Contrary to any previous impression I may have given, I'm not terribly fond of either the Democrats or the Republicans, although I hate the later decidedly less. I've heard many people lately talk about the possibility of a third party. After contemplating this possibility I thought, "Why stop at a third party?" I'm not terribly familiar with Parliamentarian government, but it seems like a good idea in theory, it's main weakness being that there is always the potential to have a different president from month to month (which I know many people would have no complaints with anyway).
In a Parliamentarian system, such as great Britain, there are droves of parties. Because none of them ever comprise a majority alone, two or more parties must form a "coalition" to defeat the opposition, forcing them to cooperate and make political compromises in order to get things done. Another possible benefit that I see is that because of the variety of parties, the composition of the parliament would more accurately reflect the viewpoints of their constituents. Like I said, though, this is all "in theory".
Something that may be unique to Britain as well is what they call the House of Lords. Now, to Americans the idea of having a legislative body comprised of a non-elected peerage seems insane, however, I talked to a friend of mine from Scotland about the subject.
"The advantage of having a House of Lords is precisely that the MPs in it are not elected! They aren't influenced by poles and politics because no matter how they vote they cannot be held accountable by the electorate. They make decisions based purely upon what they think is best for the country. In the same way they come from a well educated class, making them even more qualified for the job."
I'm not advocating that we form a House of Lords, but a system in which the legislators don't make their decisions based on political expediency is exactly what the doctor perscribed for this country. What do you think?
We have thousands of parties actually. Thousands.
...
Thousands, seriously. Look it up.
As for switching from congress to parlimentary, it would require drastic change, something Americans are nto likely to do. Secondly, our politicans are very undecidedly corrupt, and therefore would elect more corrupt officials than we could. Hurray for democracy.
Also, the British parliament wears wigs. Gahaahaha...
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
DUDE!! Wigs are COOL!!
But seriously, I know it will never happen. It's just wishful thinking.
And I'm aware that there are many many "political parties", but when they aren't allowed to be included on the ballot it makes you wonder... It doesn't matter how many parties there are, our political structure is such that other parties don't stand a chance. That's not the case in a parliamentarian government.
The problem is that the founding fathers were against political parties when the wrote the constitution (even though they found themselves unwittingly forming political parties later on), so they made no provision for them in the constitution. This has allowed the two major parties in congress to pass bills making it impossible for other parties to win seats.
Some would say that we need drastic change...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Yeah, I know for a fact that in the 2004 elctions, there were about twelve presidential candidates, but we only knew about Bush and Kerry. A lot of these men and women would have been excellent leaders, but they could not get the word out there because they were not linked with the Republicans or Democrats We don't necessarily need a Parliament and a House of Lords, but we definately need a system that is more than bipartisan.
Yes indeed. It's just that there are so many logistic problems with such a transition. One problem is that if we introduce a third party, depending on how conservative or liberal it is, it would split the conservative or liberal vote. Therefore, the minority opinion would receive a plurality of the vote and win the election, even though the majority of Americans might disagree with most of their views. Introducing a third or more parties would take a major overhaul of our current system, and I don't know how that's even possible. Unless, of course, for the first time in history, we hold a national convention to ammend the constitution to promote a multi-party system. Unfortunately, I don't know if there are enough trustworthy and capable men in the country to trust with such a task...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for an evening.
Light a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Agreed Snoopy, at least in our current leadership. The best way you'd find some honest and capable men to do such a job would be to prick them directly out of the Universities of America. However, that would be a daunting task that would cause a lot of bickering on both sides.
The only way this country will change would be a massive coordinated rebellion. But such a large task would require a large number of very passionate and intelligent people, and would require a lot more support from the average American than is currently availiable.
Once the first Amendment is repealed, then we could easily see an overthrowing. But until then, we'll see more of the same political bullshit.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.
I registered specifically to write this lol. Just wanted to point out some misconceptions you seem to have about the British Parliament.
First of all, political coalitions are actually quite rare, as the government of the day almost always has an overall majority in the House of Commons. The last coalition was in the late '70s.
Secondly, the Lords do not make decisions based on what is best for the country; because they do not make decisions at all, in effect. Almost all power resides in the House of Commons, and the House of Lords is nothing more than a rubber stamp, as is the Monarch.
And to the first replier: The British Parliament does not wear wigs.