What would be the pluses & minuses of the USA changing to a parliamentary legislative system?

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

It seems we could have evicted the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if we had the opportunity to end a term when it was failing rather than allowing it to continue until the Chief Executive cheats on his wife with an intern.

So if we were to switch to a Parliamentary system, what would be the down sides, and a few more of the up sides?

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

Given the current structure, not a lot of change.

Of course, it would require a significant rewrite of the Constitution. But aside from that, things would function pretty much the way they did up to a few years ago. Most of the Executive Branch functions would remain exactly the same under a parliamentary model.

In fact all that would really change is the details of the election process (we'd still have the same general elections, just a different electorial college configuration).

Even the ability to remove the chief executive would probably remain the same, except the Senate could vote 2/3 for Non-Confidence, as opposed to just "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Answer 2

First you HAVE to look up(as usual) how a parliamentary system works - which you obviously haven't done, or you wouldn't be asking this Q.

The system in the USA is so 'convoluted' that it would be impossible to change to a 'parliament' in the true sense.

In a two-party system, there is one winner and one loser.

The winner takes ALL - total control of everything and it's party leader is for all intents and purposes 'king' of everything, as he/she has a 'majority' of the elected seats and can 'push' all and sundry 'bills' through after legitimate debate, but the 'minority' has no chance of defeating the gov't, so everything passes.

There would only be a House of Commons, where EVERY elected person would 'sit' for sessions determined by the Prime Minister, or the actual leader of the 'majority' party. In the USA, even if it were called The House of Representatives, it would mean the same.

THERE WOULD BE NO SENATE AS YOU KNOW IT.

In your present system, you have 435 reps - that would be it !!

Whichever party(Republican or Democratic) has the most 'seats' rules the roost - period !!

Mind you, if there are 'Independants' - quite legal - and the division of 'parliament' is very close, then the independants could hold 'the balance of power' and hold the party with the most seats(the gov't) at bay to some of their wishes, although they would have to 'band together' to do this.

If such a thing were to happen, the gov't would be defeated on a 'non-confidence' motion(these are usually money bills or important legislation that demands confidence from the 'commons').

Then, the 'Prime Minister' would have to dissolve his gov't and call an election - no choice - within a prescribed time.

This process continues ad infinitum, with usually a 5-year mandate for a gov't to sit in power, and then an election MUST be called within this limit.

The 'campaigns' last about 6 weeks to two months, unless the country involved has 'set terms' for its parliament. Then 'campaigning' seems to go on forever.

There are no 'primaries', no 4-year continual debate and counter-debate. You have an election, determine the winner, and start all over again. A party can be gov't in perpetuity if the electorate decides so.

By the way - there is no way to 'bring down' the leader of the gov't, except by his/her own resignation or a loss of confidence in him/her within the party. If this happens, a new leader is chosen by the party and he/she takes over - done deal - ASK TONY BLAIR !!

Also, the 'Federal Gov't' would much more sweeping powers than what consists of the US gov't system. The states would be reduced to getting money from the feds based on need and their own tax system. They would not have the 'independence' they now have by any means.

'Nuff for now. I hope this is a start of a little learning for you folks in the US who really have no idea how such a gov't system works.

Answer 3

you don't think the Brits have the same problems we do??? the problem isn't in the system it's the idiocy of the people who fail to keep up on what's going on and voting ideologies instead of what's best, yes Kerry threw medals that weren't his in Vietnam but at least he showed up as opposed to Bush who's decietfulness got us in this desert quagmire, but he calls himself christian and is pro life and anti gay marriage so he's given a free ride. the best way to make the system work is participation and voting. find your congressman's emails and stay in touch with them, write them letters and call their offices.territories became states and politicians became presidents on one vote so use yours well and if you don't vote shut the hell up.

Vin

Answer 4

one minus would be the USA turning gay.