efficiency and unity. This is, IMO, the fundamental difference between Canadian provinces and American states; the former seek to co-operate with each other and the central government, while the latter seek to oppose the central government.

As far as schools
"Education is within provincial jurisdiction and the curriculum is overseen by the province"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada
"The responsibility for the education system in Germany lies primarily with the states (Länder), while the federal government plays a minor role."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

You are simply wrong.

You are simply wrong. Education is implemented by the provincial governments, but there are definitely national standards in education. The federal government has an actual role in education. I am Canadian, and I know this for a fact.

[Novus America]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ment_Index
It is not nearly that bad.

Actually the states well "provinces" in Canada and Germany manage quite a lot.

And have their own police.

As far as schools
"Education is within provincial jurisdiction and the curriculum is overseen by the province"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada

You are simply wrong.

Maybe learn more about how Canada works first.

And again the US can fix nearly all of our problems within our existing system. We just need some better legislation. You are falsely attributing problems to the wrong thing and proposing a grossly unrealistic "solution" that you could never get passed anyways.

Adjust that HDI to account for inequality. The US ranks alongside Poland and Bulgaria.

The point is they're nowhere near as decentralized as the US is (where at least in mine the local governments handled education and failed horribly) and aside from actually going to Germany, and having spoken about it to Canadians, I can tell you that they don't nearly have the problems we do with rampant abuse of state's power.

Even by that flawed measure the US is ahead of Bulgaria and still high.
And clearly your knowledge of how Canada and Germany work is lacking, thus I cannot trust your recommendations as the are based on lack of knowledge.

Point still reamians that the problems the US has can be almost entirely fixed using legislation within the existing system.

Your idea besides being unrealistic (you could never get it implemented) is also wrong.
Even if you want more centralization that does not neccesitate abolishing a federal system.

[Novus America]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ment_Index
It is not nearly that bad.

Actually the states well "provinces" in Canada and Germany manage quite a lot.

And have their own police.

Almost all provinces have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is managed by the federal government. Provinces are free to expel the RCMP and establish their own police forces, but they don't do it for the sake of efficiency and unity. This is, IMO, the fundamental difference between Canadian provinces and American states; the former seek to co-operate with each other and the central government, while the latter seek to oppose the central government.

As far as schools
"Education is within provincial jurisdiction and the curriculum is overseen by the province"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada
"The responsibility for the education system in Germany lies primarily with the states (Länder), while the federal government plays a minor role."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

You are simply wrong.

You are simply wrong. Education is implemented by the provincial governments, but there are definitely national standards in education. The federal government has an actual role in education. I am Canadian, and I know this for a fact.

Citation needed on education. "I am Canadian" is not a source. The curriculum is set at the provincial level. Even the language. Quebec has a very different system than the others for example.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... ment_Index
It is not nearly that bad.

Actually the states well "provinces" in Canada and Germany manage quite a lot.

And have their own police.

Almost all provinces have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which is managed by the federal government. Provinces are free to expel the RCMP and establish their own police forces, but they don't do it for the sake of efficiency and unity. This is, IMO, the fundamental difference between Canadian provinces and American states; the former seek to co-operate with each other and the central government, while the latter seek to oppose the central government.

As far as schools
"Education is within provincial jurisdiction and the curriculum is overseen by the province"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Canada
"The responsibility for the education system in Germany lies primarily with the states (Länder), while the federal government plays a minor role."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany

You are simply wrong.

You are simply wrong. Education is implemented by the provincial governments, but there are definitely national standards in education. The federal government has an actual role in education. I am Canadian, and I know this for a fact.

America has national standards too, most of which involve free giveaways of money _{as long as you agree that trans kids should go to the bathroom of their gender identity REPEALED 2017}

[Novus America]

China is also still very poor compared to the US, with much lower living standards, is brutal authoritarian regime, and its economic growth based on export based protectionism, pollution and cheap labor is not sustainable nor humane. It is not a model to emulate.

It's not a model to emulate, but I never said emulate it. In fact, I specifically excluded the aspects of the country that are inapplicable to the USA.

Also has had literally dozens of absurdly bloody civil wars and often collapsed.

Civil wars happen in countries all the time. It is not a feature exclusive to unitary states.

Also as I noted above we cannot trust its economic statistics as the central government does not even know what the truly are. It is a de facto federation as the central government has only limited control over the regional ones.

No central government ever has complete control over local government.

It is not a example to follow.

Parliamentary system v. federal system are two separate issues.
You can make reforms and be successful within a federal system.

It does happen to be the issue addressed by the OP, though.

Well China is inapplicable, not a good model. And it has had far more (and more deadly) civil wars than ANY other country if you count it as a single entity over the various governments it went through.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

It's not a model to emulate, but I never said emulate it. In fact, I specifically excluded the aspects of the country that are inapplicable to the USA.


Civil wars happen in countries all the time. It is not a feature exclusive to unitary states.


No central government ever has complete control over local government.


It does happen to be the issue addressed by the OP, though.

Well China is inapplicable, not a good model. And it has had far more (and more deadly) civil wars than ANY other country if you count it as a single entity over the various governments it went through.

The Taiping Rebellion could have killed up to a hundred million people. When all that comes down to idiots in a faraway capital making the decisions without full knowledge of the situation- or delegating them to incompetents- I can see why all those bloodsoaked conflicts happened.

[Hyggemata]

Citation needed on education. "I am Canadian" is not a source. The curriculum is set at the provincial level. Even the language. Quebec has a very different system than the others for example.

From the Canadian Encyclopedia available online:

Nonetheless, while provincial autonomy in educational matters is constitutionally acknowledged and frequently asserted, it would be naive to ignore the fact that the federal government also plays a significant part in education in Canada. At the primary and secondary levels its interest has been limited to the extension of minority-language education through bilingualism grants. However, in recent years it has initiated and funded manpower-training programs, supported initiatives designed to help "at risk" students, and also attempted to broaden access to and rates of participation in post-secondary education. The most visible of these programs are sponsored by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Department of the Secretary of State, however, at the post-secondary level, virtually all federal departments and agencies are involved in providing some financial support, either directly or indirectly.

[Hyggemata]

Well China is inapplicable, not a good model. And it has had far more (and more deadly) civil wars than ANY other country if you count it as a single entity over the various governments it went through.

It is a fully functional state. There have been bad governments, but it is a functional state, which is all that I am seeking to demonstrate with this example.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Many parliamentary republics are constitutionally presidential republics. The practical nature of political power in many cases ensured that the President might have major powers, but can't really use them, and the political center of gravity lies with Congress.

This was largely true even in the US. With the exception of Abraham Lincoln's wartime leadership, most practical governance was done by Congressional leaders. While the Cabinet may have been appointed by the President, in practice they worked closely with the Congressional leadership, and the President had a more reserved role.

The only major roadblock to full parliamentary relationships forming in the US is that constitutionally, the cabinet and other executive officers are confirmed by the Senate, not the House. If this were amended, then the political center of gravity would be in the House. They already have the power of the purse, and if they were the body that confirmed executive appointments, then in practical political terms they'd control cabinet prerogatives, and thus domestic agenda.