Which is the better system of governance?
In the US system, the president is independent of the legislature and is instead elected by the people directly.
In the parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is elected by the parliament (the equivalent of congress).
One upside of the parliamentary system is because every political party has a seat at the table in the new government, it's possible to have more than 2 political parties.
A downside however is that the will of the people is scuttled in many cases, as they are presented with leaders whom they themselves did not vote for and would not care to represent them.
>>73766075
Parliamentary, by FAR.
Hurr I vote for delegates who *might or might not* *actually* vote for who I want them to vote for.
WHY NOT JUST COUNT THE VOTES DIRECTLY FOR YOUR CANDIDATE!?
So stupid.
Also, if it's a proportional parliamentary system, there is more representation of all of the voters, i.e. not just the winning party is in power; each party only has as much power (seats) as was given to them proportional to how many votes they received.
Admit it: the American political system is completely and absolutely FUCKED.
Why do so many people in the United States have this sort of...I don't know how to describe it. Worship of the President? They treat him like some sort of God figure that does everything. I really don't get it.
I'm not talking about Obama or any president in particular but just merely the position itself.
>>73766754
The position was initially created for George Washington, who many people wanted to crown King of America. They gave the office quite a lot of power, fully unaware of the coming degeneracy and bullshit of future centuries.
>>73766605
I agree. A parliamentary republic would probably be the best possible system.
>>73767092
You guys should do Federal MMP, like Germany does.
We have MMP here, but we don't have several states.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
>>73767092
>who many people wanted to crown King of America
What in the fuck? Didn't you guys go there in the first place to escape the tyranny of a crown?
>>73766075
US system by far, too much power in one legislative body...come on checks and balances people....plus you'd never have the congress holding a vote to ban someone from the country for saying something they don't like
>>73766605
>Admit it: the American political system is completely and absolutely FUCKED.
The framers got a lot right, but they knew absolutely fuck all about representative voting systems, owing to their life under a monarch.
>>73767262
Many colonials felt a deep loyalty to the Crown and initially just wanted a voice in Parliament. It was only once the Crown told them to fuck off that they started the revolution. Still, the idea of monarchy was abhorrent to all of them. Luckily, Washington told them to drop monarchy, or they would have likely instituted one.
>>73767364
Also this.
>>73767456
*was not abhorrent
>>73767207
Seems pretty legit. One question though: Can you use the two votes on one party?
>>73766075
US system by far. However the US is in the process of forgetting and the rest of the world never learned that Government is best when it is small and limited and doesn't interfere much in people's lives. The US system with all it's checks and balances and procedural hang ups makes it tough to get lots of legislation through at the federal level. This is a good thing because the legislation usually just means a contraction of people's liberties. Because it is impossible for government to do anything that doesn't reduce someone or some groups liberties in some fashion.
Spend federal money "muh programs" you have to raise taxes on other people to pay for it.
Pass environmental law property owners lose the right to do with their property as they please
Pass "civil rights" legislation individuals and businesses lose the right to hire, do business with, or rent to people that chose to do so on their own.
Plus the US system has a strong executive which is useful in dealing with international relations. Well if you have a President who knows what he is doing. Obama is a weak, reactionary imbecile when it comes to foreign relations.
If I could add one thing, I would like to give Congress with a super majority vote the ability to nullify supreme court decisions. Which I believe Canada has.
>>73767262
Not just a crown, but THAT crown.
We were being taxed, with no representation in government to defend our interests and didn't like it.
George Washington could have been an emperor if he wanted to be.
>>73767690
Yes, depending on if they have a representative in your electorate region.
Say you want to vote for Labour. You can give them the party vote, but also vote for the Labour MP in your area, effectively giving them your two votes.
Smaller parties don't have representatives everywhere.
>>73767722
>I would like to give Congress with a super majority vote the ability to nullify supreme court decisions
They have that. It's called the ability to write and pass laws.
And write amendments to the Constitution.
>>73767737
I wonder how different things would be now if he had taken that path
>>73767847
The fact that 3/4 of the states must approve means that the SCOTUS effectively cucks everyone. And the gridlock in Congress doesn't let anything get passed.
>>73767937
>Congress doesn't let anything get passed
>Let's give them a power that can only be used with a Supermajority
Hurrrrrrr
>>73767847
>And write amendments to the Constitution.
Congress on its own can't pass amendments to the constitution. It requires State approval.
And changing laws can't affect a supreme court decision if it is based on a supposed constitutional prohibition of the law.
For example I would have liked the Congress to have been able to nullify the Supreme court Decision in the Obergefell case (which said gay marriage is a constitutional right protected by the 14th ammendment.)
It is utter intellectually dishonest nonsense to believe that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the right to same sex marriage.
It was passed shortly after the civil war and clearly was meant to deal with former slaves to guarantee their rights. That is why when shortly afterwards multiple women sued under the equal protection clause saying they were guaranteed the right to vote, the courts correctly ruled that it did not cover that. And the country in turn did the legally correct thing to rememdy that by passing a later amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.
>>73766075
I think US is better EXCEPT the presidential voting process. Should be proportional, and direct.
>>73768033
refer to this, you autist
>>73768219
>>73768240
It is based on our federal system anon. And technically under the US constitution there is no requirement that the people directly get to vote on who to be president. It is up to each state to determine how it choose it's 'Electors" which is the electoral college members who ultimately cast the votes that determine who is president.
However, clearly no state has decided that it doesn't want its citizens to vote directly for presidential candidates.
The ideal system would be a federal, constitutional, parliamentary, monarchy/republic (could go either way). This is what the Australian system is. Indeed, looking at history and stats it is objectively provable that federalism is superior to unitary states and parliamentary systems are better than presidential. If you look at presidential systems worldwide, every single fucking one bar the US has managed to backslide into a coup, revolution or become a banana republic. And the US is looking more unstable by the day. It pits the executive against the legislature which is usually the cause of coups or civil war/instability in presidential systems. There is a tendency for presidential systems to hollow out and continually erode the powers of the legislature (ie the representative people's branch) in favour of ever increasing executive powers such as presidential executive orders. It can also entrench a badly-performing president for 4 years with no opportunity to get rid of a disliked president until the fixed term ends. In the parliamentary system, if the public turns against a PM, the members of the legislature will all withdraw support for him and elect a new one so they will increase their chances of retaining their electoral district.
>>73768033
>>73768275
I said Congress. That means Congress itself. Not the normal legislative process of vote in congress and signing of the bill into law by the president.
If the president did not have the veto power lots and lots of more legislation would be passed. The veto power gives cover to lots of politicians that would be very pressured to agree to a law, who can then vote for it knowing it will be vetoed by their president.
I would make the nullification power one solely vested in Congress requiring no affirmation of consent by the President.
So if say 60% of both house voted to nullify a supreme court decision it would be nullified.
Do you understand the difference between an action solely performed by congress and one that requires both congress and the President to occur? I didn't think it was very complicated, but perhaps with some effort I can put it into Meme format so you can understand it.
