Indeed, and the European Parliament is a toothless, bloated bureaucracy which makes the US Congress look like a paragon of efficiency.
Why don't Americans vote on other than the two right-wing parties?
- Thread starter B_johnschlong
- Start date
Indeed, and the European Parliament is a toothless, bloated bureaucracy which makes the US Congress look like a paragon of efficiency.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
I am not so sure about that regarding the EU Parliament. They have had $billions and billions that they have fed back into economic growth programmes, which despite waste and corruption, has made some serious differences.
Personally, I see Europe's strength as an economic union and this is now on test, IMO, with regards to Russia. A untied stance will achieve whatever we want, whereas division will lead to disaster.
To be fair to Johnschlong, saying that the US has two right ing parties is really no different to saying that socialism and communism are the same thing.
Cultures that have a united purpose tend to achieve more on a makro level, and having two parties that are in so many so similar, is hardly that different from having a one party system. The historical retrospective will likely see little difference between the US and say China. :tongue: Of course that will depend on who gets to write the history.
Thank you for stating the truth, at least from my perspective.
There is no truly "left" or liberal party in the sense of a labor party or a socialist party which would tax the free-market capitalists and corporations at much higher rates to pay for universal health care, a retirement system for all plus controlled prices for essential good and services. This alternative has been obliterated by the two major pro-market (rightist) parties. Calling the Democratic Party liberal is like calling Mormons christian.
Thanks Jason, very informative.
I'm sure there are advantages to the U.S. system, but I was merely wondering why American people seem to be satisfied to stick to two parties - I can't imagine two parties representing all the nuances and political points of view of people.
Let me give you an example of my last voting behavior:
-for the Flemish parliament, I voted for the Christian-Democrats (i.e. mildly conservative), because they proposed a delayed phase-out of nuclear power, whereas other parties wanted a faster phase-out. The Christian-Democrats could create a coalition with the Liberals (right wing, over here) and with the Flemish nationalists
-for the Federal parliament, I voted for the Socialists, because they have the most reasonable economic and social agenda, in this era of disastrous privatisations, price increases and aging populations
-for the European parliament, I voted for the Greens, because they support an important renewable energy agenda
So, in short, on all these levels, I had a choice between almost 10 different parties, each with their nuances. You computate the possible coalitions per subject, and you get possible outcomes and scenarios, at different executive levels.
This is surely rather complex, but it allows you to fine-tune your political preferences and give power to precisely those people who represent them best.
In the U.S., perhaps, these nuances disappear, because all topics get expressed in black (Republican) and white (Democrat) terms - a binary mode of strict oppositions. This must be frustrating.
But then, perhaps, within each of these two parties there is an entire spectrum stretching from one extreme to another: right of right right-wing Republicans and left of right right-wing Republicans / left of left right-wing Democrats and right of left right-wing Democrats. But then you're stuck with voting for a particular politician, who, once in office, will follow the consensus within his party.
Thanks John, much appreciated.
There are advantages to the US system but why our government was created the way it was reflects a country consisting of states with far greater power than they have today.
The electoral college system was devised to allow small states to have a slightly larger voice in elections than they would ordinarily have so that the states themselves had a voice in the system. When the US was first founded, it resembled the EU today. States all had their own laws, own governments, and their own cultures and some states, in culture and system of government, didn't resemble each other at all. Convincing these states to submit to a federal authority was not easy and part of coercing them to do so was being able to guarantee that each state would have a say in the federal government, as a state, not just a section of population. Senators, the upper house, were originally state-government appointed officials so that, again, the states themselves had a very direct voice in federal government. Only the House of Representatives, the lower house, had members elected by popular vote. The power between the two was balanced by a constitutional provision that only the House has the ability to create bills that entail the creation of federal spending, though all bills must pass both houses to have a chance to become law.
What the founding fathers were trying to avoid was the singular power that prime ministers now have. A prime minister with a majority in parliament essentially becomes a law making body all on his or her own. The greater the majority, the more freedom to act as a tyrant that prime minister has. In theory, the American federal system prevents this because it clearly separates the three branches of government into distinct bodies each with their autonomous powers. The President does not enter Congress save by invitation, except to deliver the State of the Union address which is a constitutionally-required presidential duty. Same goes with the White House. Congress only goes to the President upon invitation of the President. Neither of them go to the Supreme Court. Each branch, via a system of checks and balances, is empowered to curtail the other two and thus they are pitted against each other in their affairs though, of all the branches, Congress is the most powerful of the three in that it is empowered to remove members of the other two though doing so requires a great majority of congressional members to do so, and that Congress controls spending. A president or a supreme court order could cause spending to be necessary but if Congress doesn't authorize that spending, nothing happens.
As you might guess, the overriding concern of the founding fathers was to prevent any one person and any one branch of government from have such overriding power that there was an effective tyranny.
If Bush seems to be more autocratic and unchecked than other presidents, it's because our Congress has been wholly indecisive about what do regarding his policies. The Supreme Court has acted against Bush's policies by declaring several of his edicts unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court can only rule on matters of law brought before it and the court system works slowly, each case (with some exceptions) passing through lower courts until they are referred to the Supreme Court. Congress has the power to create laws to curtail the actions of a President if those laws fall outside of the President's constitutionally-authorized powers. The President can, however, decide to vacate that law unless that law is passed by a 2/3 or greater majority of Congress in which case the law is passed no matter what the President wants. The current Congressional leadership is widely regarded as weak and cynical. Weak because not only have they been unable to curtail Bush's policies, but because they haven't been able to do much of anything at all. Even after the mid-term elections when the Democrats gained an even higher percentage of seats in Congress, nothing has happened. Cynical because many people believe that the Democrats are only too willing to let Bush run the country into the ground so that their presidential candidate will look as good as possible, and the Republican candidate look as awful as possible, come November.
Bush is in office now. Whether the first election was stolen or not, Americans clearly voted for him a second time and it's our fault he's in office. Congress, however, is completely to blame for his dreadful policies. Congress authorized the war in Iraq, Congress authorized the spending for it, Congress has stood by and done nothing even after the elections two years ago when Americans clamored for Congress to do something to reign-in what is viewed as an increasingly unresponsive and irresponsible White House by voting in a Democratic majority in both houses. Many Americans believe Bush's tenure has been so bad that they want to see Bush and Cheney removed from office. They cite his unconstitutional actions, some confirmed as such by the Supreme Court, as valid grounds for removal from office and yet the Democratic leadership has so far resisted doing so. Other presidents have been removed, or come close to being removed, for far less. It is this enormous frustration, combined with a bad economy, an energy crisis, an unpopular war, the threat of another war (with Iran), and a President who only panders to his base, that leaves many American furious and divided against each other.
This is one of those situations where a parliamentary system would have worked better. No prime minister could survive in office as Bush has. His coalitions would have collapsed and failing that, he would have been out of office two years ago following a no-confidence vote. In that sense, parliaments are more responsive to changing political opinion than our federalist system, and historically it appears that bad prime ministers don't last as long as good ones. Conversely, prime ministers with great majorities have nearly unlimited power within the political system unless the head of state has real power to counter an overzealous prime minister and if our version of government leans one way, it is to prevent that very situation despite the difficulty in removing any president.
There are advantages to the US system but why our government was created the way it was reflects a country consisting of states with far greater power than they have today.
The electoral college system was devised to allow small states to have a slightly larger voice in elections than they would ordinarily have so that the states themselves had a voice in the system. When the US was first founded, it resembled the EU today. States all had their own laws, own governments, and their own cultures and some states, in culture and system of government, didn't resemble each other at all. Convincing these states to submit to a federal authority was not easy and part of coercing them to do so was being able to guarantee that each state would have a say in the federal government, as a state, not just a section of population. Senators, the upper house, were originally state-government appointed officials so that, again, the states themselves had a very direct voice in federal government. Only the House of Representatives, the lower house, had members elected by popular vote. The power between the two was balanced by a constitutional provision that only the House has the ability to create bills that entail the creation of federal spending, though all bills must pass both houses to have a chance to become law.
What the founding fathers were trying to avoid was the singular power that prime ministers now have. A prime minister with a majority in parliament essentially becomes a law making body all on his or her own. The greater the majority, the more freedom to act as a tyrant that prime minister has. In theory, the American federal system prevents this because it clearly separates the three branches of government into distinct bodies each with their autonomous powers. The President does not enter Congress save by invitation, except to deliver the State of the Union address which is a constitutionally-required presidential duty. Same goes with the White House. Congress only goes to the President upon invitation of the President. Neither of them go to the Supreme Court. Each branch, via a system of checks and balances, is empowered to curtail the other two and thus they are pitted against each other in their affairs though, of all the branches, Congress is the most powerful of the three in that it is empowered to remove members of the other two though doing so requires a great majority of congressional members to do so, and that Congress controls spending. A president or a supreme court order could cause spending to be necessary but if Congress doesn't authorize that spending, nothing happens.
As you might guess, the overriding concern of the founding fathers was to prevent any one person and any one branch of government from have such overriding power that there was an effective tyranny.
If Bush seems to be more autocratic and unchecked than other presidents, it's because our Congress has been wholly indecisive about what do regarding his policies. The Supreme Court has acted against Bush's policies by declaring several of his edicts unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court can only rule on matters of law brought before it and the court system works slowly, each case (with some exceptions) passing through lower courts until they are referred to the Supreme Court. Congress has the power to create laws to curtail the actions of a President if those laws fall outside of the President's constitutionally-authorized powers. The President can, however, decide to vacate that law unless that law is passed by a 2/3 or greater majority of Congress in which case the law is passed no matter what the President wants. The current Congressional leadership is widely regarded as weak and cynical. Weak because not only have they been unable to curtail Bush's policies, but because they haven't been able to do much of anything at all. Even after the mid-term elections when the Democrats gained an even higher percentage of seats in Congress, nothing has happened. Cynical because many people believe that the Democrats are only too willing to let Bush run the country into the ground so that their presidential candidate will look as good as possible, and the Republican candidate look as awful as possible, come November.
Bush is in office now. Whether the first election was stolen or not, Americans clearly voted for him a second time and it's our fault he's in office. Congress, however, is completely to blame for his dreadful policies. Congress authorized the war in Iraq, Congress authorized the spending for it, Congress has stood by and done nothing even after the elections two years ago when Americans clamored for Congress to do something to reign-in what is viewed as an increasingly unresponsive and irresponsible White House by voting in a Democratic majority in both houses. Many Americans believe Bush's tenure has been so bad that they want to see Bush and Cheney removed from office. They cite his unconstitutional actions, some confirmed as such by the Supreme Court, as valid grounds for removal from office and yet the Democratic leadership has so far resisted doing so. Other presidents have been removed, or come close to being removed, for far less. It is this enormous frustration, combined with a bad economy, an energy crisis, an unpopular war, the threat of another war (with Iran), and a President who only panders to his base, that leaves many American furious and divided against each other.
This is one of those situations where a parliamentary system would have worked better. No prime minister could survive in office as Bush has. His coalitions would have collapsed and failing that, he would have been out of office two years ago following a no-confidence vote. In that sense, parliaments are more responsive to changing political opinion than our federalist system, and historically it appears that bad prime ministers don't last as long as good ones. Conversely, prime ministers with great majorities have nearly unlimited power within the political system unless the head of state has real power to counter an overzealous prime minister and if our version of government leans one way, it is to prevent that very situation despite the difficulty in removing any president.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
Jason, I would be very interested to know whether you think a Parliamentary form of democracy, with a safety valve second chamber, is possible in countries the size and as diverse as the US?
Yes. The US is far more homogeneous than it was when it was founded. States rights have waned steadily in the face of a growing federal behemoth, and most people do not consider themselves to be citizens of their state primarily and Americans secondarily. It may sound bizarre, but prior to FDR, under whom the federal government became the pre-eminent authority, most people more concerned with the day-to-day politics of their state and city. They thought of the governor more than the president, and truly were regional in outlook becuase it was regional politics that affected their lives the most. Now things are very different. We're far more mobile, far more connected by media, and our economies have moved from local or regional to national to global. Few states maintain a distinct identity as reflected in their government. Any identity we think of today comes down to regional cultural variations, only minorly political affiliations. There are exceptions (New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Texas come to mind), but on the whole, it is far easier to transition from one place to another and that's reflected in our focus on national politics.
My version of the perfect US government is a hybrid of what we have today. I'd love to see the lower house be elected in the same manner as the German Bundestag except for state representatives. The Bundestag gives each person two votes, one for a candidate, another for a party. This gives the kind of proportional representation I believe is so lacking in US politics and would give greater voice to the many people who feel they have to settle for bad or worse. The lower house would retain sole powers of taxation and legislative creation. From that house, the PM would be elected by the parliament.
The upper house would be much like our original Senate; appointed by the governors of each state, two to a state, and would retain the authority to approve Supreme Court appointees and ratify treaties. Otherwise, the Senate would remain a deliberative body with the ability to veto House legislation unless the House were able to pass the legislation by a 2/3 vote, in which case the Senate's veto would be overriden. The Senate may return amended legislation to the lower house for consideration up to three times or until a 2/3 vote by the lower house is made. The Senate can also create committees for draft legislation proposals that would then pass to the standing committees of the lower house for consideration.
In the general election the people would vote for their House reps and also vote for a President to act as Head of State, Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and be vested with the powers of dissolving the government, calling elections, and appointing a PM if no quorum could be attained in the lower house. The President would also head the Government Accounting Office, a separate audit department which we have now, to keep track of what government is really spending and how. The President would also act as President of the Senate in much the same way the Vice President does now. The term of a President should be long, perhaps 8 years.
The Supreme Court would carry on much as it has before save that the PM would appoint nominees to the court.
Impeachment and removal process for the President, Senators, and Supreme Court members would proceed, again, must like before. The lower house passes the articles, the upper house would try them. Only the lower house can remove a PM by a vote of no-confidence.
I think that this system would work. It's a bit more complex but it would allow multiple parties and give the people actually more say than they do now. The Senate would be subservient to the states once again, curtailing the power of the federal government. The person of the President relieves the PM of Head of State duties but also acts as an overseer of government by acting as the President of the Senate and having an oversight department under its aegis. The President also acts as a stopgap against government overthrow or abuse of privilege by the PM by being Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
What matters most to most people, is that the Bill of Rights be protected, there is an independent judiciary, and that there is full equality before the law. Beyond that, I believe most would welcome a chance for more enfranchisement.
The biggest hurdles are the present party system which makes any change close to impossible, and the difficulty and gravity of changing the Constitution. In other words, don't hold your breath.
And my advice to Europe is, ditch the entire United States of Europe thing. Unify your damned currencies, create one huge free trade zone, and then let it go. Europe is not the United States. There is no one unifying ideology or a history of immigration and assimilation. You are dealing with a myriad of homogeneous cultures, not a bunch of mutts thrown together. And get the non-European immigrants out before they're butchered.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
Thanks again Jason.
As an outside observer, your constitution does seem to be too much of a sacred cow, which is somewhat ironic as I don't recall that being the intention of the authors; "laws are for the living", comes to mind. However, what you describe rings true to my comprehension in terms of large corporate structures, Chairman, non exec directors and executive officers etc...
People are often surprised how many seemingly large companies come and go each generation. The danger is institutionalisation, and the problem there is that the institution becomes more important than the changing circumstances, and the people who work for the institution run it for their own benefit, rather than that of the customer. I know you know this, I am just saying it.
Personally, I wasn't brought up as a European, which I am sure is very common for many Brits, however, having spent time in every Western European country, I have no doubt that there is something akin to Europeanism, call it an evolved Pax Romana if you like. What we do with this is the issue. I think I personally favour a stronger political representation, though the punch of a free market zone of 600 million prosperous people is plenty powerful per se.
As for immigration and seemingly opposing cultural forces, I think that needs to be a different thread :smile:
Anyway to John's thread, is there a genuine debate in the US regarding wider representation in Government of the political rainbow? It doesn't seem so from over here to be honest.