NationStates Jolt Archive

What are the pros and cons of switching to a parlimentary system of gov't





other than a minority voice actually being worth something

What are the pros and cons of switching to a parlimentary system of gov't





other than a minority voice actually being worth something

I've never heard of a "parlimentary system of gov't". What, pray tell, is it?

What are the pros and cons of switching to a parlimentary system of gov't





other than a minority voice actually being worth something

The minority has no power at all in a parliamentary system.

I don't see why America should change to a new system. The current one has stood for years, has led us through a number of wars, a depression, etc... If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

~ Romandeos.

The minority has no power at all in a parliamentary system.

Untrue. Perhaps in "first across the finish line" electoral types you'd have an ever so slight point, but not in a proportionally elected parliament.

I've never heard of a "parlimentary system of gov't". What, pray tell, is it?
It's where the status of the President (or any kind of chief of state) is ceremonial, and the executive is fully with the gov't.
The minority has no power at all in a parliamentary system.
No, in fact is has more power.

It's where the status of the President (or any kind of chief of state) is ceremonial, and the executive is fully with the gov't.

I consider that a con, because sometimes a snap-decision must be made, and a long debate is likely to place the nation in grave peril.

~ Romandeos.

I consider that a con, because sometimes a snap-decision must be made, and a long debate of any sort will put the nation in peril.

~ Romandeos.
Yes, that's why you have a prime-minister and assigned ministers. Debates are held on the same topics in both systems, but you do not have a virtually iresponsible (to a legislative body) father-figure to "look after you". If a PM abuses his power, it's not a complicated impeachment, you just go through unconfidence votes and to elections.

Yes, that's why you have a prime-minister and assigned ministers. Debates are held on the same topics in both systems, but you do not have a virtually iresponsible (to a legislative body) father-figure to "look after you". If a PM abuses his power, it's not a complicated impeachment, you just go through unconfidence votes and to elections.

I see. Interesting. I suppose my main argument is just that the American system has kept us going okay this long, so I see no reason for a switch.

~ Romandeos.

Untrue. Perhaps in "first across the finish line" electoral types you'd have an ever so slight point, but not in a proportionally elected parliament.

Once a single party has gained a numerical majority of the seats in a parliament, then any minority loses its voice completely, regardless of electoral system. If that's not the case, then you are not talking about a parliament, but something else.

The only reason why minorities seem of have a voice in proportional systems is because there is never a straight majority elected, and so coalitions heave to be formed, thus giving minority interests a stake in government.

No, in fact is has more power.

How's that now?

I see. Interesting. I suppose my main argument is just that the American system has kept us going okay this long, so I see no reason for a switch.

~ Romandeos.
You have some political problems that other countries do not have, and (in my opinion) your political system doesn't deal properly with them.
And also, "keeping going for so long" could be blamed on factors that have nothing to do with politics.

You have some political problems that other countries do not have, and (in my opinion) your political system doesn't deal properly with them.
And also, "keeping going for so long" could be blamed on factors that have nothing to do with politics.

Do you think you could describe these political issues to me, and how you feel we do not deal with them properly?

In addition, may I ask your country of residence?

~ Romandeos.

I see. Interesting. I suppose my main argument is just that the American system has kept us going okay this long, so I see no reason for a switch.

~ Romandeos.

Yeah but that's not a great argument cause monarchies have last much longer.

I like the idea of a parlimentary government, 1) I might feel good about a canidate or two instead of supporting the lesser of two evils. 2) I think it would allow more views to be represented at the highest level of government instead of most importatnt issues being decided along party lines 3) It allows various issues to become un-wed in particular parties. (What is a laise-faire/pro-choice person or a pro-welfare/ pro-life person to do? No one represents them)

How's that now?
For starters: a President that is elected with (let's say) 51% of whomever bothered to vote (in fact, by electors voted by geographical concepts) has powers that no PM ever had.
Secondly: a minority vote gets lost in the elections - is absorbed into a legislative body that is meant to fuse and prioritise concerns, that is opened to influences which nobody can check, and that cannot allow real ideological differences (since somebody elected has to always side with the political middle of a constituency).

Do you think you could describe these political issues to me, and how you feel we do not deal with them properly?

In addition, may I ask your country of residence?

~ Romandeos.
I have discribed them in my answer to Dougal (part of them, at least).
I live in Romania.

Once a single party has gained a numerical majority of the seats in a parliament, then any minority loses its voice completely, regardless of electoral system. If that's not the case, then you are not talking about a parliament, but something else.

That's where constitutions and parliamentary interpellations, with votes of no confidence come in. Not to mention supervisory committees that contain representatives from all parties and politically neutral ombudsmen...

The only reason why minorities seem of have a voice in proportional systems is because there is never a straight majority elected, and so coalitions heave to be formed, thus giving minority interests a stake in government.

Aye, that is but one of the pleasant side-effects of the system.

Don't fix something that isn't broken.

Once a single party has gained a numerical majority of the seats in a parliament, then any minority loses its voice completely, regardless of electoral system. If that's not the case, then you are not talking about a parliament, but something else.

The only reason why minorities seem of have a voice in proportional systems is because there is never a straight majority elected, and so coalitions heave to be formed, thus giving minority interests a stake in government.

Somewhat true, but in many proportional systems (Germany, Ireland, New Zealand etc), it is VERY unusual for a single party to gain a majority of all the seats in the parliamentary body.

Don't fix something that isn't broken.

Indeed. The political system in America may be glitchy, but so is every other government in the land, no exceptions. Even the Roman Empire had political troubles at the peak of their power in the Ancient World.

~ Romandeos.

That's where constitutions and parliamentary interpellations, with votes of no confidence come in. Not to mention supervisory committees that contain representatives from all parties and politically neutral ombudsmen...

But a sucessful vote of no confidence would still require a "split" in the majority; unless it is not a true parliamentary system. For example, can you see a successful vote of no-confidence going against the Blair govenment at the moment, despite the largish groundswell of disatisfaction in the UK in several minority constituencies?

As to supervisory commitees and politically neutral ombudsmen, there is nothing inherent in the parliamentary system itself that requires them to be in place, or for that matter nothing that prevents them from use in other forms of government.


Aye, that is but one of the pleasant side-effects of the system.

True, but that is really more a function of proportional representation, than the parliamentary system itself.

Sorry, I took my time typing post 15 - and it might've been flooded by other messages. Maybe it can contribute to the debate.

Once a single party has gained a numerical majority of the seats in a parliament, then any minority loses its voice completely, regardless of electoral system. If that's not the case, then you are not talking about a parliament, but something else.

The only reason why minorities seem of have a voice in proportional systems is because there is never a straight majority elected, and so coalitions heave to be formed, thus giving minority interests a stake in government.



You are all missing the one big point. We DON'T want minority views to be as powerful, that's the whole damn point of the word MINORITY. I live in America, and I don't want some minority asshole (like the one we have now) trying to take god out of the pledge of allegiance just because 10 other people agree with him. The Majority want it, end of discussion......the other people don't like it, they need to move to a country where they are in the majority---period!!

The Majority want it, end of discussion......the other people don't like it, they need to move to a country where they are in the majority---period!!
That's not how the US works, it isn't a pure democracy.

That's not how the US works, it isn't a pure democracy.
No, he was right (sadly, cause I don't agree with this being good).
What you have, gentlemen, is a Republic (majority ruled by a pre-defined circle, not democracy). You may keep it.

No, he was right (sadly, cause I don't agree with this being good).
What you have, gentlemen, is a Republic (majority ruled by a pre-defined circle, not democracy). You may keep it.

Representative Democratic Republic, actually, in which representatives are elected who share the belief of the majority of those they represent. That's how it is meant to work, anyhow.

~ Romandeos.

No, he was right (sadly, cause I don't agree with this being good).
What you have, gentlemen, is a Republic (majority ruled by a pre-defined circle, not democracy). You may keep it.
And you have a little thing called the Constitution, which you all seem so fond of, which helps stop the majority trampling over the rights of a minority. So, no, it isn't a "majority rules" situation.

For starters: a President that is elected with (let's say) 51% of whomever bothered to vote (in fact, by electors voted by geographical concepts) has powers that no PM ever had.

I don't think you can necessarily make that case. Some PMs - Tony Blair for example - arguably has powers that no US president never had. After all, it's fairly well established that in the UK the Parliament is sovereign, and answers to no-one. So as long as Blair can keep control of his own party, he can pretty much do as he damn well pleases about anything. (I suppose he - Blair - could be impeached, but I wonder how that would work with the House of Lords reforms since 1911 et seq.). And what's more the Tony Blair gets all this without even winning 50% of the popular vote. (Less than 40% in fact if memory serves).

Plus, don't the french seem to do quite well with a president.

You have to remember Bush didn't do all this on his own. He needed people to go along with him, and vote for stuff. (Often democrats).


Secondly: a minority vote gets lost in the elections - is absorbed into a legislative body that is meant to fuse and prioritise concerns, that is opened to influences which nobody can check, and that cannot allow real ideological differences (since somebody elected has to always side with the political middle of a constituency).


If I understand what you are saying, that is any first past the post system.

Representative Democratic Republic.

~ Romandeos.
And Congo is a Democratic Republic, and Nazis were Socialist. I can call my own creation whatever I want, it doesn't mean it's that.
The US is too restrictive in representation to be a democracy - and those who wrote the Constitution did not have democracy on their minds: they considered the state a "Republic".

You are all missing the one big point. We DON'T want minority views to be as powerful, that's the whole damn point of the word MINORITY. I live in America, and I don't want some minority asshole (like the one we have now) trying to take god out of the pledge of allegiance just because 10 other people agree with him. The Majority want it, end of discussion......the other people don't like it, they need to move to a country where they are in the majority---period!!

I don't think that is a fair statment either. If anything, I would say looking at the US constitution with its supermajority requirements, and the US Senate rules on cloture, quite the opposite is true.

Not to mention how difficult it is to amend the Consitution.

I don't think you can necessarily make that case. Some PMs - Tony Blair for example - arguably has powers that no US president never had. After all, it's fairly well established that in the UK the Parliament is sovereign, and answers to no-one. So as long as Blair can keep control of his own party, he can pretty much do as he damn well pleases about anything. (I suppose he - Blair - could be impeached, but I wonder how that would work with the House of Lords reforms since 1911 et seq.). And what's more the Tony Blair gets all this without even winning 50% of the popular vote. (Less than 40% in fact if memory serves).

The point is that Blair doesn't have to be impeached: you have no-confidence votes.
Of course the Parliament is sovereign! That's what a DEMOCRACY is. It answers to the voters (and it is made responsibile for sure).

Plus, don't the french seem to do quite well with a president.

France is a hibrid (so is my country): it's called "semi-presidential". And define "quite well" - it does by most standards (in fact, it's the system they reached after 300 years of trial-and-failure, in which they went through everything).

You have to remember Bush didn't do all this on his own. He needed people to go along with him, and vote for stuff. (Often democrats).

Yes, maybe it was a worst case scenario. For it, the risk is the same. But all the mistakes leading to this are bypassed in a parliamentary system - ther are fewer long-term policies left in charge to the head-of-gov't. Trust me, I live in such a place.

But a sucessful vote of no confidence would still require a "split" in the majority; unless it is not a true parliamentary system. For example, can you see a successful vote of no-confidence going against the Blair govenment at the moment, despite the largish groundswell of disatisfaction in the UK in several minority constituencies?

No, because his party would protect him (unless he was rendered unprotectable). But do you see a vote of no confidence, and the parliamentary interpellations that precede it, come into being at all in a non-parliamentary system. could you see George Bush be forced to answer questions from an MP in the Congress other than in a very unusual setting?

Also, you forget that votes of no confidence can be held against others than the prime minister. We've lost a few ministers that way, even in cases where the government as a whole has had support in parliament.

As to supervisory committees and politically neutral ombudsmen, there is nothing inherent in the parliamentary system itself that requires them to be in place, or for that matter nothing that prevents them from use in other forms of government.

I've yet to see efficient ones directed towards the government occur in any other system.

True, but that is really more a function of proportional representation, than the parliamentary system itself.

A proportional representation would only be valuable in a parliamentary system. In one where the government is independent of parliament it would make no difference.

The point is that Blair doesn't have to be impeached: you have no-confidence votes.
Of course the Parliament is sovereign! That's what a DEMOCRACY is. It answers to the voters (and it is made responsibile for sure).

Well that's exaclty my point though. With less than 40% of the popular vote, Blair has a stanglehold on Parliament. There never will be a successful no-confidence vote -absent him doing something absolutely outre - because his majority is just far too large. So you cannot say that the Parliamentary system affords anymore protection from the abuse of power than any other system.


France is a hibrid (so is my country): it's called "semi-presidential". And define "quite well" - it does by most standards (in fact, it's the system they reached after 300 years of trial-and-failure, in which they went through everything).

By the same token, the US is a hybrid. The Presidency is one of limited powers. And by quite well, I mean you are not pointing to france as a failed system either.


Yes, maybe it was a worst case scenario. For it, the risk is the same. But all the mistakes leading to this are bypassed in a parliamentary system - ther are fewer long-term policies left in charge to the head-of-gov't. Trust me, I live in such a place.

Parliamentary systems can produce the same reasults just as easily. Tony Blair has no problem sending troops overseas whenever he feels like it.

I much prefer America's 3-branch system where no one branch has more or less power than the others. Each has a way of controlling another branch.
executive branch(president and cabinet. largest): Can appoint judges and approve/veto bills.
Judicial branch(judges. smallest): Can rule things unconstitutional, which means certain things can not be done. If it's unconstitutional, it can't be done.
legislative branch(congress):Can propose bills and override vetos. Gives required support to supreme court nominees. Can impeach president. Consists of 100 senators(2 from each state) and many more representatives(the number a state has is based on population. California has around 50 or so while Nevada, my state, has only 3.)
With this system, Bush isn't all powerful and Congress can't get too much powerful.

Why change America's system?

Well that's exaclty my point though. With less than 40% of the popular vote, Blair has a stanglehold on Parliament. There never will be a successful no-confidence vote -absent him doing something absolutely outre - because his majority is just far too large. So you cannot say that the Parliamentary system affords anymore protection from the abuse of power than any other system.
Here's the point: if I have 11% representation, my vote in Parliament is going to be important and accounted for. The Parliament has as much of a stranglehold on Blair, because it can directly regulate policy when it wants to (don't point to this not being the case now - it reflects the opinion of the citizens; even in Britain, which I don't know why you keep refering me to, the Chambers have blocked government policies and even governments.) Not to mention that, in most other places, the executive is formed by coalitions (as representative of specters of opinion in which a minority voice is DECISIVE) - which are WAY MORE important and accountable than lobbying inside a major party (lobbying is illegal in my country, and in many others - there's a major difference).

By the same token, the US is a hybrid. The Presidency is one of limited powers. And by quite well, I mean you are not pointing to france as a failed system either.
The power of the Pres. is limited everywhere. It depends on the point at which this occurs, and on the possibility of the chief of gov't to carry on policies which are not amandeble at any stage.
France is a hybrid because it has both a father-figure (for lack of a better word) President, and a PM (who has important powers). It's not the case in the US.

Parliamentary systems can produce the same reasults just as easily. Tony Blair has no problem sending troops overseas whenever he feels like it.
My point was not about sending troops. Aside from this, America has problems that it cannot deal with properly (see this and my other posts) - that would pont to the benefits of parliamentary systems.

I much prefer America's 3-branch system where no one branch has more or less power than the others. Each has a way of controlling another branch.
executive branch(president and cabinet. largest): Can appoint judges and approve/veto bills.
Judicial branch(judges. smallest): Can rule things unconstitutional, which means certain things can not be done. If it's unconstitutional, it can't be done.
legislative branch(congress):Can propose bills and override vetos. Gives required support to supreme court nominees. Can impeach president. Consists of 100 senators(2 from each state) and many more representatives(the number a state has is based on population. California has around 50 or so while Nevada, my state, has only 3.)
With this system, Bush isn't all powerful and Congress can't get too much powerful.

Why change America's system?
Look: the three-power system is UNIVERSAL(inform yourself) - nobody is talking about changing THAT. We were posting about the powers of the gov't.

No, because his party would protect him (unless he was rendered unprotectable). But do you see a vote of no confidence, and the parliamentary interpellations that precede it, come into being at all in a non-parliamentary system. could you see George Bush be forced to answer questions from an MP in the Congress other than in a very unusual setting?

Okay, there is the question time aspect of a Parliament that is a distinct advantage. And I think that the President should have to answer questions from the house on a regular basis instead of the silly state of the union election rally that is held once a year. There is nothing however, stopping a non-parliamentary system from requiring that of the executive though. Also, congress can, if it wished, intiate congressional inquiries into the actions of the Presidency and if needed appoint a special prosecutor. (Remember Ken Starr).

(And while I can't see George Bush being forced out, remember Richard Nixon.)

Also, you forget that votes of no confidence can be held against others than the prime minister. We've lost a few ministers that way, even in cases where the government as a whole has had support in parliament.

As can impeachment procedings. In fact I believe that is pretty much the only way to remove federal judges from office.

Again, it's more a question of execution than anything inherent in either system.


I've yet to see efficient ones directed towards the government occur in any other system.

Well, off hand I can't think of any either. But there is no theoretical reason why it couldn't work.

A proportional representation would only be valuable in a parliamentary system. In one where the government is independent of parliament it would make no difference.

I could see a lower house elected by PR, an upper house with elected first past the post, and a presidency. As long as the lower house had the power to overide any any veto from the upper house and president in certain cases, and the ability to initiate inquiries into the doings of the other two, it could work quite well.

Here's the point: if I have 11% representation, my vote in Parliament is going to be important and accounted for. The Parliament has as much of a stranglehold on Blair, because it can directly regulate policy when it wants to (don't point to this not being the case now - it reflects the opinion of the citizens; even in Britain, which I don't know why you keep refering me to, the Chambers have blocked government policies and even governments.) Not to mention that, in most other places, the executive is formed by coalitions (as representative of specters of opinion in which a minority voice is DECISIVE) - which are WAY MORE important and accountable than lobbying inside a major party (lobbying is illegal in my country, and in many others - there's a major difference).

Or, you can have 11% of the vote, and not even get a seat in some parliaments. Obviously the UK parliament does not reflect the views of the british public, because if it did the liberal democrats and tories would have a lot more seats.

UK election results (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm)

And chambers haven't blocked any legislation. The lords tried with fox hunting, but the bill was passed by parliament, which overode them.


The power of the Pres. is limited everywhere. It depends on the point at which this occurs, and on the possibility of the chief of gov't to carry on policies which are not amandeble at any stage.
France is a hybrid because it has both a father-figure (for lack of a better word) President, and a PM (who has important powers). It's not the case in the US.

As Bill Clinton found, the two houses of congress can wield quite a great deal of power if they wish. To the point of shutting the government down completely.

My point was not about sending troops. Aside from this, America has problems that it cannot deal with properly (see this and my other posts) - that would pont to the benefits of parliamentary systems.

Or a modification of the existing one. There is nothing absoutely inherent in a parliamentary system per se, that makes it any better than the US style. It is simply a matter of how it is executed.

Since so many of the arguments seem to be based off the idea tha minorities would be better represented in a parliament, let me ask a realistic question.

Why woul you expect anybody but the Rebuplicans and Democrats to suddenly gain any power in the parliamentary system. Third parties will not just spring up from nowhere and become successful. All that would result would be a disintegration of many of the checks and balances that prevent one party from completely dominating.
America couldn't handle the change to a parliament, they would say "So how does this affect the fact that I'm a Republican?" and keep voting party-strait. Just like their parents did.

Or, you can have 11% of the vote, and not even get a seat in some parliaments. Obviously the UK parliament does not reflect the views of the british public, because if it did the liberal democrats and tories would have a lot more seats.
And chambers haven't blocked any legislation. The lords tried with fox hunting, but the bill was passed by parliament, which overode them.
A minority in Congress has NO power (unless it is through lobbying, which is a poor excuse and un-checkable).
If you look throughout the history of Britain, you have instances of gov'ts being sent home.
Yes, the Parliament can override - because it is VOTED (I see no better way of insuring citizens' interests). The seats reflect the options of the public, no matter how the basis may be established - more or less; in the US, the compromises that lead to a gov't being formed are the ones that insure somebody is elected in Parliament, so all policies belong to the middle (ultimately, to the establishment), and a party that only runs or has won in a few constituencies has no chance in hell of having an important vote (less and less, if you consider how much of the policies are in the charge of the President - who, by the way, is still in office no matter what the results of the popular vote are for representatives elected for 2-year terms).

As Bill Clinton found, the two houses of congress can wield quite a great deal of power if they wish. To the point of shutting the government down completely.
Yes, I know. But what is a once-in-while thing in the US is common in other systems (yes, you're right: less so in England, but only for special circumstances). That is because the policies of an executive are not only kept in check, they are THE RESULT of compromise.

Or a modification of the existing one. There is nothing absoutely inherent in a parliamentary system per se, that makes it any better than the US style. It is simply a matter of how it is executed.
Again: the influence of un-checked intersts in the US is higher than anywhere. The parliamentary system ensures that all voices are out in the open, that all of them run in elections.

I am at odds with Birtain's parliamentary system, where the majority party in turn chooses the prime minister (theoretically having an independently elected prez is a check&balance). And then the power to arbitrarily call for elections.... the only change I'd make to our system is change everything to a "preferential vote" system (more on it later).

A parliamentary system is unstable, and it threatens to add too much politicking into politics. Maybe it's a clash of values, but I really value efficiency, and while I love the idea of a democratic government, the ultrademocratic parliamentary systems create stagnation.

Since so many of the arguments seem to be based off the idea tha minorities would be better represented in a parliament, let me ask a realistic question.

Why woul you expect anybody but the Rebuplicans and Democrats to suddenly gain any power in the parliamentary system. Third parties will not just spring up from nowhere and become successful. All that would result would be a disintegration of many of the checks and balances that prevent one party from completely dominating.
America couldn't handle the change to a parliament, they would say "So how does this affect the fact that I'm a Republican?" and keep voting party-strait. Just like their parents did.

I can't comment on the specifics of the US system, but if you chnge to a proportional representation, third parties do become more powerful. If you have a two-party system, third parties are seen as a wasted vote but under PR the main parties tend to be able to form majorities and need to form coalitions with small parties. We just had an election in NZ and both main parties received 40%. Votes for small parties were not wasted because the small parties will influence the government in the end. If one of the large parties becomes unpopular its votes get swallowed up by small parties, which resulted in our National party only receiving around 20% of the vote in the last election.

What are the pros and cons of switching to a parlimentary system of gov't





other than a minority voice actually being worth something

There are NO pros. Only a legion of cons. We simply need to get back into the same mindset Revolutionary leaders had of the government. Wary, suspicious, and fiercly independent of the government.

Switching to a system we have no concept how to use is pointless. Leave it to the royals.