• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the US switch to a parliamentary system?

Should the US switch to a parliamentary system?

  • Total voters
    32
99percenter said:
Yes? No? Why?
Click to expand...
No, we'd have an even more fractured set of political interests than we do today; just imagine what it would be like trying to form a coalition government in Washington? Where and when there is a clear majority, I think Parliamentary systems concentrate too much power in the hands of the ruling party. Trump, for example, would have controlled both the executive and legislative branches had he a majority and were our system more like that of the UK's.
 
NatMorton said:
No, we'd have an even more fractured set of political interests than we do today; just imagine what it would be like trying to form a coalition government in Washington? Where and when there is a clear majority, I think Parliamentary systems concentrate too much power in the hands of the ruling party. Trump, for example, would have controlled both the executive and legislative branches had he a majority and were our system more like that of the UK's.
Click to expand...
Depends. If trump is just the head of state he would have no power. He would just sign bills. Kind of like the queen of england. If he was prime minister and then yeah that would be a problem. But would trump ever become PM in such a system? Remember the people dont elect the PM directly. Parliament does.
 
99percenter said:
Depends. If trump is just the head of state he would have no power. He would just sign bills. Kind of like the queen of england. If he was prime minister and then yeah that would be a problem. But would trump ever become PM in such a system? Remember the people dont elect the PM directly. Parliament does.
Click to expand...
You're assuming Trump would have run for a powerless office; does that sound like Trump to you?

My hypothetical was Trump as PM in UK-style system.
 
The parliamentary system is top-down. Compromises are made by elites and forced on the people. The US system is bottom-up. Compromises are made by the voter and passed up the system. I prefer bottom-up systems to top-down systems.
 
ecofarm said:
The parliamentary system is top-down. Compromises are made by elites and forced on the people.

The US system is bottom-up. Compromises are made by the voter and passed up the system.

I prefer bottom-up systems to top-down systems.
Click to expand...

How is our system different from the bolded?

Below is 2021 Congressional schedule, red dates are recesses.......

F10B3B5D-D0DE-443F-A487-995118F04B3F.webp
 
Rexedgar said:
How is our system different from the bolded?
Below is 2021 Congressional schedule, red dates are recesses.......
Click to expand...

Political compromise creating political alliance and thus ruling coalition is accomplished by the elites within the Parliamentary system. Joe voter has no influence, whatsoever, in what parties his party chooses to align with. Joe voter might find himself in a coalition that he never had any interest in supporting. His vote can basically be usurped by the elites in their wheeling and dealing and scheming. It's a top-down system.

Political compromise in the US system is accomplished by the voter. An individual looks at two platforms, considers priorities and personal values and comes to a decision about what party they will support. That doesn't change later. Elites don't change the party I voted for into a coalition of people I'd never have anything to do with. In the US system, the voter controls the compromise. It's a bottom-up system.
 
Everyone is welcome for me giving you the strongest US system argument. I don't think it's something anyone could have googled.
 
Parliamentary systems are perfectly fine for long-standing unitary states. Such a system would be terrible for a country that is, at its core, made up of fifty separate countries with extraordinary regional differences that in other situations might have led to complete national break-ups à la the Balkans. Our system allows for stability and peace at the cost of efficiency and ease of governance at the national level.
 
Felis Leo said:
Parliamentary systems are perfectly fine for long-standing unitary states. Such a system would be terrible for a country that is, at its core, made up of fifty separate countries with extraordinary regional differences that in other situations might have led to complete national break-ups à la the Balkans. Our system allows for stability and peace at the cost of efficiency and ease of governance at the national level.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you think we would need a unitary govt. India has a parliamentary system and has a federalist government.
 
Felis Leo said:
Parliamentary systems are perfectly fine for long-standing unitary states. Such a system would be terrible for a country that is, at its core, made up of fifty separate countries with extraordinary regional differences that in other situations might have led to complete national break-ups à la the Balkans. Our system allows for stability and peace at the cost of efficiency and ease of governance at the national level.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure how long the peace and stability will continue. I hope I am wrong.
 
I think some of you are vastly overestimating how often a coalition is needed.
I'm 45 and only once in my lifetime in the UK has a coalition been needed.
It didn't last long and was a disaster for the minor party the Lib Dems (who I vote for) as the first thing they were forced to do was drop the main manifesto pledge they had which was Free university tuition for all.

The US could quite easily switch to a parliamentary system but you'd have to create a new Head of State as the job of PM is slightly different.
The PM has been and can be removed by the party at any time in a vote of no confidence and doesn't have anywhere near the power of a President.

It would be interesting to see a US version of Prime Ministers Questions where opposition (and sometimes even their own party members) MPs can ask tough questions as as far as I know you don't have anything even slightly similar. Our system does give MPs from all parts of the country a chance to bring local issues to the national stage so I think haveing all parts of the US be able to highlight issues would be nice.

Overall I think it would make for a more nuanced politics as you'd end up with more than the 2 main parties and 1 outside bet that has no realistic chance and it would be a chance to get most of the money out of politics.
 
Peter said:
I think some of you are vastly overestimating how often a coalition is needed.
I'm 45 and only once in my lifetime in the UK has a coalition been needed.
It didn't last long and was a disaster for the minor party the Lib Dems (who I vote for) as the first thing they were forced to do was drop the main manifesto pledge they had which was Free university tuition for all.

The US could quite easily switch to a parliamentary system but you'd have to create a new Head of State as the job of PM is slightly different.
The PM has been and can be removed by the party at any time in a vote of no confidence and doesn't have anywhere near the power of a President.

It would be interesting to see a US version of Prime Ministers Questions where opposition (and sometimes even their own party members) MPs can ask tough questions as as far as I know you don't have anything even slightly similar. Our system does give MPs from all parts of the country a chance to bring local issues to the national stage so I think haveing all parts of the US be able to highlight issues would be nice.

Overall I think it would make for a more nuanced politics as you'd end up with more than the 2 main parties and 1 outside bet that has no realistic chance and it would be a chance to get most of the money out of politics.
Click to expand...

Is that not because your system of electing Members of Parliament is a "First-Past-the-Post" system rather than a proportional representation system, therefore allowing the quicker formation of governing majorities rather than coalition-building nightmares like one sees in Israel or Germany?
 
Absolutely, YES.

If you really believe in democracy, then parliamentary government based on a percentage of the vote is the only way to go, and it will also make election rigging harder.

Presently, we choose the lesser of the two evils. Trump? Ugh! Biden? Ugh.

If we had parliamentary government, all parties would have a seat at the table.

There would have to be horse bargaining to form a government.

Just imagine if there were the Dem party, the Pub party, the Sanders party, the AOC party, the BLM party, the White Nationalist party, the Antifa party, etc. A voter could vote with enthusiasm for his/her choice of party.

The prime minister would have take into consideration all points of views; otherwise, a vote of no confidence would end the government.

It was nice dreaming. But it ain't gonna happen.
 
tacomancer said:
Absolutely. Then there would be room for parties for every major point of view and a need to make coalitions instead of coalition parties that nobody really likes.
Click to expand...

Only if it is proportional representation (like that in Israel) versus a first-past-the-post system (like in the UK).
 
ecofarm said:
Political compromise creating political alliance and thus ruling coalition is accomplished by the elites within the Parliamentary system. Joe voter has no influence, whatsoever, in what parties his party chooses to align with. Joe voter might find himself in a coalition that he never had any interest in supporting. His vote can basically be usurped by the elites in their wheeling and dealing and scheming. It's a top-down system.

Political compromise in the US system is accomplished by the voter. An individual looks at two platforms, considers priorities and personal values and comes to a decision about what party they will support. That doesn't change later. Elites don't change the party I voted for into a coalition of people I'd never have anything to do with. In the US system, the voter controls the compromise. It's a bottom-up system.
Click to expand...
What you describe, political compromise and political alliance, is a function of three or more viable parties, not the parliamentary system. In my opinion that's a more important difference between the US system and a parliament, multiple parties.
Was there a viable third party in the US you would see the same political machinations, the same compromises and coalitions that are necessary in a multiple party parliament.
 
ecofarm said:
Political compromise creating political alliance and thus ruling coalition is accomplished by the elites within the Parliamentary system. Joe voter has no influence, whatsoever, in what parties his party chooses to align with. Joe voter might find himself in a coalition that he never had any interest in supporting. His vote can basically be usurped by the elites in their wheeling and dealing and scheming. It's a top-down system.

Political compromise in the US system is accomplished by the voter. An individual looks at two platforms, considers priorities and personal values and comes to a decision about what party they will support. That doesn't change later. Elites don't change the party I voted for into a coalition of people I'd never have anything to do with. In the US system, the voter controls the compromise. It's a bottom-up system.
Click to expand...
How does that change in a parliamentary system? I would still choose my compromises, and expect that representative to stand by their platform. Of course they will have to be flexible, just like in the United States, senators of the same party disagree on certain issues and have to compromise all the time. It would just be those candidates would splinter off into smaller parties than to be disagreeing and voting "against" their party (but really for their constituents)
 
And if it leads to someone like boris in the uk I dont see how it's much better
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom