Parliamentary system in the US ?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What could be done through the ordinary amendment process is to make the Senate about as toothless as the British House of Lords.

Unfortunately so.

[Tintrlvr]

I prefer having separation of powers among three co-equal branches of gov't.


Fortunately, the constitution makes it nearly impossible to remove the Senate, because any amendment that would deny a state's equal representation in the Senate, needs the approval of that state. So all 50 states would have to ratify an amendment abolishing the Senate.

I remember having this debate before, but I think that clause could be amended itself so as to abolish the Senate (if not, zero representation among states is equal representation).

No because the clause is a condition on the process for amending the constitution. The constitution shall be amended by x (first method) or y (second method), but no amendment shall....(ban slave trade before 1808) or deprive a state of equal suffrage (vote) in the Senate.

A zero is equal but it does not provide a vote.

Sure. First, you amend the constitution to get rid of that clause. Amending Article V (the amendments section) does not require 100% consent (a major oversight by the founders that would be caught by any halfway decent commercial lawyer these days, but it's true). Then, once permitted, you amend the constitution to abolish the Senate without 100% consent because the clause requiring 100% consent is gone.

I also think your analysis is debatable at best. "Equal suffrage" can mean no one gets any suffrage. It just means everyone has to get the same suffrage. One zero is equal to another. There's nothing in that clause that says any state has to have some suffrage in the Senate, just that no state can have more or less suffrage than any other state.

[Prince of Salem]

Well it would be interesting. That's all I've got to say about it.

[Gary J]

You can have a system with a strong President and a Prime Minister, like France.

When a French President is supported by a majority of the lower house, the Prime Minister is clearly subordinate and can be the designated scapegoat when the administration becomes unpopular.

When the President is cohabiting with a Parliamentary majority of his opponents, the President is forced to rely upon the powers the constitution gives him (particularly in foreign policy) and the Prime Minister is an independent centre of power.

The French amended the constitution to make cohabitation less likely. Now both President and Parliament have five year terms, with the Parliamentary election following the Presidential one. There is strong pressure to give a newly elected President a Parliament he can work with.

This is, of course, the opposite of a purely Parliamentary system (like France before 1958 or the UK today) where the head of state is largely a figurehead and the Prime Minister is the person who can command the confidence of the lower house.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I prefer having separation of powers among three co-equal branches of gov't.


Fortunately, the constitution makes it nearly impossible to remove the Senate, because any amendment that would deny a state's equal representation in the Senate, needs the approval of that state. So all 50 states would have to ratify an amendment abolishing the Senate.

I remember having this debate before, but I think that clause could be amended itself so as to abolish the Senate (if not, zero representation among states is equal representation).

No because the clause is a condition on the process for amending the constitution. The constitution shall be amended by x (first method) or y (second method), but no amendment shall....(ban slave trade before 1808) or deprive a state of equal suffrage (vote) in the Senate.

A zero is equal but it does not provide a vote.

Sure. First, you amend the constitution to get rid of that clause. Amending Article V (the amendments section) does not require 100% consent (a major oversight by the founders that would be caught by any halfway decent commercial lawyer these days, but it's true). Then, once permitted, you amend the constitution to abolish the Senate without 100% consent because the clause requiring 100% consent is gone.

I also think your analysis is debatable at best. "Equal suffrage" can mean no one gets any suffrage. It just means everyone has to get the same suffrage. One zero is equal to another. There's nothing in that clause that says any state has to have some suffrage in the Senate, just that no state can have more or less suffrage than any other state.

I disagree with that interpretation of the clause. There has to be a vote and it has to be equal to the other states. It may be equally zero but it is not an equal "vote".

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No (broadly like the current system).
A parliamentary US would, likely, simply empower Congress to oppress the people if it so wanted. Goodbye checks and balances!

[LabourJersey]

Yes, and any argument to the contrary is hard to take seriously. We need a government that can respond to the needs of its citizens, and of the world, quickly, efficiently and with respect for the law. The current system fails dramatically on the first two counts, and a Parliament would (mostly) improve the sorry state the federal government is in.

Personally I would go with an MMP system, probably with regions rather than states (just one big region for the Mountain West, South, etc).

[Slander and/or Libel]

I prefer having separation of powers among three co-equal branches of gov't.


Fortunately, the constitution makes it nearly impossible to remove the Senate, because any amendment that would deny a state's equal representation in the Senate, needs the approval of that state. So all 50 states would have to ratify an amendment abolishing the Senate.

I remember having this debate before, but I think that clause could be amended itself so as to abolish the Senate (if not, zero representation among states is equal representation).

No because the clause is a condition on the process for amending the constitution. The constitution shall be amended by x (first method) or y (second method), but no amendment shall....(ban slave trade before 1808) or deprive a state of equal suffrage (vote) in the Senate.

A zero is equal but it does not provide a vote.

Sure. First, you amend the constitution to get rid of that clause. Amending Article V (the amendments section) does not require 100% consent (a major oversight by the founders that would be caught by any halfway decent commercial lawyer these days, but it's true). Then, once permitted, you amend the constitution to abolish the Senate without 100% consent because the clause requiring 100% consent is gone.

I also think your analysis is debatable at best. "Equal suffrage" can mean no one gets any suffrage. It just means everyone has to get the same suffrage. One zero is equal to another. There's nothing in that clause that says any state has to have some suffrage in the Senate, just that no state can have more or less suffrage than any other state.

This is exactly right. The only way to truly entrench the amendment process would be to have included a statement in Article V saying something like, "No amendment may change any of the text of Article V." If they'd wanted the section about the senate to be included, then they would just include it in Article V, which would have been made fully entrenched by the inclusion of that statement. Without it, everything, amendment process included, can be amended.

[bmaup1]

It feels like it would be almost impossible and the worst decision ever for the Us to be parliamentary.  First off how would anybody in congress or executive branch ever agree to it. Secondly, how would it even be possible for us? We would have rebellions every where, and it would shred up our  constitution. Simply put, it would be a bad idea to go back to what we left. There is no way it is possible in my mind without it taking several years. And whats to say we don't get attacked whilst it is happening from ISIS? Sorry to be so blunt, but its a bad idea.

[Blue3]

It feels like it would be almost impossible and the worst decision ever for the Us to be parliamentary.  First off how would anybody in congress or executive branch ever agree to it. Secondly, how would it even be possible for us? We would have rebellions every where, and it would shred up our  constitution. Simply put, it would be a bad idea to go back to what we left. There is no way it is possible in my mind without it taking several years. And whats to say we don't get attacked whilst it is happening from ISIS? Sorry to be so blunt, but its a bad idea.

No one assumes it would be quick or easy to actually get this constitutional amendment passed. This is just asking if we would be better off under it or not.

And ISIS could attack us now... why is that relevant?

Also, why would there be rebellions? (And it wouldn't be shredding the constitution, just an amendment.)

[CMB222]

How about we just change some things in the current system.

I would like to have more than 2 parties to choose from, though a Parliament wouldn't necessarily fix that.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Say hello to congressional tyranny.

[bmaup1]

It feels like it would be almost impossible and the worst decision ever for the Us to be parliamentary.  First off how would anybody in congress or executive branch ever agree to it. Secondly, how would it even be possible for us? We would have rebellions every where, and it would shred up our  constitution. Simply put, it would be a bad idea to go back to what we left. There is no way it is possible in my mind without it taking several years. And whats to say we don't get attacked whilst it is happening from ISIS? Sorry to be so blunt, but its a bad idea.

No one assumes it would be quick or easy to actually get this constitutional amendment passed. This is just asking if we would be better off under it or not.

And ISIS could attack us now... why is that relevant?

Also, why would there be rebellions? (And it wouldn't be shredding the constitution, just an amendment.)

I meant as in, if we were to make it, without an amendment, say that our gov crashed hardcore, and we quickly tried to go to a parliamentary system for convenience, what would we do for defense if we were attacked. I only stated ISIS as like its one group I can clearly state as an enemy who would. And people would rebel if we went to the other system. Truly, a lot of southern states would more than likely. As we favor having that "American made" concept. It would have to be a massive amendment any how, like several pages. And how in God's name would we like have any branch agree to it? It would be so split if it were to be a change that just happened without emergency cause. Several states would leave the U.S. probably. Its an interesting thought none the less.

[Blue3]

It feels like it would be almost impossible and the worst decision ever for the Us to be parliamentary.  First off how would anybody in congress or executive branch ever agree to it. Secondly, how would it even be possible for us? We would have rebellions every where, and it would shred up our  constitution. Simply put, it would be a bad idea to go back to what we left. There is no way it is possible in my mind without it taking several years. And whats to say we don't get attacked whilst it is happening from ISIS? Sorry to be so blunt, but its a bad idea.

No one assumes it would be quick or easy to actually get this constitutional amendment passed. This is just asking if we would be better off under it or not.

And ISIS could attack us now... why is that relevant?

Also, why would there be rebellions? (And it wouldn't be shredding the constitution, just an amendment.)

I meant as in, if we were to make it, without an amendment, say that our gov crashed hardcore, and we quickly tried to go to a parliamentary system for convenience, what would we do for defense if we were attacked. I only stated ISIS as like its one group I can clearly state as an enemy who would. And people would rebel if we went to the other system. Truly, a lot of southern states would more than likely. As we favor having that "American made" concept. It would have to be a massive amendment any how, like several pages. And how in God's name would we like have any branch agree to it? It would be so split if it were to be a change that just happened without emergency cause. Several states would leave the U.S. probably. Its an interesting thought none the less.

1. Why would you assume that?

2. Again, how would ISIS attacking us in a parliamentary system be different from ISIS attacking us now?

3. It would have to be legally ratified. I really doubt states would secede over it. If they did, I say let them secede. But that's very, very unlikely. Most people don't care about the particulars of government like this. "Oh, we're changing the government to a system more similar to Israel and the UK and Canada? That's interesting." Or they'd opposite it, but only legally.

[bmaup1]

What i keep telling you about ISIS is if we were in a time of crisis and we tried to swap over it d be bad for us. And assuming a lot of southern states not accepting it? I have lived in the south for my whole life and the people in my city atleast are very presidential system. And surely with how states are trying to secede now they would then.

[Blue3]

What i keep telling you about ISIS is if we were in a time of crisis and we tried to swap over it d be bad for us. And assuming a lot of southern states not accepting it? I have lived in the south for my whole life and the people in my city atleast are very presidential system. And surely with how states are trying to secede now they would then.

States aren't trying to secede now. Just some people in some states, like it's been forever.


And I keep telling you... we wouldn't be switching to parliamentary in a time of crisis. And it itself wouldn't be a crisis. We have bigger crises right now.

Also, Lincoln passed the 13th amendment, a huge change, during one of the biggest crises we ever had, and a threat much worse than ISIS... and probably agitated the other side even more. It was still the right thing to do... and in hindsight, it didn't make anything worse.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Assuming some protection against gerrymander, yes, that would be a much preferable system.

[kyc0705]

I would LOVE this.

[Dr. Arch]

Assuming some protection against gerrymander, yes, that would be a much preferable system.

[FairBol]

Just your opinion.

What about the US adopting a parliamentary system with 5 parties the House, a representative president and a prime minister ?

I think the current system, although it sometimes doesn't work, is good for now. 

[politicallefty]

It feels like it would be almost impossible and the worst decision ever for the Us to be parliamentary.  First off how would anybody in congress or executive branch ever agree to it. Secondly, how would it even be possible for us? We would have rebellions every where, and it would shred up our  constitution. Simply put, it would be a bad idea to go back to what we left. There is no way it is possible in my mind without it taking several years. And whats to say we don't get attacked whilst it is happening from ISIS? Sorry to be so blunt, but its a bad idea.

I'm not aware of this being mentioned in top political circles. That's not the point. As for implementation, we would just implement it after the next election. Basically, if we transferred the powers of the Presidency to the Speaker of the House and forced Cabinet members to be Members of Congress simultaneously, we would basically have a parliamentary system (just without a figurehead head-of-state or no-confidence mechanism). We could still retain bicameralism with retention of the Senate as is, though perhaps with some reduced power.

The fact is that our political system and society has evolved into a parliamentary system. The problem is that our Constitution has not been changed to adjust to our new reality. The Constitution was never meant to be permanent shackles on our system of government. The Founders did not intend for the system they set up to last forever.

How about we just change some things in the current system.

I would like to have more than 2 parties to choose from, though a Parliament wouldn't necessarily fix that.

That has more to do with our electoral system rather than our system of government. A lot of people tend to conflate a parliamentary system with proportional representation. The former has to do with making the executive a part of and accountable to the legislature. The latter has to do with how we elect our legislators. The UK is a parliamentary system without proportional representation, while New Zealand has both a parliamentary system and a proportional system.

Assuming some protection against gerrymander, yes, that would be a much preferable system.

I think anyone hoping for the latter assumes the former.