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

[lpetrich]

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.

She then described some research into which nations tend to suffer coups. Nations with parliamentary systems were much less likely to suffer coups than those with presidential systems, those with independent presidents like what the US has.

She likes ranked-choice voting because its winner will be someone who got a majority of the votes, even if that candidate was not the first choice of many voters.

 

[lpetrich]

46 and Done: Why Joe Biden Should Be Our Last President | The Nation - Parliamentary democracies give their citizens tuition-free college, state-subsidized child care, generous paid leave, socialized medicine. We get “Hail to the Chief.”

The United States is the longest-running presidential democracy in the world, an anomaly in a sea of mostly failed experiments. And it’s the only pure presidential system, according to political scientist Arend Lijphart in his list of the 21 continuous democracies since World War II. The vast majority of advanced democracies have converted to parliamentary systems, which have empirically proved to be less contentious and more productive.

Then noted Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism on JSTOR - "This article reports the findings of the analysis of numerous different sources of data, all of which point in the direction of a much stronger correlation between democratic consolidation and the constitutional framework of pure parliamentarianism than between consolidation and pure presidentialism."

Back to The Nation. About that article,

Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skach’s exhaustive study of emerging democracies, conducted from 1979 through 1989, found that parliamentary systems were three times more likely to succeed than presidential ones, which were more than twice as susceptible to a military coup, at a rate of 40 percent. Their study, published in 1993, analyzed 93 countries that had become independent since 1945 and found that 61 percent of those that chose a parliamentary system could still be considered democracies just a few decades later. Not a single presidential system in that same time frame has survived as a continuous democracy.

And for the duration of their short life, it’s usually a shit show. Presidents have a legislative majority less than half the time, compared with 83 percent in parliamentary states, which produce multiple parties and, often, coalition governments that actually support the work of the prime minister. Governing coalitions require compromise, and since a parliament elects the prime minister—as opposed to the people—the legislative and executive branches have a shared agenda.

Checks and balances seem like a good sort of idea, but in practice, they can produce gridlock. Consider Mitch McConnell's obstructionism.

But rather than expecting people who’ve been red-pilled to put country over party, we need more parties. That way, at least the Nazi-curious incels who live on the Internet can confine themselves to their own club. It also creates space on the left to develop an actual party independent of the Democrats, who should and can coexist with centrist Republicans.

Then about parties having to compromise with each other when forming a governing coalition.

What kind of policies might emerge in the United States from such an unholy alliance? Tuition-free college, state-subsidized child care, generous paid leave, socialized medicine—you know, the hallmarks of the European social safety net that is the envy of every Bernie-loving bro and sis.

 

[lpetrich]

 Democracy Index - by The Economist magazine
 List of countries by system of government
 List of electoral systems by country

Looking at The Economist's Democracy Index, and comparing to systems of government, I find:

• Parl: Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Australia
• Semi-pres: Taiwan
• Parl: Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany.
• Pres: Uruguay
• Parl: UK
• Pres: Chile
• Parl: Austria
• Pres: Costa Rica
• Parl: Mauritius, Japan, Spain
• Pres: South Korea
• Semi-pres: France
• Pres: US
• Semi-pres: Portugal
• Parl: Estonia, Israel, Italy, Malta, Czechia
• Semi-pres: Cape Verde
• Parl: Botswana
• Pres: Cyprus
• Parl: Slovenia, Belgium, Greece, Latvia, Malaysia
• Pres: Panama
• Parl: Trinidad & Tobago
• Semi-pres: Lithuania
• Parl: Jamaica
• Semi-pres: East Timor
• Parl: South Africa
• Pres: Colombia
• Parl: Slovakia
• Pres: Argentina, Brazil
• Semi-pres: Poland

Parl = parliamentary system, Pres = presidential system, Semi-pres: semi-presidential system, a hybrid of the previous two.

It's evident that the top scorers tend to have parliamentary systems.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The phrase, "no fucking way" comes to mind. America's government has issues, as do all democracies. However, we should be aiming at retracting election cycles from their gargantuan lengths of 12 months for House and Senate and 24 months for the Presidency. Our Government spends more time running for Government than running the Government!

 

[Jayjay]

Reduce the threshold to remove a president by impeachment to 50%, and you get a parliamentary system.

To make a parliamentary system actually work, you need generations of political culture to change. There are a lot more than just laws that go into what kind of political system a country has.

 

[Elixir]

 Democracy Index - by The Economist magazine
 List of countries by system of government
 List of electoral systems by country

Looking at The Economist's Democracy Index, and comparing to systems of government, I find:

• Parl: Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Australia
• Semi-pres: Taiwan
• Parl: Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany.
• Pres: Uruguay
• Parl: UK
• Pres: Chile
• Parl: Austria
• Pres: Costa Rica
• Parl: Mauritius, Japan, Spain
• Pres: South Korea
• Semi-pres: France
• Pres: US
• Semi-pres: Portugal
• Parl: Estonia, Israel, Italy, Malta, Czechia
• Semi-pres: Cape Verde
• Parl: Botswana
• Pres: Cyprus
• Parl: Slovenia, Belgium, Greece, Latvia, Malaysia
• Pres: Panama
• Parl: Trinidad & Tobago
• Semi-pres: Lithuania
• Parl: Jamaica
• Semi-pres: East Timor
• Parl: South Africa
• Pres: Colombia
• Parl: Slovakia
• Pres: Argentina, Brazil
• Semi-pres: Poland

Parl = parliamentary system, Pres = presidential system, Semi-pres: semi-presidential system, a hybrid of the previous two.

It's evident that the top scorers tend to have parliamentary systems.

Arizona is trying to pass a law saying it doesn't matter who voters select as President - the legislature can appoint whoever they want.
If that works, there will never be another Democrat President. Gerrymandering will ensure it.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

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.

It might be correct that those days are gone, and that at this point the U.S. would be better off switching to a different system. If so, it tells us something very sad about this once-great country.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

This.

 

[TomC]

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

I agree with her, in principle. Our current system is an archaic, worse than obsolete. It's a holdover from the olden days, when the federal government was entirely compromised wealthy WASP males, who's only real interest was protecting their wealth and privilege. The president wasn't expected to have any particular influence over the domestic policies of the 13 sovereign colonial states.
Things have changed hugely since then.

But the devil is in the details. The current situation has been carefully massaged and shaped to protect the interests of the new wealthy elites. I don't much trust the beneficiaries of the current system to dismantle the institution that works so well for them and replace it with something that works better for the rest of the USA. It's not just asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. It's giving the fox permission to redesign the chicken coop.

What could go wrong?
Tom

 

[Jayjay]

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.

 

[Elixir]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[lpetrich]

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.

 

[Tigers!]

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)?

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[jab]

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.

 

[lpetrich]

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.

•  List of presidents of the United States by previous experience
• Presidents' Occupations
• Occupations | Presidents of the United States (POTUS)
• • U.S. Presidents: jobs prior to taking office 1789-2021 | Statista
• Unlikely Jobs U.S. Presidents Held After the White House | Reader's Digest

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.

 

[Jayjay]

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