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

[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.

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 ...

I believe my claim is correct, and hope for some TFTer more eloquent than I to "pick up the baton" and explain. Anyway, a rote list of Presidents' prior occupation is NOT the path to enlightenment here. The major difference is that a Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of his Party; and that Party serves at the pleasure of voters in the next General Election. For better or worse, U.S. is "stuck with" a President for 4 years. And the ceremonial grandeur of the office gives far more "bully pulpit" power than a PM has.

The interesting example is Truman and his Marshall Plan. Showing Truman as "Congressman" is misleading: he was effectively appointed "Senator from Pendergast" in a safe state. His occupation is often shown as "failed haberdasher." Yet he was thrust into greatness by his office. Google for the legislative history of Marshall Plan and tell me, with a straight face, this would not have been watered-down or rejected altogether in a Parliamentary system.

I lack the time (today) as well as the eloquence (every day) to argue this persuasively, so This is a test! Does any TFTer have the confidence in Swammi to pursue this point?

ETA: Authorizing the Incheon landing against the advice of his top generals is another famous example of Truman's greatness; this saved South Korea and would have been harder for a P.M. to do.

Sure, Churchill is an example of a great P.M. but he served almost as a Dictator as the Roman Republic elected during crises. Anyway, show me where I wrote "Every single President is greater than every single P.M."


EETA: And please do not ignore my comment: "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. "

 

[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)?

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.

So why not learn from your mistakes?

 

[Tigers!]

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.

The British Empire managed to get rid of slavery by parliamentary means without the messy bother of a war.
Parliamentary systems can work.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

So why not learn from your mistakes?

There's no incentive for the parties themselves to change, so there's a lot of resistance. It's not a matter of learning, it's a matter of convincing enough people to go along with it. A major downside of a democracy is that the morons, corrupt, sociopaths, and nihilists all vote too.

 

[jab]

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

why are you discounting the regional parties?

 

[TomC]

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

why are you discounting the regional parties?

Maybe because Jayjay doesn't have those in Finland?
We don't have them here in The World's Sole Remaining Superpower. You vote Republican, Democrat, or you throw away your voting influence. Those are the choices.
Tom

 

[Jayjay]

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

why are you discounting the regional parties?

They are an anomaly, and have limited appeal. No two-party system is perfect, even America has Green Party and Libertarian party. They are just very small. Same with the hypothetical "Texas National Party" that might pop up. At best, it could gain seats in Texas, and nowhere else. But for purposes of funding and media coverage it'd be better off joining with one of the national parties.

 

[Worldtraveller]

why are you discounting the regional parties?

Maybe because Jayjay doesn't have those in Finland?
We don't have them here in The World's Sole Remaining Superpower. You vote Republican, Democrat, or you throw away your voting influence. Those are the choices.
Tom

Not entirely true. Here in the great (sic) state of Mor(m)onland, we have two parties that seem to be at least popular enough to get people on the ballot for most positions (I haven't checked to see how often they win, lpetrich can obsess over that if he wants ) the Constitution Party and United Utah party. Both are ironically named and about the opposite of what their names imply.

 

[Derec]

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.”

I disagree that US should go to a parliamentary system. Nation is a far left rag, and they only look at left-wing policies enacted by many countries, but parliamentary systems also have major problems.
Take Italy. They have a parliamentary system and have had ~70 governments since 1945, which means that mean longevity of a government was just over 1 year. Israel had three elections in a year because none of them yielded a parliament that could form a stable governing coalition. Being able to elect Bibi Netanyahu (or Benny Gantz) as US-style president independently of the parliament would have stabilized matters. On the opposite extreme, Germany is suffering something of a governing statis with the "grand coalition" between C?U and SPD being the only stable coalition and thus it has governed since 2005, except for a brief interlude between 2009 and 2013 where C?U/FDP formed the federal government.

While we are on the subject of Germany, you mentioned coups in your OP. Weimar Germany had a parliamentary system and Hitler gained power through normal parliamentary process.

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

Using incel as an insult is really beyond the pale. Shaming people for inability to "score" is not doing anybody any good and just makes the author look petty and childish.

Again, I do not think parliamentary system is the way to go, and it would require some extensive constitutional amending anyway, so 46 will certainly not be the last US president.

I propose something else. In a parliamentary system, the executive is chosen by the legislative. That means that the governing party/coalition can push legislation through with no problems. The only check is to effect the breakdown of the government - reason why Italy has had so many.

I like the US system of checks and balances and independence of the executive from the legislative.
My proposal would make it stronger. It still has zero chance of passing as it requires constitutional amendment as well, but here it goes.

Make House elected proportionally based on party lists. If say Georgia has 13 congressional seats, each party gets the number of seats proportional to their vote share. No congressional districts. Instead state parties enter a list of candidates and first x on the list get it. Would be a good idea to increase the number of seats in the House to perhaps 1000 (~328k people per Representative from current ~754k, compare with ~117k per MdB in Germany today) to avoid having 1 seat states.

Note that this is NOT the parliamentary system. You can have parliamentary system without proportional representation - see UK.

What this will do is of course end gerrymandering but it will also make smaller parties viable.
But the president will retain his role (no prime minister in my model!) and thus no coalition government will be needed. Instead, every vote could have shifting coalitions to support or oppose any candidate up for confirmation or any piece of legislation.
That would also mean that it would be unlikely for a single party to control the House - which means that a single party could neither be a rubberstamp body or obstruct anything the president proposes.
And while my model does not change the Senate directly, greater viability and visibility of smaller parties in the House would mean that they could win a few Senate seats - possibly enough to make a single-party majority in the Senate unlikely too.

 

[bilby]

A president is an elected king.

Kings should be seen but not heard.

All of history suggests that presidents are bad, and kings are worse. Parliaments are not much better, but they are better.

 

[Elixir]

A president is an elected king.

Kings should be seen but not heard.

All of history suggests that presidents are bad, and kings are worse. Parliaments are not much better, but they are better.

Yes, that. Which is why I suggested letting Trump be King.
It would shut up his idiot followers, allow him all the pageantry and adulation he craves and get him the hell out of all decision-making processes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A president is an elected king.

Kings should be seen but not heard.

All of history suggests that presidents are bad, and kings are worse. Parliaments are not much better, but they are better.

Yes, that. Which is why I suggested letting Trump be King.
It would shut up his idiot followers, allow him all the pageantry and adulation he craves and get him the hell out of all decision-making processes.

Why should Trump even be a powerless king? Less than half of all voters wanted him. Twice!

I’d rather his followers just understand they live in a representative democracy and suck it up when their candidate loses.

 

[lpetrich]

A president is an elected king.

Kings should be seen but not heard.

All of history suggests that presidents are bad, and kings are worse. Parliaments are not much better, but they are better.

Yes, that. Which is why I suggested letting Trump be King.
It would shut up his idiot followers, allow him all the pageantry and adulation he craves and get him the hell out of all decision-making processes.

A figurehead monarch like Queen Elizabeth II. We Americans don't need another King George III.

 

[bilby]

A president is an elected king.

Kings should be seen but not heard.

All of history suggests that presidents are bad, and kings are worse. Parliaments are not much better, but they are better.

Yes, that. Which is why I suggested letting Trump be King.
It would shut up his idiot followers, allow him all the pageantry and adulation he craves and get him the hell out of all decision-making processes.

Why should Trump even be a powerless king? Less than half of all voters wanted him. Twice!

I’d rather his followers just understand they live in a representative democracy and suck it up when their candidate loses.

The whole point of monarchies is that the opinions of the people about who should be king is completely irrelevant.

Monarchical succession almost never pays any attention to the opinions of citizens, and is not subject to a vote.

 

[bilby]

A president is an elected king.

Kings should be seen but not heard.

All of history suggests that presidents are bad, and kings are worse. Parliaments are not much better, but they are better.

Yes, that. Which is why I suggested letting Trump be King.
It would shut up his idiot followers, allow him all the pageantry and adulation he craves and get him the hell out of all decision-making processes.

A figurehead monarch like Queen Elizabeth II. We Americans don't need another King George III.

George III was a figurehead monarch. He had almost no personal power, even over his own life, and in 1811 was officially debarred from exercising what little power the British monarch still had.

The last British king to have dictatorial powers was Charles I, whose authority was seized from him by his parliament in the 1630s, ultimately leading to civil war from 1642 until Charles' imprisonment in 1645; Followed by a second war when he was busted out by his supporters, and ultimately by his beheading in 1649.

By 1688, it was established beyond doubt that the British crown was purely a figurehead, entirely responsible to parliament.

George III didn't do anything to America, except put his name to the deeds done by the parliaments and prime ministers.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why should Trump even be a powerless king? Less than half of all voters wanted him. Twice!

I’d rather his followers just understand they live in a representative democracy and suck it up when their candidate loses.

The whole point of monarchies is that the opinions of the people about who should be king is completely irrelevant.

Monarchical succession almost never pays any attention to the opinions of citizens, and is not subject to a vote.

But then why should it be Trump? Elixir’s suggestion was apparently to placate his followers, which goes against your claim that the opinions of the people are irrelevant.

 

[Derec]

Why should Trump even be a powerless king? Less than half of all voters wanted him. Twice!

You don't vote for kings.

Show

Instead, some moistened bint lobs a scimitar at you.

 

[Derec]

A president is an elected king.
Kings should be seen but not heard.
All of history suggests that presidents are bad, and kings are worse. Parliaments are not much better, but they are better.

I disagree. Separation of powers is a good thing. In parliamentary systems the execute is the extension of the legislative and thus there is no separation.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why should Trump even be a powerless king? Less than half of all voters wanted him. Twice!

You don't vote for kings.

Yes. I understand that. So, when Trump is willing to raise his army and conquer and hold the USA then he can be king.

The suggestion was made that he be king simply to placate his followers and I’m saying he should be a nobody in this country. I’d settle for prisoner, based on all his many crimes.

 

[Jayjay]

A president is an elected king.
Kings should be seen but not heard.
All of history suggests that presidents are bad, and kings are worse. Parliaments are not much better, but they are better.

I disagree. Separation of powers is a good thing. In parliamentary systems the execute is the extension of the legislative and thus there is no separation.

That's a valid point, but presidential systems don't seem to work very well anywhere else except the US. Maybe it's just harder to get separation of powers to work than a parliamentary system.

In any case, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.