Short form: the English Civil War
The English civil war in the middle of the 17th century was about where the power would like: With the executive (king)? Or the Legislature (parliament)? So, as I said, the system is pretty simple and easy for the US to "adopt".
It just comes from the admission that the power to run the government, as in making laws and that lies in the legislature. The legislature is the body which is the closest to the people. This is why I like it.
It's easier for a third party to gain traction locally than nationally: especially with the current duopoly in power. Likewise, having a true multi-party democracy will require that there are compromises. This is in contrast to the ultra-partisan bullshit in the US. Coalitions need to be formed.
Or a new election is called.
Sure, this may show up the US for the disunited states that it actually is, but those would be better teething pains than what is happening now.
The executive does what it should do: run things. It's the career civil service who administer the government.
And the courts can do what courts should do: decide legal cases like umpires in a game.
As the mans says: "democracy needs policies. And it needs effective policies."
Not the "partisan" bullshit that is going on the the US.
The United State is locked in partisan nonsense and needs to get parties which actually represent the people. The only way that will happen is on a local basis, where the duopoly have less control. The non-duopoly parties begin to "infect" the legislature, which is where the real change comes.
I was pleasantly surprised when Doggone told me that Antonin Scalia agreed with me about the parliamentary system.
I don't like it because of Westminster. I like it because the power is where it belongs: in the lesiglature. Additionally, because of that, there is an absolute necessity for political cooperation.
One needs to come up with a consensus for a parliamentary system to work. The government literally falls if there can't be a consensus, which is why it is necessary. A lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion.
Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all "money bills" are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business".[1]
When a loss of supply occurs, a prime minister is generally required either by constitutional convention or by explicit constitutional instruction to either resign immediately or seek a parliamentary dissolution.
Some constitutions, however, do not allow the option of parliamentary dissolution but rather require the government to be dissolved or to resign.
Given how many budget crises happen in the US, it would probably go through governments like Italy or Belgium until the teething period was over. On the other hand, digging in on the budget would make it clear where the real power lies in government.
The presence of third parties would ensure that there was a way to gain consensus, or withhold it to bring the government more in line with the will of the people. There's a reason why the duopoly do everything they can to keep the power to themselves.
I don't have any illusions about some of the reforms which would be nice to see in US politics since Europe has them and people like Marine Le Pen are prominent in politics. On the other hand, there is a far better representation of political viewpoints in Europe than the One Party-Duopoly United States.
There's a reason I don't like discussing politics with Americans: they are worse than people who lived behind the Iron Curtain in how badly they are propagandised.
There needs to be a real free market of ideas, which isn't happening in the US.
I've been wanting to write this for a long time, but haven't. Current events are pushing me to point out the reality of the US political system.
Despite the founders intent of three separate branches and checks and balances: The real power is in the legislature
De facto describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws. De jure is according to the law.
Law does not always reflect the reality.
The reasons I say that the US is a de facto parliamentary system should be obvious, but most people are distracted by the president that they miss the body with any real power is the legislature. The legislature holds the power of the purse, among many others that make it the strongest and most powerful branch..
The failure to pass a budget in any true parliamentary democracy would lead to automatic dissolution of the government. This is due to the concept of "loss of supply":
A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all "money bills" are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business".
When a loss of supply occurs, a prime minister is generally required either by constitutional convention or by explicit constitutional instruction to either resign immediately or seek a parliamentary dissolution.
Some constitutions, however, do not allow the option of parliamentary dissolution but rather require the government to be dissolved or to resign.
The US system has specified term limits, which is one way that dissolution of government resulting in new elections can be prevented. On the other hand, the US government could conceivably go into a prolonged budget crisis and government shutdown. That's one reason that US Budget crises tend to be short.
On the other hand, if one party really didn't like the other one. The budget crisis could last until the end of the legislative session.
Next reason why the US is actually parliamentary is that the legislature can remove the executive. While the criterion for doing this is "high crimes and misdemeanours": the reality is that it can be for frivolous reasons if one political party dislikes the executive of the other party. While the criterion is "high crimes and misdemeanours", the reality is that the process is blatantly political. That is because other executives have engages in "high crimes and misdemeanours" by violation of international law (e.g., illegal war) with little or no consequences.
On the other hand, don't lie about blowjobs.
Not sure where this comes into the strength of the argument, but the legislature offers the best place for representing the people. The legislature is directly elected and proportional to the population (at least in the house of representatives). On the other hand, it is one place where alternative parties can have a voice.
The president is not a directly elected, which is another place the legislature has control over that office. In a way, the current situation is like the English Civil War where the question was which body had the power: the monarch or the legislature?
The legislature (parliament) won the battle.
Those of us who feel the current system is not representative should put our efforts into getting alternative parties into congress: not being hopeful that either party will change. Tip O'Neill said "all politics are local".
Realising that the real power in the US is in the legislature is the beginning of the battle to bring about a change in US politics.
