NationStates

Please consider the following hypothetical:

Starting tomorrow, the US Constitution goes out the window and instead, everyone just accepts that the entirety of the USA is one giant parliamentary democracy. The largely unwritten constitution of the UK is imported in lieu of what exists to facilitate rights protection and clarity of process.

No federalism/no states… it’s all one big government now. All US territories are carved up into electoral ridings in the same style as the UK. Elections for MPs start immediately. FPTP would be used.

How does it go down from there? What policies get enacted? Is the country better off or worse off? Speculate.

If it's like the U.K then, instead of getting shot I'll get stabbed. Instead of Capitol Hill getting stormed we'll get car bombed. Instead of congressmen insulting each other we'll have fighters and someone speaking with a heavy Scottish accent no one understands.

I would say that if the US adopts a parliamentary government following the revolution, they might just be another Canada, or a significantly strong military power in the Commonwealth of Nations.

Infected Mushroom wrote:IMO, the USA would be vastly more decisive, unified, efficient and logically governed. Much of the systematic gridlock would be gone and I could see policies like universal healthcare and effective environmental legislation being enacted.

Dunno man.... The UK still manages to be very inefficient and bad at making up its mind.

EDIT: Also, the UK is not a unitary state.

As it is now, it seems that states have more power than the national government. I think that is one of the causes of America's massive political and cultural divisions. I think they would be better off as a unitary state.

Infected Mushroom wrote:Please consider the following hypothetical:

Starting tomorrow, the US Constitution goes out the window and instead, everyone just accepts that the entirety of the USA is one giant parliamentary democracy. The largely unwritten constitution of the UK is imported in lieu of what exists to facilitate rights protection and clarity of process.

Why not just use the Canadian Constitution?

The Archregimancy wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:Please consider the following hypothetical:

Starting tomorrow, the US Constitution goes out the window and instead, everyone just accepts that the entirety of the USA is one giant parliamentary democracy. The largely unwritten constitution of the UK is imported in lieu of what exists to facilitate rights protection and clarity of process.

Why not just use the Canadian Constitution?

Doesn’t it enshrine federalism as a guiding principle and has articles specific to Aboriginal tribal protection?

UK’s largely unwritten one seemed better suited for this project.

Infected Mushroom wrote:No federalism/no states… it’s all one big government now.

How is that vaguely relevant to the question of parliamentarianism?

Heloin wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:No federalism/no states… it’s all one big government now.

How is that vaguely relevant to the question of parliamentarianism?

What do you mean?

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Why not just use the Canadian Constitution?

Doesn’t it enshrine federalism as a guiding principle and has articles specific to Aboriginal tribal protection?

UK’s largely unwritten one seemed better suited for this project.

Taking a bold stance against the constitution act of 1982 for Section 35’s *checks notes* protection and reaffirmation of treaty rights for First Nation, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Heloin wrote:How is that vaguely relevant to the question of parliamentarianism?

What do you mean?

Federalism and parliamentary politics aren’t in any way opposed and that you think they are for some reason is not relevant to whether or not the system would or wouldn’t be better then America’s current system.

I think it would probably be better off, or at least better governed in the short to medium term. Assuming practices like PMQs exist, the adversarial parliamentary system will probably shock a lot of America's politicians out of complacency and see them facing real scrutiny for the first time ever which would be positive.

Of course you'd also end up with a terrible case of tyranny by majority which would lead to massive resentment by anyone living outside of New York or California, where most of the decisions will be made.

As such, it probably wouldn't last - in the long term, it would probably balkanise, I can't imagine a country that size lasting long under a centralised system without seeing a major violent uprising in certain parts. Particularly those that already have a history of trying to violently secede...

There's a reason why the UK had to accept devolution for Scotland and Wales and a reason why the Republic of Ireland is no longer part of the UK and a lot of that is down to the resentment that centralisation causes.

EDIT: Having thought about it a bit more, I think my conclusion is that the US would benefit from a Federal Parliamentary System (like Canada or Australia) but definitely not a unitary one.

Radiatia wrote:I think it would probably be better off, or at least better governed in the short to medium term. Assuming practices like PMQs exist, the adversarial parliamentary system will probably shock a lot of America's politicians out of complacency and see them facing real scrutiny for the first time ever which would be positive.

Of course you'd also end up with a terrible case of tyranny by majority which would lead to massive resentment by anyone living outside of New York or California, where most of the decisions will be made.

As such, it probably wouldn't last - in the long term, it would probably balkanise, I can't imagine a country that size lasting long under a centralised system without seeing a major violent uprising in certain parts, particularly those that already have a history of trying to violently secede....

Interesting point.

Heloin wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
What do you mean?

Federalism and parliamentary politics aren’t in any way opposed and that you think they are for some reason is not relevant to whether or not the system would or wouldn’t be better then America’s current system.

It says unitary parliamentary system in the op (not federal parliamentary system). This is to increase the differentiation from the current US presidential system with federalism.

I'd rather join the American IRA then participate in such an insane form of government. You have some great ideas old friend but this isn't one of them. The current system may be Flawed but reform is still possible no matter how unlikely it may seem. We can start with term limits for Congress and burocrats. Clamp down on corporate lobbying and other bribes.

Britain does have some level of devolution, though it is selective and targeting to areas that might otherwise want to be independent. So there would probably still be assemblies in at least some states, but they would have limited powers that could be altered or removed entirely by Congress at will.

The biggest change if the US adopted the British system would be that Congress would be supreme and able to do pretty much whatever it likes, with no possibility of the courts striking down their laws and absolute supremacy over the states. They would also be able to remove the President by a simple majority vote.

As for would the US be better off, its swings and roundabouts really. For instance, the British system holds the executive to account more. But on the other hand, it also allows the executive to dominate the legislature.

Christian Confederation wrote:I'd rather join the American IRA then participate in such an insane form of government. You have some great ideas old friend but this isn't one of them. The current system may be Flawed but reform is still possible no matter how unlikely it may seem. We can start with term limits for Congress and burocrats. Clamp down on corporate lobbying and other bribes.

Fair enough.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Heloin wrote:Federalism and parliamentary politics aren’t in any way opposed and that you think they are for some reason is not relevant to whether or not the system would or wouldn’t be better then America’s current system.

It says unitary parliamentary system in the op (not federal parliamentary system). This is to increase the differentiation from the current US presidential system with federalism.

The UK which is a union of four countries, three of which have their own separate parliaments.

Heloin wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
What do you mean?

Federalism and parliamentary politics aren’t in any way opposed and that you think they are for some reason is not relevant to whether or not the system would or wouldn’t be better then America’s current system.

See also Australia.

Heloin wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
It says unitary parliamentary system in the op (not federal parliamentary system). This is to increase the differentiation from the current US presidential system with federalism.

The UK which is a union of four countries, three of which have their own separate parliaments.

Thanks for the info. However, I’d like the USA to have a unitary system in the hypothetical.

Radiatia wrote:I think it would probably be better off, or at least better governed in the short to medium term. Assuming practices like PMQs exist, the adversarial parliamentary system will probably shock a lot of America's politicians out of complacency and see them facing real scrutiny for the first time ever which would be positive.

Of course you'd also end up with a terrible case of tyranny by majority which would lead to massive resentment by anyone living outside of New York or California, where most of the decisions will be made.

How's that?

As such, it probably wouldn't last - in the long term, it would probably balkanise, I can't imagine a country that size lasting long under a centralised system without seeing a major violent uprising in certain parts. Particularly those that already have a history of trying to violently secede...

There's a reason why the UK had to accept devolution for Scotland and Wales and a reason why the Republic of Ireland is no longer part of the UK and a lot of that is down to the resentment that centralisation causes.

Uh, no. Just no.

We become a shit hole.

Ifreann wrote:

Radiatia wrote:I think it would probably be better off, or at least better governed in the short to medium term. Assuming practices like PMQs exist, the adversarial parliamentary system will probably shock a lot of America's politicians out of complacency and see them facing real scrutiny for the first time ever which would be positive.

Of course you'd also end up with a terrible case of tyranny by majority which would lead to massive resentment by anyone living outside of New York or California, where most of the decisions will be made.

How's that?

As such, it probably wouldn't last - in the long term, it would probably balkanise, I can't imagine a country that size lasting long under a centralised system without seeing a major violent uprising in certain parts. Particularly those that already have a history of trying to violently secede...

There's a reason why the UK had to accept devolution for Scotland and Wales and a reason why the Republic of Ireland is no longer part of the UK and a lot of that is down to the resentment that centralisation causes.

Uh, no. Just no.

Care to explain?

Christian Confederation wrote:I'd rather join the American IRA then participate in such an insane form of government.

The Symbionese Liberation Army?

Neon Lunar Eclipse wrote:

Ifreann wrote:How's that?


Uh, no. Just no.

Care to explain?

Not really. Read any amount of Irish, Scottish, or Welsh history.