Would you support this political system?

[Sir Mohamed]

Would you support to change the US political system to this model (a mix of presidential and parliamentary system)?


- The Senate is abolished

- The House of Representatives undergoes following changes:
  - 500 members elected in constituencies drawn by independent commission.
  - The party that won the national popular vote gets 50 extra representatives. One per state, who are determined ahead of the election(so-called at-large members).
  - The term is fixed to four years; vacancies get filled by a special election within 30 days. At large members get replaced by their parties.

- The House elects a president at the beginning of the term, usually their leader. No term limit.
  - The president remains head of state and government + commander-in-chief
  - Unless his/her term expires, the president can only be replaced by the House if a new president is elected. This is essentially a vote of no confidence, but can only succeed if a new officer gets elected.
  - President choses cabinet members without legislative approval. They can be removed by the House with a single majority (or get fired by president).
  - President nominates Supreme Court judges who need a 3/5 majority of the House
  - There is no vice presidency. In case something happens to the president the Speaker becomes acting president until the House elects a new president for the remainder of the term


Since the administration is always guaranteed to have a majority and midterms are abolished, the system would actually function better. In addition, the prez is more responsible to the House while not losing the titles head of state+govt and commander-in-chief.

[Blue3]

I'd make changes, not a fan of all of it, but it would be an improvement.

[brucejoel99]

- The Senate is abolished

The House & Senate system, as we currently have it structured, is a pretty good way to try to balance the power of the states & the people (though I'd personally support an enlarged Senate run on MMP).

- The House of Representatives undergoes following changes:
  - 500 members elected in constituencies drawn by independent commission.
  - The party that won the national popular vote gets 50 extra representatives. One per state, who are determined ahead of the election(so-called at-large members).

This is a slippery slope. A majority bonus system can work but only within basic limits, i.e. awarding a number of seats to allow government stability. If it can potentially enable a single party to promulgate constitutional changes, though, then you could end up having a Mussolini on your hands.

  - The term is fixed to four years; vacancies get filled by a special election within 30 days. At large members get replaced by their parties.

This is undemocratic in that it could give too much power to a centralized party machine.

- The House elects a president at the beginning of the term, usually their leader. No term limit.
  - The president remains head of state and government + commander-in-chief
  - Unless his/her term expires, the president can only be replaced by the House if a new president is elected. This is essentially a vote of no confidence, but can only succeed if a new officer gets elected.
  - President choses cabinet members without legislative approval. They can be removed by the House with a single majority (or get fired by president).
  - President nominates Supreme Court judges who need a 3/5 majority of the House
  - There is no vice presidency. In case something happens to the president the Speaker becomes acting president until the House elects a new president for the remainder of the term

I don't know, if we're going to have an even number of representatives (550) in this reconstituted House, then there should still be somebody who's ex officio enabled to cast a tie-breaking vote when there's a deadlock, though considering you're saying that the House would usually elect "their leader" (I presume this usage of "leader" means Pelosi, Ryan, Boehner, etc.) to be President, this might mean that the Speakership would be reconfigured in the image of a parliamentary speaker like Britain's or Canada's (i.e. presiding over the House's debates, determining which members may speak, etc.), in which case they'd cast a tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule (in addition to likely carrying over the VP's current duty of presiding over most of the impeachment trials of federal officers as well as likely presiding over this House's presidential election, similar to how the VP currently presides over & certifies the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College), so this problem might already be accounted for.

Aside from that, though, there should probably still be an officer of the executive branch who, like the current VP, is enabled to perform certain executive duties as assigned either by the President or Congress (whether it's as a participant in the administration's policymaking, adviser to the president, a symbol of American concern or support in that the ceremonial duties of the presidency are often delegated to the vice president, etc.).

Since the administration is always guaranteed to have a majority and midterms are abolished, the system would actually function better. In addition, the prez is more responsible to the House while not losing the titles head of state+govt and commander-in-chief.

Yeah, on paper, the system would logistically function better (after all, can't have gridlock if it's all-but-impossible), but it does so at the price of dramatically weakening congressional checks & balances (since divided government encourages more policing of those in power by the opposition, as well as limiting spending & the expansion of undesirable laws) as well as going backwards regarding congressional electoral mandates (since abolishing midterms would modify the people's ability to change the composition of Congress from every 2 years to every 4 years) & taking away our electoral measuring stick regarding the popularity of the incumbent president.

Would you support to change the US political system to this model (a mix of presidential and parliamentary system)?

On the overall merits of this system as presented, no.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'd make changes, not a fan of all of it, but it would be an improvement.

[Sirius_]

I mean, anything proportional would be an improvement. Personally though I would prefer a proportional by state system, to balance proper political representation with local representation, where each state gets a certain number of at-large seats, and they all come from the state party (or if no state party organization the members must come from that state). I also agree with keeping the VP or some equivalent role.

[Del Tachi]

independent redistricting commissions gross no

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So basically the President would operate like her or his South African counterpart, sans for no term limits?

I like that system, except I'd change single-member constituencies for a proportional representation.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

independent redistricting commissions gross no

Spitting on democracy to own the libs

[Del Tachi]

independent redistricting commissions gross no

Spitting on democracy to own the libs

How is removing an elected body’s ability to make decisions in favor of an unelected bureaucracy democratic exactly?

You can  support independent commissions if you want, but it’s not the more democratic alternative

[Sirius_]

independent redistricting commissions gross no

Spitting on democracy to own the libs

How is removing an elected body’s ability to make decisions in favor of an unelected bureaucracy democratic exactly?

You can  support independent commissions if you want, but it’s not the more democratic alternative

Because those people end up being corrupt and using their powers to make it not democratic anymore? We literally know this happens all the time.

[Del Tachi]

independent redistricting commissions gross no

Spitting on democracy to own the libs

How is removing an elected body’s ability to make decisions in favor of an unelected bureaucracy democratic exactly?

You can  support independent commissions if you want, but it’s not the more democratic alternative

Because those people end up being corrupt and using their powers to make it not democratic anymore? We literally know this happens all the time.

Not agreeing with you =/= corrupt

Plus, if this is the argument then why support democratic governance at all?

[Sirius_]

independent redistricting commissions gross no

Spitting on democracy to own the libs

How is removing an elected body’s ability to make decisions in favor of an unelected bureaucracy democratic exactly?

You can  support independent commissions if you want, but it’s not the more democratic alternative

Because those people end up being corrupt and using their powers to make it not democratic anymore? We literally know this happens all the time.

Not agreeing with you =/= corrupt

Plus, if this is the argument then why support democratic governance at all?

Not agreeing with me? Using redistricting powers to ensure your party wins regardless of who people actually vote for isn't a matter of my political opinion, it's undermining democracy. I don't support gerrymandering in Maryland.

[Senator Incitatus]

Wow! This is amazing! I think I'm opposed to literally every thing here.

[Hammy]

Everything after abolishing the Senate is probably a bad idea. Better system would just be imposing proportional representation along parliamentary lines.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

No

[RI]

independent redistricting commissions gross no

Spitting on democracy to own the libs

How is removing an elected body’s ability to make decisions in favor of an unelected bureaucracy democratic exactly?

You can  support independent commissions if you want, but it’s not the more democratic alternative

Because those people end up being corrupt and using their powers to make it not democratic anymore? We literally know this happens all the time.

"Independent" redistricting commissions tend to draw notoriously incumbent-friendly maps. They're really not "more democratic" in a meaningful sense.

[Antonio the Sixth]

independent redistricting commissions gross no

Spitting on democracy to own the libs

How is removing an elected body’s ability to make decisions in favor of an unelected bureaucracy democratic exactly?

You can  support independent commissions if you want, but it’s not the more democratic alternative

Because those people end up being corrupt and using their powers to make it not democratic anymore? We literally know this happens all the time.

"Independent" redistricting commissions tend to draw notoriously incumbent-friendly maps. They're really not "more democratic" in a meaningful sense.

You mean like the California redistricting commission, which implemented a map that led to almost a dozen seats flipping while just one had flipped with the previous legislature-drawn map?

[lfromnj]

Democrats who argue in favor of redistricting commissions ought to consider that their votes remain less efficiently distributed than Republican votes, even as rural margins become more lopsided.

A "neutral" map - a term that ought to be abolished, as there's no such thing as neutrality when it comes to redistricting - will therefore tend to disadvantage Democrats, whose voters are naturally packed into a smaller portion of electoral districts.

I mean it is true that Democrats probably have worse distribution but it isn't that bad for Democrats. States like VA are equally distributed with VA 9th and 6th = the 8th and 11th and states like Texas just being awful for the GOP along with California having so many districts but also being so Democratic that Democrats control almost of them.

[Senator Incitatus]

independent redistricting commissions gross no

Spitting on democracy to own the libs

How is removing an elected body’s ability to make decisions in favor of an unelected bureaucracy democratic exactly?

You can  support independent commissions if you want, but it’s not the more democratic alternative

Because those people end up being corrupt and using their powers to make it not democratic anymore? We literally know this happens all the time.

"Independent" redistricting commissions tend to draw notoriously incumbent-friendly maps. They're really not "more democratic" in a meaningful sense.

You mean like the California redistricting commission, which implemented a map that led to almost a dozen seats flipping while just one had flipped with the previous legislature-drawn map?

Or maybe like the New Jersey one, where around a dozen seats have flipped in the last 25 years.

[Ilhan Apologist]

I think the president should remain separate from the house. Otherwise individual house races would become even more nationalized than they already are.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Wow! This is amazing! I think I'm opposed to literally every thing here.

[BackWoodsSouthernLawyer]

Would you support to change the US political system to this model (a mix of presidential and parliamentary system)?


- The Senate is abolished

- The House of Representatives undergoes following changes:
  - 500 members elected in constituencies drawn by independent commission.
  - The party that won the national popular vote gets 50 extra representatives. One per state, who are determined ahead of the election(so-called at-large members).
  - The term is fixed to four years; vacancies get filled by a special election within 30 days. At large members get replaced by their parties.

- The House elects a president at the beginning of the term, usually their leader. No term limit.
  - The president remains head of state and government + commander-in-chief
  - Unless his/her term expires, the president can only be replaced by the House if a new president is elected. This is essentially a vote of no confidence, but can only succeed if a new officer gets elected.
  - President choses cabinet members without legislative approval. They can be removed by the House with a single majority (or get fired by president).
  - President nominates Supreme Court judges who need a 3/5 majority of the House
  - There is no vice presidency. In case something happens to the president the Speaker becomes acting president until the House elects a new president for the remainder of the term


Since the administration is always guaranteed to have a majority and midterms are abolished, the system would actually function better. In addition, the prez is more responsible to the House while not losing the titles head of state+govt and commander-in-chief.

Interesting

[courts]

no

[Slander and/or Libel]

I'd prefer multi member districts of 3-5 representatives with ranked choice voting for the House, or maybe mixed member proportional.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Since the filibuster is going away, the Senate, has become more like the House. Judges and nominees are voted on, by a simple majority