Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55

Thread: Should Joe Biden be the last US President in that presidency's current form?

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    5,092
    Archived
    6,261
    Total Posts
    11,353
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Why Joe Biden Should Be Our Last President - YouTube

    Political consultant and columnist Alexis Grenell advocates a parliamentary system of government, one where the legislature runs the executive branch.

    She notes that such nations often have multiple parties, so one doesn't see what one has here, neo-Nazis proposing as Republicans. In such places, they have their own parties. It also happens on the Left, with left-wingers and centrists having their own parties. AOC once said that in any other country, she and Joe Biden would be in different parties. An overstatement, maybe, but not much of an overstatement.
    I watched the video finally. She is confusing parliamentary system with a multiparty system. One doesn't imply the other. You can have a presidential system with multiple parties (e.g. Brazil), and a parliamentary system with two parties (like the UK). The number of parties is usually an artifact of the electoral system, and it's very hard to change that from FPTP to party-list proportional representation that's used in a lot of European countries, or vice versa.

    A more realistic approach might be to try getting traction for preferential voting and instant run-off by introducing it in local and state elections.

  2. Top | #12
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    16,249
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    16,956
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjay View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Why Joe Biden Should Be Our Last President - YouTube

    Political consultant and columnist Alexis Grenell advocates a parliamentary system of government, one where the legislature runs the executive branch.

    She notes that such nations often have multiple parties, so one doesn't see what one has here, neo-Nazis proposing as Republicans. In such places, they have their own parties. It also happens on the Left, with left-wingers and centrists having their own parties. AOC once said that in any other country, she and Joe Biden would be in different parties. An overstatement, maybe, but not much of an overstatement.
    I watched the video finally. She is confusing parliamentary system with a multiparty system. One doesn't imply the other. You can have a presidential system with multiple parties (e.g. Brazil), and a parliamentary system with two parties (like the UK). The number of parties is usually an artifact of the electoral system, and it's very hard to change that from FPTP to party-list proportional representation that's used in a lot of European countries, or vice versa.

    A more realistic approach might be to try getting traction for preferential voting and instant run-off by introducing it in local and state elections.
    After much thought, I think we should have a king and a parliament (just re-name congress). But the king needs to be purely symbolic, serving as a curiosity for the public, a self-contained public entertainment medium with no direct effect on anything or power over anyone. Donald could be that king, calming down both him and his Nazis. It would set his Republican poodles free from bondage and we might start getting some things done.

  3. Top | #13
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    18,745
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,688
    Rep Power
    84
    In my opinion, the question is moot because I don't see a chance chance our Constitution would be changed over the next 4 (or 8) years to a parliamentary system.

  4. Top | #14
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    14,646
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    31,475
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    In my opinion, the question is moot because I don't see a chance chance our Constitution would be changed over the next 4 (or 8) years to a parliamentary system.
    There is a way, however. The President could let Congress do all the work of governing and appointing Cabinet members and the like.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member Tigers!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    On the wing waiting for a kick.
    Posts
    2,238
    Archived
    2,558
    Total Posts
    4,796
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    I think if we could reform voting in every state, a lot of these other pie in the sky dreams will not be needed.

    I could be wrong, but I think the problem is structural, just at a more basic level.
    Why did you have a system whereby any state can decide how they wish to conduct that business? Why not standardised across the whole country so that all know how it works (or does not)?
    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    2,474
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigers! View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    I think if we could reform voting in every state, a lot of these other pie in the sky dreams will not be needed.

    I could be wrong, but I think the problem is structural, just at a more basic level.
    Why did you have a system whereby any state can decide how they wish to conduct that business? Why not standardised across the whole country so that all know how it works (or does not)?
    The 'why' involves a fairly in-depth dive into US colonial history, which isn't my strong suit.

    The tl;dr version of it is that a lot of the structural aspects of the laws had to do with the different states fighting about how much influence they should have and what would be 'fair'. It's why counting a black person as 3/5th of a person is written into the constitution (although later amended). Also, this was in the late 18th century. The framers of the constitution didn't have a lot of examples to get ideas from. Many of the later systems looked at the US and noted that it could be done much better. The US is, in a sense, a victim of its own success for being one of the first constitutional democracies. Others learned from our mistakes.

    The problem is that much of the US citizenry now is so dumb they think any criticism of the US, regardless of how constructive it is, is unpatriotic.

  7. Top | #17
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    18,745
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,688
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    In my opinion, the question is moot because I don't see a chance chance our Constitution would be changed over the next 4 (or 8) years to a parliamentary system.
    There is a way, however. The President could let Congress do all the work of governing and appointing Cabinet members and the like.
    What kind of person would run for President and allow that? I just don't see it happening. And, frankly, I think allowing Congress to govern would raise constitutional law suits. And that ignores the wisdom of allowing Congress to run the administration.

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    GTA Ontario
    Posts
    1,058
    Archived
    2,167
    Total Posts
    3,225
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjay View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Why Joe Biden Should Be Our Last President - YouTube

    Political consultant and columnist Alexis Grenell advocates a parliamentary system of government, one where the legislature runs the executive branch.

    She notes that such nations often have multiple parties, so one doesn't see what one has here, neo-Nazis proposing as Republicans. In such places, they have their own parties. It also happens on the Left, with left-wingers and centrists having their own parties. AOC once said that in any other country, she and Joe Biden would be in different parties. An overstatement, maybe, but not much of an overstatement.
    I watched the video finally. She is confusing parliamentary system with a multiparty system. One doesn't imply the other. You can have a presidential system with multiple parties (e.g. Brazil), and a parliamentary system with two parties (like the UK). The number of parties is usually an artifact of the electoral system, and it's very hard to change that from FPTP to party-list proportional representation that's used in a lot of European countries, or vice versa.

    A more realistic approach might be to try getting traction for preferential voting and instant run-off by introducing it in local and state elections.
    The UK House of Commons has more than 2 parties.

  9. Top | #19
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    14,646
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    31,475
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    The statistics may suggest the Presidential system is bad. But statistics suggest teenagers are bad drivers, yet some teens are excellent drivers. In times past the U.S.A. has done very well with its Presidential system.
    Yes, the US has had some great presidents. But parliamentary systems can have great prime ministers and chancellors and the like.
    Teddy Roosevelt was a great President, as was his nephew-in-law FDR. A parliamentary system would never have landed Men on the Moon, as the U.S. did with President Kennedy's inspiration. Harry Truman's Marshall Plan is another example of something that simply couldn't have happened in a Parliamentary system.
    How is that supposed to be the case?

    I looked at Presidents' previous occupations to see if they were in Congress before they became President. If they were, then they would have a path to leadership in a parliamentary system.


    Highest public office before the Presidency:
    • US Congress: 26 -- J Madison, J Monroe, JQ Adams, A Jackson, M Van Buren, WH Harrison, J Tyler, JK Polk, M Fillmore, F Pierce, J Buchanan, A Lincoln, A Johnson, RB Hayes, JA Garfield, B Harrison, W McKinley, WG Harding, HS Truman, JF Kennedy, LB Johnson, RM Nixon, GR Ford, GHW Bush, BH Obama, JR Biden
    • State governor: 10 -- T Jefferson, G Cleveland, T Roosevelt, W Wilson, C Coolidge, FD Roosevelt, JE Carter, RW Reagan, WJ Clinton, GW Bush
    • Civilian agency head: 2 -- WH Taft, HC Hoover
    • Military commander: 3 -- G Washington, US Grant, DD Eisenhower
    • Civilian gov't employee: 2 -- J Adams, CA Arthur
    • Soldier: 1 -- Z Taylor
    • No gov't experience: 1 -- DJ Trump

    Total: 45.

    Cumulative:
    • Congress: 26 / 19
    • + Governor: 36 / 9
    • + Civilian agency head: 38 / 7
    • + Military commander: 41 / 4
    • + Civilian gov't employee: 43 / 2
    • + Soldier: 44 / 1

    So under a parliamentary system, over half of the Presidents had a pathway to leadership without changing their careers.

  10. Top | #20
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    5,092
    Archived
    6,261
    Total Posts
    11,353
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by jab View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjay View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Why Joe Biden Should Be Our Last President - YouTube

    Political consultant and columnist Alexis Grenell advocates a parliamentary system of government, one where the legislature runs the executive branch.

    She notes that such nations often have multiple parties, so one doesn't see what one has here, neo-Nazis proposing as Republicans. In such places, they have their own parties. It also happens on the Left, with left-wingers and centrists having their own parties. AOC once said that in any other country, she and Joe Biden would be in different parties. An overstatement, maybe, but not much of an overstatement.
    I watched the video finally. She is confusing parliamentary system with a multiparty system. One doesn't imply the other. You can have a presidential system with multiple parties (e.g. Brazil), and a parliamentary system with two parties (like the UK). The number of parties is usually an artifact of the electoral system, and it's very hard to change that from FPTP to party-list proportional representation that's used in a lot of European countries, or vice versa.

    A more realistic approach might be to try getting traction for preferential voting and instant run-off by introducing it in local and state elections.
    The UK House of Commons has more than 2 parties.
    And the US Senate has two "independents". Doesn't change the big picture. If we discount the regional parties, the largest third party in UK is the Liberal Democrats, which has mere 1.7% of the seats.

    On an unrelated note, TLDR News channel in Youtube is making a series of short videos of election systems in Europe, which you guys might find interesting. Starting with the Dutch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2-x9JyfbIM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •