Senate The Political Science Thread

I said the same not none.

The fact that the President is elected separately from the Legislator does not really mean that there are less separation of powers - they are still elected by their party and still exercise similar powers in practice. And often there is more power vested in the executive in Presidential systems.

Yes. However shouldn't we be talking about specific systems rather broad categories? For instance a Presidential system can essentially be a dictatorship. It's probably helpful to refer to specific systems - in this case I was referring to the Westminster/Washminster system.

And I don't disagree with you.

 

I'm not talking about specific systems because if it happens in the USA, it should not be copy/paste from some other constitution. And I'm talking idealistically too, that can be applied to other countries too, but my point of view here is American.

I'm not sure what you mean in that first point. There is a different relationship between the legislative and the executive in a parliamentary system, in my opinion there definitely seems to be less separation of powers. In a parliamentary system, especially if one came to the USA with our 2-party system, it would mean the same party always controlled both the legislature and the executive at the same time. Especially if combined with a unicameral legislature, based on population, where congressional district line-drawing is done by nonpartisan commissions. Meaning, much less gridlock, and a much better incentive for both parties to be serious about governing (unlike the current GOP). That's what I like about the parliamentary system. I personally go back and forth on this a lot, if gridlock is the lesser evil or not. If switching so much would lead to instability, or lead to a more responsive government that moderates both parties (and I'm really talking about one here, imo). That's a genuine debate.

 

Except the separation of powers is the same - it's just that the legislator and executive are more intertwined which allows for more effective governing. The exact same thing can happen in the Presidential system if the President is from the same party as those who control the Congress - the separation of powers does not actually change however. Only one chamber is always aligned politically with the executive (and even they can rebel) - in other words there is still an organ in each system which can block the executive. They powers are still separated - its just that the executive is formed from one of the legislative bodies. Not only that but the Westminster system also allows for another check upon the Head of Government having too much power - and that's the Head of State.

A unicameral legislator shouldn't even be considered.

 

That's getting too technical. Of course an executive does executive stuff, and a legislator does legislative stuff. Less 'separation of powers', from my American perspective, means more intertwining. The Speaker of the House is the President, while still being able to vote and present legislation directly. That's what I'm talking about.

The Head of State/Government distinction is, in my opinion, entirely useless. It's wasteful. It's too "feel good" while lacking anything substantial. The executive branch should be unitary, like it is in the USA now and has been and should be. (I understand keeping a head of state in governments that still have the traditional monarch, but making that distinction when it wasn't there before is so unproductive and showy.)

Why not unicameral? If the USA ever expanded again, I can see the importance of keeping the Senate. But if things stayed as they are, the Senate should be abolished. It's not democratic. I understand it's not intended to be democratic, it's supposed to be the states' voice. But like I said, I'd like to move from federal to unitary and get rid of states' rights too. Have one clear person in charge of the legislature, and maybe (like I said, I go back and forth on this) that same chief legislator to also be the chief executive and head of state/government.

Then we can have clear accountability. No more blaming Presidents because Congress isn't doing their job. No more gridlock. No more votes just for show. No more one party in one branch holding the rest hostage. Accountability.

DarthPhilosopher

 

Except they are essentially just as intertwined really. If you really wanted them distinct you wouldn't allow them to be aligned with a political party. The fact that the President is elected independently is irrelevant when they are elected by a convention.

It isn't useless. The Head of State, ideally, would be a non-partisan individual elected by the legislator, executive and an electoral council. Their role is largely ceremonial, however they have the ability to dismiss the government and call an election in the instance of a move towards any consolidation of power.

Because a unicameral legislator is ideal for an executive to force through legislation with no oversight from an Upper House.

 

Behavioral Science > PolSci

The U.S. needs a Head of State and a Chancellor more in line with the German system.

 

1. You're not understanding what I'm saying, I think. I edited my last post a few times, please check it, if. you didn't already. I'm talking about the Speaker of the House being combined with the President, with no Senate. One person who leads the executive and sets the agenda and rules for the legislature and can still act as legislator (and would have to have great relationships with the rest of their party in order to get to that point, so more likely to get their legislative agenda passed).

2. That is useless. It's too much of that silly "moderate hero", insubstantial "feel good" nonsense. Elected to do ceremonial stuff, not really involved in the politics. Ugh. Worst of all worlds. Dismissing government and calling elections... why? It's just nonsense. Completely unnecessary. Fine to still have, say, a Queen in the UK, out of tradition (though the monarchy will eventually be phased out of government completely, I'm sure, even if it's not in my lifetime). But not to bring as something new. It would be such a poor fit for the USA in particular too. And it would just further muddle the waters on accountability and responsibility.

3. Why need "oversight" from an "upper house"? And I would like an executive to be able to pass legislation through quickly and effectively. That's what I want. Like I said, I'm still iffy on what I'm talking about in #1, but I usually lean to the benefit outweighing the cost. Let the country see what the GOP getting what it wants really looks like. And then, with a responsive government, it would be quickly remedied. Accountability. (And the GOP would learn they have to actually be interested in governing with sensible policies.)

DarthPhilosopher

 

Alright whatever. I thought we were discussing the separation of powers in the US and UK systems?

Well its effectively what we have in Australia and it's what the Germans have. It depoliticises the Head of State, which it typically a good thing, and it enables a secondary safeguard.

'Let the country see what happens' is a terrible idea. Unicameral chambers are dangerous and enables racial ideas to be passed without being negotiated and compromised.

One of the reasons why your system is so ineffectual is because you don't have compulsory voting.

 

1. Like I said:
"I'm not talking about specific systems because if it happens in the USA, it should not be copy/paste from some other constitution. And I'm talking idealistically too, that can be applied to other countries too, but my point of view here is American."

2. And that seems pointless to me. Like you even seem to admit, it's just "feel good" stuff. People should feel good about their head of government, or throw them out.

3. Racial ideas? I assume you mean radical. And we need radical change to be possible, to have a more responsive and adaptable government for these fast-paced times. Let the GOP win for 2 years, and the person in charge with that party will have complete accountability for everything government does. Then the Democrats will come in, change a lot, but maybe (just maybe) 1 or 2 of the GOP's ideas either actually worked or turned out to be super-popular, so those are left alone. Then the GOP takes it back, find some of the Democrats' ideas were actually super-popular or worked, and leave those alone. Back-and-forth. Then we'd come to a workable middle ground, where the only remaining back-and-forth is either purely ideological (whether government should do it or not) or responding to something that's actually new. The USA is a huge ship, but it should be easier to turn if it's trying to navigate a sea full of icebergs. Besides, the Supreme Court would still protect constitutional rights, and the media acts as a powerful check too, as well as elections of course.

DarthPhilosopher

EDIT: I'd be fine with trying compulsory voting too.

 

Well no, when a country is sharply divided along political lines a non-partisan head of state can be a unifier of sorts. The head of state, in practise, doesn't really have that much power - it simply separates out those limited powers into another person in order to have both a safeguard and a unifier. It doesn't cause disruption to the functioning of government.

Yes, I meant radical.

It's far easier for authoritarian leaders to get their legislation through the Legislator if the legislator only has one chamber - that's just a fact. Given how partisan the media is in the United States and how susceptible you seem to be to authoritarian candidates I wouldn't trust you to have one legislating chamber. Naturally unicameral chambers can work, however they are far more susceptible to authoritarians.

 

1. I understand that. But it doesn't seem worth it, and I don't think it would work in the USA. We will only get more unity after we get more action and see what actually works and what doesn't. It seems like a waste of votes. It muddles accountability even more. Opposing it wouldn't be a fight to the death for me, but I'd really oppose it.

2. They're more susceptible to whoever the leader is, if who the leader is has been clearly established. In other words, they're more likely to get stuff done. If it was Bernie Sanders, and he was elected Speaker/President, then he'd actually be able to get his entire agenda passed. Remember, with what I'm proposing, that person will be vetted by the legislature too.
The majority party would choose, and they wouldn't choose someone they can't work with.
Maybe, maybe, add an extra layer where the legislature's choice would need to be approved by referendum, yes/no, popular vote by the people. But it would still be the legislature that makes the selection.

DarthPhilosopher

 

But what do you loose?

So you're proposing a parliamentary system, with one legislating chamber and who selects a President from their own who is both the Head of State and the Head of Government?

 

Is there any real evidence that you can replace any one system with any other system with positive results rather than it actually happening? When the USA founding fathers chose a democratic republic over a monarchy, they did so for a specific reason. Other dictators overthrow democracies for less altrusitc reasons. But I don't think you can argue there is any one system that is the best for every type of government.

 

ghost's perennial republic of spergia outlines never disappoint

 

1. Clarity, accountability, taxpayer dollars. I don't think Americans would like the idea of a "lazy" "weak" elected official.

2. Yeah I guess. I brought it up in this thread so we could talk more about the merits of unitary versus federal, parliamentary versus presidential, unicameral versus bicameral, etc. The thing I'm most confident in is that a unitary system would be better. But all taken together, I think such a system would be most responsive to the will of the people, and most clear and accountable so the people would know who to hold accountable if things went well or not well. The president will have the power that the people think he/she has, and people would know the real power (at least on domestic policy) lies with Congress and that Congress matters. Also, like I said, while Congress would select the President (probably keep that title even if the job is now more expansive), I also think it would be a good idea if Congress's selection for President then had to be approved by the people by referendum, as a simple yes/no vote. If no wins, Congress has to find someone else.

 

I took a political science class last semester, I don’t think my teacher was that good. We were once talking about political conspiracies and she didn’t know that QAnon was a right wing conspiracy. I got a good grade in the class though and on the end isn’t that what really matters?

 

Likely because it was extremely new, if you had brought up Pizza gate she might have been able to discuss it.

 

Neither did vivec's post about letting the 50 smaller governments that make up the US try other types of political systems, I .e. The recent talk of Texas seceding that has been cropping up lately

 

That would be a **** show. The only way for the US to stay together is if we all follow the same system

 

Not sure where Vivec suggested that the states should all be doing their own thing. He wanted 50 states doing the same thing if the argument was the federal government couldn't because it was too big

 

That's still me suggesting the 50 states should be all doing the same thing but in a smaller scale.

 

And? That's him wanting 50 socialist states.