America Under the Westminster System
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 07:10:17 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs? (Moderator: Dereich)
  America Under the Westminster System
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: America Under the Westminster System  (Read 880 times)
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 04, 2013, 08:49:53 AM »

What would the American political scene look like under the Westminster system? What would the parties be like?

For the sake of argument the scenario will be a unicameral house with seats allocated like the current HoR. All representatives will be elected by FPTP.

I haven't given too much thought to it yet, but I think there would be huge potential for regional parties.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2013, 02:29:07 PM »

Progressive Party - center-left. basically the progressive caucus of the Democratic Party and the unions. Strongest in the "blue" states and social democratic in outlook.

Conservative Party - right-wing. the Republican Party, for the most part, but with the Blue Dog Democrats thrown in as well.

Moderate Party - center. The DINOs and RINOs. Tends to ally with the Conservatives on economic policy and the Progressives on social policy.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,010
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2013, 11:44:30 PM »

Under a Westminster system, the HoR would most likely be expanded to about 700 seats.

I've thought about this scenario quite a bit, and I like the idea of keeping the 435 current House seats but then adding 250-or-so "at large" districts allocated under some kind of proportional representation system. 

As far as the parties are concerned, they're probably would not be that many regional parties.  Remember, a House district is almost 700,000 people--much larger than the 70,000 or so for a British constituency--so regional parties would have a harder time getting elected due to the inherently more diverse nature of the electoral districts. 

Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2013, 11:52:25 PM »

However, a regional party may find a niche back a hundred years ago or so, when electorate size was smaller, and have been able to hold onto that. For example, a rural based party may have seen the other parties not really contest their core constituency, and therefore it may remain today. You make a strong case, though, as to why it would be difficult for a regional party to win in the US today.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,643
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2013, 12:42:18 AM »

Read "An unexpected coalition" and "Into the Next Millennium".
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,018


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2013, 02:44:52 AM »

Basically like Canada, though I think the Tories would be the natural ruling party instead of the Liberals. And of course no BQ equivalent, though there might have been a Bloc Dixie a few decades ago.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.214 seconds with 12 queries.