If the U.S. switched to the same government system as the UK...

[Blue3]

Let's say the U.S. switched in 2017 to the same government system as the UK... a unitary, parliamentary system without a constitution.

(Except there's no King/Queen, the Prime Minister would just be head of state, and there would be no House of Lords, and no form of nobility/titles at all).


1. What would change immediately?

2. Who would likely be the first few Prime Ministers?

3. What would change over the new few years/decades?

4. What things would get better?

5. What things would get worse?

[Angrie]

Let's say the U.S. switched in 2017 to the same government system as the UK... a unitary, parliamentary system without a constitution.

(Except there's no King/Queen, the Prime Minister would just be head of state, and there would be no House of Lords, and no form of nobility/titles at all).

Nice thread and questions!

First of all, over the long run this would be a very good thing for the US. The current system is simply not capable of delivering functional government with the degree of ideological and partisan polarization that has developed. There is no realistic prospect of lessening that polarization, so barring major change such as that you are proposing, American government seems likely to remain at a similarly high, or maybe even higher, level of dysfunction as that which has existed since 2010.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

America would be saved from the Hobson's choice between Hillary (lesser evil) and Trump (greater evil).

Since you don't specify exactly how the transition to this new form of government takes place, I presume that either Obama instantaneously becomes PM with a parliamentary majority, or there is some sort of transition period leading to an election under the new system. Obama runs for PM, from some safe parliamentary seat in Illinois, and wins. There would be much gnashing of teeth from the far right and Alex Jones about this, claiming that Obama is a "dictator."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama would be the first Prime Minister. Since one can remain prime minister indefinitely, Obama would remain PM for the foreseeable future, until the Republicans got their act together or until he substantially overreached.

He would remain PM until he lost a no-confidence vote/election. Since parliamentary leaders are chosen by MPs, Paul Ryan would be the initial Republican leader. The next government would eventually be formed under Paul Ryan as PM.

McConnell and Kevin Mcarthy would be candidates for future GOP PMs and Pelosi and Schumer would be candidates for future Dem PMs. Obviously this would lead to candidates with legislative pull becoming PM much more than the US would be used to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Initially, there would be some fairly wild policy swings. This is because the American political parties, politicians, and voters are not used to a parliamentary system. The entire political apparatus and political climate is built around the supposition that nobody can actually really implement their policy agenda, because the checks and balances are too great. Because the checks and balances are so strong that they prevent anything notable from actually happening except in limited periods when one party holds the Trifecta, parties have a much lesser incentive to moderate themselves internally.

So initially, Obama would move to implement his agenda that he and Democrats have been running on. First and foremost, he would pursue comprehensive immigration reform, climate change legislation, reproductive rights legislation, some moderate gun control, etc. We would get Obama's budget with higher taxes on the wealthy. Campaign finance and voting rights legislation would either not be necessary in the new system, or would follow.

The main difficulty Obama would face in doing this is that he would face some internal opposition from both the right and left wings of the Democratic party. Individual legislators would be used to being able to vote however they want, rather than supporting the party even if they personally disagree (as is customary in parliamentary systems). So the legislative process of implementing these new policies would be similar to that of implementing Obamacare in the House, without the added difficulty of getting it through the Senate.

Ryan and the GOP would obviously strenuously object to all this, but have no way to stop it until there was a new election. Fortunately for them, however, this would be too much change too fast. Eventually, the cumulative effect of all this would be that larger and larger segments of the public would view it as overreach by Obama. He would either eventually be unable to get further legislation through because of an internal revolt from either the right or left of his own party, or eventually the next election would be scheduled.

Then Ryan would win the next election. He would take this as a mandate for large scale change, and would pursue the basic agenda that Republicans have been running on for a long time. We would get the Ryan budget, with massive tax cuts and spending cuts. Obamacare would be abolished, social security would be privatized, abortion would be banned, etc. The main obstacle for Ryan would be Tea Party revolts, though there is also the lesser possibility that he could face a revolt from the left of the GOP after taking things too far. This would eventually add up to be similarly perceived as overreach by Ryan.

This dramatic swing back and forth might continue for another election or two. However, the parties would eventually adapt to the new system, and would moderate themselves in order to try to stay in power, rather than being quickly booted from power after implementing too ambitious of an agenda. The general consensus policies would eventually become clear, and the parties would coalesce around those, calling for smaller changes around the edge of the broad consensus.

In the initial elections, third parties might do better than usual because voters would not be used to the new electoral system. But with a first past the post electoral system as in the UK, I expect we would emerge with two main parties (D and R), despite the relative abundance of parties in the UK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be possible to have a functioning government. We would have coherent policy responses to the major issues that face the country. After the initial tumult, these policy responses would settle around a broad consensus. The political parties would then adapt and pursue more minor changes around those consensuses, along with new policies towards new issues and challenges that arise. There would remain the possibility for larger changes in response to breakdowns and failures, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The sharp swings in policy initially and the fact that people would not be used to a parliamentary system would cause a lot of disorder and unrest.

[Gary J]

A Parliamentary system in the US might not work as it does in the UK. It is possible for parliaments to work with no organised party system (British colonies like New Zealand in much of the 19th century) or a very fragmented or factionalised party system (the French 3rd and 4th Republics or the Italian Republic before the Christian Democrats imploded).
I suspect that without the glue of needing unity to win Presidential elections, cross regional party cohesion would break down in the US or at least that American politicians would not have the discipline to work together reliably. This would lead to weak and shifting ministries, with frequent changes of Prime Minister, as motions of no confidence would be common and there would be no expectation that a general election would produce a more stable parliamentary majority.
This would presumably lead eventually to a De Gaulle or Berlusconi type figure who would propose going back to the old Presidential/Congressional model where at least someone could be identified as being in charge.

[RightBehind]

Our politics would be even uglier. Could you imagine having PMQs between the Dems and Republicans in this country?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Remember that it isn't necessarily a good thing having legislation easier to pass. For every good bill that passes, a bad one might pass as well.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

the same system as the UK? Would that impact on the nature of federalism or that Parliament is overwhelmingly sovereign (i.e. Judicial review is largely rendered irrelevant)?

Also, I'm pretty sure (unless you want to design the South African system) you would want both a ceremonial president and an executive PM.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Screw the UK though, what if the U.S. Adopted the Swiss system! That would be fun.

[Higgs]

the same system as the UK? Would that impact on the nature of federalism or that Parliament is overwhelmingly sovereign (i.e. Judicial review is largely rendered irrelevant)?

Also, I'm pretty sure (unless you want to design the South African system) you would want both a ceremonial president and an executive PM.

What is the purpose of the ceremonial president?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

would we just be reüsing the current congressional districts as parliamentary boroughs? because this would be even worse than the current system, in that case.

[Angrie]

would we just be reüsing the current congressional districts as parliamentary boroughs? because this would be even worse than the current system, in that case.

I am a fan not only of the gratuitous umlaut, but also of the general sentiment of the post. My presumption would be that if the US switched to the same governmental system as the UK, that would also imply switching to the same independent non-partisan redistricting system, in which the districts are generally reasonably reflective and representative of the country as a whole.

[Kingpoleon]

I think Biden and Durbin would probably become PM front runners, as they are well known as legislative deal makers.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well with the current state of US politics I think you'd all become horribly familiar with the words 'vote of no confidence' very, very quickly...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Most important question: who would be most likely to serve as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Beltway?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

They would also make Trump Lord Privy Seal, so he can have a fancy title without actual responsibilities.

[Blue3]

Let's say the U.S. switched in 2017 to the same government system as the UK... a unitary, parliamentary system without a constitution.

(Except there's no King/Queen, the Prime Minister would just be head of state, and there would be no House of Lords, and no form of nobility/titles at all).

Nice thread and questions!

First of all, over the long run this would be a very good thing for the US. The current system is simply not capable of delivering functional government with the degree of ideological and partisan polarization that has developed. There is no realistic prospect of lessening that polarization, so barring major change such as that you are proposing, American government seems likely to remain at a similarly high, or maybe even higher, level of dysfunction as that which has existed since 2010.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

America would be saved from the Hobson's choice between Hillary (lesser evil) and Trump (greater evil).

Since you don't specify exactly how the transition to this new form of government takes place, I presume that either Obama instantaneously becomes PM with a parliamentary majority, or there is some sort of transition period leading to an election under the new system. Obama runs for PM, from some safe parliamentary seat in Illinois, and wins. There would be much gnashing of teeth from the far right and Alex Jones about this, claiming that Obama is a "dictator."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama would be the first Prime Minister. Since one can remain prime minister indefinitely, Obama would remain PM for the foreseeable future, until the Republicans got their act together or until he substantially overreached.

He would remain PM until he lost a no-confidence vote/election. Since parliamentary leaders are chosen by MPs, Paul Ryan would be the initial Republican leader. The next government would eventually be formed under Paul Ryan as PM.

McConnell and Kevin Mcarthy would be candidates for future GOP PMs and Pelosi and Schumer would be candidates for future Dem PMs. Obviously this would lead to candidates with legislative pull becoming PM much more than the US would be used to.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Initially, there would be some fairly wild policy swings. This is because the American political parties, politicians, and voters are not used to a parliamentary system. The entire political apparatus and political climate is built around the supposition that nobody can actually really implement their policy agenda, because the checks and balances are too great. Because the checks and balances are so strong that they prevent anything notable from actually happening except in limited periods when one party holds the Trifecta, parties have a much lesser incentive to moderate themselves internally.

So initially, Obama would move to implement his agenda that he and Democrats have been running on. First and foremost, he would pursue comprehensive immigration reform, climate change legislation, reproductive rights legislation, some moderate gun control, etc. We would get Obama's budget with higher taxes on the wealthy. Campaign finance and voting rights legislation would either not be necessary in the new system, or would follow.

The main difficulty Obama would face in doing this is that he would face some internal opposition from both the right and left wings of the Democratic party. Individual legislators would be used to being able to vote however they want, rather than supporting the party even if they personally disagree (as is customary in parliamentary systems). So the legislative process of implementing these new policies would be similar to that of implementing Obamacare in the House, without the added difficulty of getting it through the Senate.

Ryan and the GOP would obviously strenuously object to all this, but have no way to stop it until there was a new election. Fortunately for them, however, this would be too much change too fast. Eventually, the cumulative effect of all this would be that larger and larger segments of the public would view it as overreach by Obama. He would either eventually be unable to get further legislation through because of an internal revolt from either the right or left of his own party, or eventually the next election would be scheduled.

Then Ryan would win the next election. He would take this as a mandate for large scale change, and would pursue the basic agenda that Republicans have been running on for a long time. We would get the Ryan budget, with massive tax cuts and spending cuts. Obamacare would be abolished, social security would be privatized, abortion would be banned, etc. The main obstacle for Ryan would be Tea Party revolts, though there is also the lesser possibility that he could face a revolt from the left of the GOP after taking things too far. This would eventually add up to be similarly perceived as overreach by Ryan.

This dramatic swing back and forth might continue for another election or two. However, the parties would eventually adapt to the new system, and would moderate themselves in order to try to stay in power, rather than being quickly booted from power after implementing too ambitious of an agenda. The general consensus policies would eventually become clear, and the parties would coalesce around those, calling for smaller changes around the edge of the broad consensus.

In the initial elections, third parties might do better than usual because voters would not be used to the new electoral system. But with a first past the post electoral system as in the UK, I expect we would emerge with two main parties (D and R), despite the relative abundance of parties in the UK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be possible to have a functioning government. We would have coherent policy responses to the major issues that face the country. After the initial tumult, these policy responses would settle around a broad consensus. The political parties would then adapt and pursue more minor changes around those consensuses, along with new policies towards new issues and challenges that arise. There would remain the possibility for larger changes in response to breakdowns and failures, however.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The sharp swings in policy initially and the fact that people would not be used to a parliamentary system would cause a lot of disorder and unrest.

Great post! Pretty close to my own thoughts, but I don't think Obama would be elected Prime Minister.

A Parliamentary system in the US might not work as it does in the UK. It is possible for parliaments to work with no organised party system (British colonies like New Zealand in much of the 19th century) or a very fragmented or factionalised party system (the French 3rd and 4th Republics or the Italian Republic before the Christian Democrats imploded).
I suspect that without the glue of needing unity to win Presidential elections, cross regional party cohesion would break down in the US or at least that American politicians would not have the discipline to work together reliably. This would lead to weak and shifting ministries, with frequent changes of Prime Minister, as motions of no confidence would be common and there would be no expectation that a general election would produce a more stable parliamentary majority.
This would presumably lead eventually to a De Gaulle or Berlusconi type figure who would propose going back to the old Presidential/Congressional model where at least someone could be identified as being in charge..

But this would make someone more identifiable as being the person "in charge." Right now people blame the President for Congress's faillings. This would restore accountability and clarity. One, unicameral legislature, led by someone who has the powers of the Speaker and President combined, who's head of state and head of government.

the same system as the UK? Would that impact on the nature of federalism or that Parliament is overwhelmingly sovereign (i.e. Judicial review is largely rendered irrelevant)?



Also, I'm pretty sure (unless you want to design the South African system) you would want both a ceremonial president and an executive PM.

Yes, see the first post.

And having a ceremonial president is pointless, that would confuse accountability even more, the opposite of the point of this.

Our politics would be even uglier. Could you imagine having PMQs between the Dems and Republicans in this country?

We wouldn't need to adopt that part.

Screw the UK though, what if the U.S. Adopted the Swiss system! That would be fun.

Isn't Switzerland a loose confederacy?

would we just be reüsing the current congressional districts as parliamentary boroughs? because this would be even worse than the current system, in that case.

Yeah, it can be safely assumed that there would be nonpartisan, independent redistricting.

[Kingpoleon]

Most important question: who would be most likely to serve as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Beltway?

Politico.