Watching the great Danish TV show, #Borgen, on Netflix.
Parliamentary forms of government have some advantages. But I also remember the downsides, like Italy in the late '70s, when the government was dribbling around like a Harlem Globetrotters basketball.
/1
Parliamentary forms of government have some advantages. But I also remember the downsides, like Italy in the late '70s, when the government was dribbling around like a Harlem Globetrotters basketball.
/1
Democracy has gone from the direct form, eg, Athens, through various forms of representative democracy to where we are today.
In most parliamentary systems, there is a form of agency outside the political realm, which is tasked with control of forming governments.
/2
In most parliamentary systems, there is a form of agency outside the political realm, which is tasked with control of forming governments.
/2
These non-political agents have no policy power. In England, it is the monarchy. In France, it is the office of the President.
The Prime Minister sets and executes policy. Sometimes, one party may not have enough seats in legislature to form a government directly.
/3
The Prime Minister sets and executes policy. Sometimes, one party may not have enough seats in legislature to form a government directly.
/3
In that case, the larger party must form coalitions with smaller parties to get support and to form a majority block. This actually gives more political power to the minority party than they would get in other forms of government.
/4
/4
In the United States, there is no benefit to forming other parties because there is no legislative power to be had outside of the two major parties. For example, Bernie Sanders had very little legislative impact in Congress.
/5
/5
Because out Constitution was written before the advent of the office of a non-political president, eg, France, the US President has vast political powers. The executive political function does not follow from the legislative and could well be in opposition.
/6
/6
The framers of the Constitution thought that having the major political functions in opposition to each other would foster cooperation.
But that hasn't worked.
/7
But that hasn't worked.
/7
There is no incentive for people in the legislative branch to work together when it doesn't matter if they work for constituents or they don't.
In a parliamentary system, if the legislators from one party are not resposive to constituents, another party can get those votes.
/8
In a parliamentary system, if the legislators from one party are not resposive to constituents, another party can get those votes.
/8
There is potentially more volatility and more responsiveness in a parliamentary system than in our form of government.
It is hard to see someone like Trump becoming the head of a party in a parliamentary system.
/9
It is hard to see someone like Trump becoming the head of a party in a parliamentary system.
/9
That should be enough to get people's attention. Voter turnout is higher in countries with parliamentary systems. For Denmark, it is nearly 80%.
Much of the US low turnout in presidential elections is no doubt due to the Electoral College.
/10
Much of the US low turnout in presidential elections is no doubt due to the Electoral College.
/10
But even if the Electoral College is scrapped, it is not clear that straight popular vote would not result in another Trump like character.
The Electoral College was supposed to filter out unsatisfactory candidates in two ways: 1) if they were unqualified,, 2) too popular.
/11
The Electoral College was supposed to filter out unsatisfactory candidates in two ways: 1) if they were unqualified,, 2) too popular.
/11
The Athenian democracy had the option of casting out people who became too powerful. They would cast ostracon, voting with pottery shards, and if someone got enough votes, they would be exiled for a period of time.
/12
/12
We don't have that, but the Electoral College was designed to filter out anyone who would sieze and hold power.
Perhaps it was a good idea at one time, but it now confers too much political power on low population Plains states.
/13
Perhaps it was a good idea at one time, but it now confers too much political power on low population Plains states.
/13
When one part of a society gets an outsized amount of political power, that will always lead to instability.
Currently, there are two groups with outsized political power. Low population states, mostly on the Plains, and corporate interests who pay the bills for media.
/14
Currently, there are two groups with outsized political power. Low population states, mostly on the Plains, and corporate interests who pay the bills for media.
/14
Parties in possession of political power are loathe to relinquish it.
It isn't clear that the mechanism exists in the US form of government to bring about reforms to re-balance political power.
/15
It isn't clear that the mechanism exists in the US form of government to bring about reforms to re-balance political power.
/15
This will require extensive changes to the Constitution.
That won't thappen.
It seems clear that the way forward will require some US state to form a new type of government, to demonstrate how transitioning the Federal government would work.
/16
That won't thappen.
It seems clear that the way forward will require some US state to form a new type of government, to demonstrate how transitioning the Federal government would work.
/16
I think it will fall to a fairly enlightened state to carry this forward. The state needs to have a stable government which is dependably one party.
Massachusetts comes to mind.
/17
Massachusetts comes to mind.
/17
If we don't do something soon, someone like Tucker Carlson will run for President in 2024.
And he could win.
/end
And he could win.
/end
