What is so much better about parliamentary systems over America's Congress?

[Ulyaoth]

I constantly see people bickering that parliamentary systems like Britain's are more democratic, free, and civilized than the Congress, and that having more than 2 popular parties in America is impossible and if we ever want to get out of the republican/democrat chokehold on power in this country we'd need to have a parliamentary system because somehow there's some fine print in the constitution that apparently bans more than 2 parties vying for power and holding it in this country, since everyone always tells me its impossible because of our system, not because of culture. Please, enlighten me.

[Dr. Croccer]

Because Congress is largely filled with the same old WASP mummies that we've seen for over 20 years already and filled with cronyism and corruption between two different shades of grey Rightism, whilst most European parlements consist out of very different parties and leaders with very little relation with eachother apart from the occasional coalition.

[Ulyaoth]

That's culture, not the system. If Americans weren't convinced that voting for a third party for anything was wasting their vote, we'd have many more parties. Also, stop with the stupid claim that both main American parties are near fascist. You might not be saying that, but I've seen plenty of Europeans telling me that both American parties would be considered Fascists in Europe. If Europe consider the center far right, that's Europe's problem, not ours.

[Dr. Croccer]

That's culture, not the system. If Americans weren't convinced that voting for a third party for anything was wasting their vote, we'd have many more parties.

Perhaps people would vote for more parties if American politics weren't divided between Republicans and Democrats.

Also, stop with the stupid claim that both main American parties are near fascist. You might not be saying that, but I've seen plenty of Europeans telling me that both American parties would be considered Fascists in Europe. If Europe consider the center far right, that's Europe's problem, not ours.

...? Where did I mention Fascism? Calm down.

Like Italy, everyone knows Berlusconi, but who knows the president? One thing I do like though is the whole, you hate the government, it gets dissolved and you reelect good people, like what Italy did a while ago, although I can see how that can get kind of chaotic maybe.

Italy is a bad example, it's extremely corrupt so demagoges like Berlusconi, who control vast swathes of for example the media can get into power again and again. A better example are Norway and the Netherlands, in which the monarchy often are the ones who make the final agreements with other countries, with the PM being more of a diplomat in these cases of foreign diplomacy.

[The Dude]

That's culture, not the system. If Americans weren't convinced that voting for a third party for anything was wasting their vote, we'd have many more parties. Also, stop with the stupid claim that both main American parties are near fascist. You might not be saying that, but I've seen plenty of Europeans telling me that both American parties would be considered Fascists in Europe. If Europe consider the center far right, that's Europe's problem, not ours.

It has nothing to do with fascism. The simple fact is that in the European political spectrum, our left doesn't step at center-right, like America's democratic party does.

The democrats would pass for center right, maybe center in Europe. We have parties red as blood who get a lot of support.

In a sense that -is- more democratic, because if said parties would express their opinions in America, it would almost be equal to driving through Alabama with a sign saying "I'm black and atheist".

[Farnan]

In a sense that -is- more democratic.

No it isn't....

Democracies represent the people and the people fit within that range.

Oh yea, if you drive through Alabama saying your Black and Atheist NO ONE would care and would think your weird for yelling that. Seeing that Obama got about 40% of the vote there.

[The Dude]

No it isn't....

Democracies represent the people and the people fit within that range.

I suppose. But I would argue that most voters in America today were alive during the red scare, and thus there's a large taboo on leftist thinking. I'm not sure how anti-socialist propaganda is democratic in any way.

Oh yea, if you drive through Alabama saying your Black and Atheist NO ONE would care and would think your weird for yelling that. Seeing that Obama got about 40% of the vote there.

Oh it's just that I recalled a certain top gear episode where they did exactly this Or did they pretend to be homosexual? I'm not sure which it was. At any rate, there were plenty angry rednecks.

[Farnan]

I suppose. But I would argue that most voters in America today were alive during the red scare, and thus there's a large taboo on leftist thinking. I'm not sure how anti-socialist propaganda is democratic in any way.

When private citizens say it it is extremely democratic...

And most American votes are not in their 70s (old enough to have remembered the Red Scare)

Oh it's just that I recalled a certain top gear episode where they did exactly this

And you don't think they just chose footage that was funny?

[Shrapnel]

The benefit is that with a parliamentary system the Head of State and the Head of Government are separate allowing the former to concentrate on the ceremonial aspects of officer and the latter on actually governing the country whereas a congressional system means that the executive is often stuck doing goodwill visits etc. when he should be focusing on his job. You could argue that Constitutional Monarchy is an even greater development as it enables several people of high importance who have been trained from a young age specifically for that task to represent the nation abroad, but we won't go into that here since we'll just get bogged down in Republics vs Monarchies. A Congressional system also means that the President often does not rely on public opinion to continue doing his job, for example if Gordon Brown currently had a 22% approval rating (such as President Bush did when he left office) then he would have to resign as he would clearly not be supported by the majority of the country. That's the theory anyway. However, there is one thing that I admire about the US political system - that is people who are not members of congress/the senate can become cabinet members and so most of them will be at the top of their profession or industry and as such will have massive experience of their role. This contrasts with the Westminster system of parliament where you have to be an MP to hold any sort of office.

[Ulyaoth]

Well, how's that work since it seems the PMs always do the trips anyway, and that the presidents aren't even know and do nothing at all. Like Italy, everyone knows Berlusconi, but who knows the president? One thing I do like though is the whole, you hate the government, it gets dissolved and you reelect good people, like what Italy did a while ago, although I can see how that can get kind of chaotic maybe.

[Boer]

One major reason more than two parties are able to survive in parliamentary systems is they (often/usually) have proportional representation.

In proportional representation a party's percentage of seats in legislature equals its share of the popular vote. This lets a smaller party getting 25% of the national vote pick up 25% of the seats.

In the American system we have district/state elections with one seat going to the winner of each election. Because of this minor/3rd parties are usually unable to win seats unless they are a sectional party (like the Dixiecrats) and run a campaign on local issues making no attempt to win country wide support. A party with 25% of the vote spread evenly throughout the country would have no seats in congress. Theoretically a party could get 49% of the votes in every district (there fore 49% of the total votes), yet have no seats (or, for president, 49% of the popular vote in each state and no electoral votes).

[Ulyaoth]

That was the great compromise of the constitutional convention. The southern states who at the time had larger populations(counting the 3/5 of slaves) wanted a population based legislature. New Jersey representing the smaller pop northern states, wanted a system where each state got the same amount of reps regardless of size. They decided to settle on what we have now, 2 houses, one based on population, the other simply a set number given to each state.

One major reason more than two parties are able to survive in parliamentary systems is they (often/usually) have proportional representation.

In proportional representation a party's percentage of seats in legislature equals its share of the popular vote. This lets a smaller party getting 25% of the national vote pick up 25% of the seats.

In the American system we have district/state elections with one seat going to the winner of each election. Because of this minor/3rd parties are usually unable to win seats unless they are a sectional party (like the Dixiecrats) and run a campaign on local issues making no attempt to win country wide support. A party with 25% of the vote spread evenly throughout the country would have no seats in congress. Theoretically a party could get 49% of the votes in every district (there fore 49% of the total votes), yet have no seats (or, for president, 49% of the popular vote in each state and no electoral votes).

Well that does kinda make sense, but still, the point of our system is to be locally responsible to your constituents, to the people you represent. if we did the congressional elections on a national level, the representatives wouldn't really have the local responsibility to hold them accountable to represent their constituents' views.

[Каие]

I think what they mean is how every state gets 2 senators, California with 36,000,000 people get 2, and Wyoming gets 2.

[Dr. Croccer]

I think what they mean is how every state gets 2 senators, California with 36,000,000 people get 2, and Wyoming gets 2.

Wow. That's kinda ed up. So Nevada, with it's around 2 million inhabitants, gets the same amount of senators as New York, with nearly ten times as much inhabitants?

[Blau&Gruen]

I think what they mean is how every state gets 2 senators, California with 36,000,000 people get 2, and Wyoming gets 2.

But that is because of the federal element in the constitution. It serves as a counter-weight to the major chamber. Basically, it is a good thing to balance out the sometimes diverge interests between the states and the State.

[bushbush]

But that is because of the federal element in the constitution. It serves as a counter-weight to the major chamber. Basically, it is a good thing to balance out the sometimes diverge interests between the states and the State.

perhaps...but it surely just adds to the inefficiency of the system lol

[Farnan]

perhaps...but it surely just adds to the inefficiency of the system lol

Not really...

[Blau&Gruen]

perhaps...but it surely just adds to the inefficiency of the system lol

On the other hand experience shows that efficency can turn out to be inefficient when citzens lose interest in public affairs because their voice remains unheart and politics take place somewhere else but not close to them. A society or a political system which is built up from the bottom to the top might be more expensive, less efficent on the first eye-catch but in the long run I would believe it is more efficent and more human.

[Каие]

Well we only have one house which is elected, and is based on population constituencies, 65,000 average per constituency. But the British system is not more democratic than the American one.

[conon394]

Well we only have one house which is elected, and is based on population constituencies, 65,000 average per constituency. But the British system is not more democratic than the American one.

Personally however I think you just pointed out one area where the UK is better. Unfortunately the US constitution sets the number of house members – so over time each one represents more and more people (as the US population as grown). If the constitution had rather set a ratio of voters to each member it would be far larger and probably bring in more diversity of opinion.