should the U.S. adopt a multi-party parlimentary system like they have in Europe?

Question

As they have it in Germany and France

Answer 1

(Crazy Cowboyes, we have lots of parties, but none are viable in a winner take all system. If this was a partlimentary system they would all have some sort of representation.)

I say "Yes!" because more people would be represented by government and the corporations that run government now, MIGHT be thwarted because they would be too many parties to pay.

In a parlimentary system of Democracy one party rarely holds a majority becuase there are several VIABLE parties to choose from therefore the party that gets the most votes only gets the right to develop a majority out of the other parties by the percentage of votes each receives.
For instance: In Germany, the Greens are a viable party and have a small number of representatives, but in order for the ruling party to create a governmnet, they must have so many Greens in their government, therefore the Greens have a say in policy. If government ignores a party badly enough, they can resign from government and if it's enough to loose the majority, then either another government must be formed, an dif that can't be done in a timel;y manner, then a new election is held and the ruling party is considered a bit inept not to be able to hold a governmnet together so another party is likely to have a very good chance of taking the lead and having the chance to form a new government.

Much more interesting, more people oriented and people responsive therfefor a step up the ladder of democracy. We should adopt it but big government and big business do not want that as it is harder to control by the elite ruling class.

Answer 2

There are advantages to replacing a Presidential/Congressional system with a Parliamentary system. Primary among them is increased accountability for politicians. By allowing politicians to distance themselves from their own party, a congressional system makes it substantially harder for voters to effectively translate their wishes into policies.

Changing to a parliamentary system does not in and of itself create a multi-party system. Australia has a parliamentary democracy and, currently, only two out of 150 members of parliament are from outside the two main parties (I know, technically the Coalition is not one party, but two, however they act as if one party). In Germany,while there are five parties, two parties control over 75% of the seats.

Furthermore, as the examples of Israel and the old system in Italy demonstrate, a multi-party system can be a prescription for hopeless deadlock with a handful of small parties able to extort concessions well in excess of what their vote totals would justify because they hold the balance of power.

Answer 3

I think people are mistaking "parliamentary" for proportional representation. They are not the same.
Many countries have proportional representation either at a review house level (eg the senate) or in thier primary parliament (like our congress).
One should be careful what you wish for. Having proportional representation usually does lead to more 3rd party candidates - often disproportionately so. In order to get bills passed the major parties usually have to rely heavily on these third parties. The result is special interest groups represented by these parties adding amendments and pork in exchange for passage of the bill.

Answer 4

The parlimentary system does have some advantages. For example it holds politicians responsible after they are voted into office, instead of giving them free reign. However, the endless squabbling makes them seem a little childish and ineffective. I would prefer to reform the election process by getting rid of the lobbyists and eliminating pork barrel spending.

Answer 5

We have a multi party system in the US, its just to what extent they get elected to office.

Green
Libertarians
Socialist
and etc.

Answer 6

Of course.

Answer 7

yes!