Could parliamentary democracy save America?

[marmar]

Could parliamentary democracy save America?
Four or five parties? Double the size of Congress? No more presidential elections? One scholar thinks it might work

By PAUL ROSENBERG
PUBLISHED MARCH 9, 2024 9:00AM (EST)


(Salon) The subtitle of Maxwell L. Stearns' new book, “Parliamentary America,” is critical: “The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy.”

Perhaps the worst single aspect of America's broken democracy is the fact that it seems virtually impossible to fix, since our system rests on a constitution written 230-odd years ago that is insanely difficult to amend. While the changes Stearns proposes are indeed radical in some respects, they fall well within the international norm for modern democracies, and do not come with strong, obvious disincentives that would lead political actors to reject them out of hand — particularly as other options may arise that appear more threatening. That alone is a remarkable feat.

Stearns, a law professor at the University of Maryland, proposes three constitutional amendments that would, for starters, double the size of the House of Representatives, which would be elected using mixed-member proportional representation, similar to the current system in Germany. Voters would cast ballots for candidates in their local district, as they do now, and then would cast a second ballot by party, in principle allowing smaller parties to flourish. Parties in the House — whether or not any party holds a majority — would then form a governing coalition to elect the president, who could also be removed with a 60-percent “no confidence” vote.

....(snip)....

In your introduction, you say that "to the extent the story of our nation is exceptional, it’s in spite of, not because of, our constitutional design," observing that while democracy has been widely adopted around the world, the American system has not. So why not — and what can we learn from other democratic systems?

We have successfully exported democracy, but not two-party presidentialism. The characteristic features of democracy around the world, when the democracies are successful, include proportional representation and coalition governance. Instead, our two-party presidential system operates on a winner-take-all principle. It turns out that democracies that don't rest on winner-take-all, that allow different parties to contribute to the formation of the government, better satisfy voters and also are more responsive as governments. ................(more)

https://www.salon.com/2024/03/09/could-parliamentary-democracy-save-america/

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. The least radical means would be ditching the Electoral College

Both ways require Constitutional Amendments. The EC is much more doable than a Parliament.

[anciano]

2. Agreed.

[Ocelot II]

3. I agree. Without the EC we would have a much better shot at representative elections.

The changes described in the article might work, but they seem too complicated to make it through the amendment process. Even ditching the EC will be difficult because the conservative states benefit from it and they won't want to let go.

[erronis]

4. It still leaves us with the unfair state power in the Senate

Tiny states have the same number of senators as highly-populated ones.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Yes, that is a large problem too. But even harder to change, regardless of its obvious merits. . . . nt

[Bobstandard]

5. It can't save England

England has been in the throes of dysfunction throughout the time our country has been suffering from that malady. One form of democracy seems to be as vulnerable to bad actors as another.

[Borderer]

10. The UK has parliamentary government, but it is not proportionate

and it also shares some of the other problems of the US system. Brexit happened after a party with 36.8% of the vote won 50.8% of the seats and was thus able to call a referendum that the knuckle draggers in its base wanted. Not once since WW2 has the winning party in Westminster secured more than 50% of the popular vote (the high water mark being 49.7% in 1955) and these days polling in the low 40s is sufficient for a landslide. On two occasions since WW2 the party with a plurality of votes won fewer seats than the party which went on to form the government. Gerrymandering of boundaries for party advantage is much more difficult here than in the US, but the Conservative Party still tries to do so at every opportunity, and they have recently secured changes to the way that population is calculated in the most recent boundary review so as to undercount poor people and migrants (as well as forcing through voter ID rules for the same partisan reasons).

I used to be opposed to proportional representation as I felt it would just lead to center-right coalitions with the choice of who forms the government effectively being made by the middle-of-the-road and geographical parties rather than by the electorate. However, after a decade of vile Conservative administrations ruining the country on the back of a 36-43% share of the vote I have changed my mind.

[Jerry2144]

6. the first fix is to eliminate gerrymandering

It would get rid of the extremists. Right now, if there is a safe red district, then any red will win it, no matter who it is. So it boils down to the primary for that district. Primaries usually draw out the most fervent of reds and moerates and independents don't vote as much. So whoever is the most red (would that be infrared?) will win the primary and then automatically the general.

If we fix the extreme gerrymandering such that few seats, if any, are safe red (or blue, to be fair), then primaries will still select based upon their primary voters. In the general it will be whoever appeals the most to the moderates and the general people will win. No extremists.

We will also have to figure out how to fix the propaganda stations passing as news and bring back real journalism.

[jgo]

9. fyi - There are various math algorithms that could be used

Here is one example - splitlines.

https://rangevoting.org/SplitLR.html

[mn9driver]

8. The GOP has discovered it can turn the constitution into a suicide pact.

The current state of politics in this country makes it absolutely necessary to amend the constitution while at the same time it makes it impossible to do so.