General Discussion

The Velveteen Ocelot

(130,063 posts)

18. Here's the problem, I think:

Sun Dec 9, 2018, 03:22 PM

Dec 2018

In a parliamentary system, the executive and the legislative branches aren't separate; the prime minister is the head of government but is also a member of the parliament, which can appoint and dismiss the head of government; and in some cases the parliament itself, or the prime minister, can dissolve the parliament and call for a new election. The prime minister is chosen by the parliament, usually through the votes of multiple-party coalitions.

How could an electoral college, which elects a president based on the votes of each separate state, fit into such a system, especially when it is almost impossible for a third-party to acquire enough votes in a single state to get that state's electoral votes? And if it does, that party's candidate won't win the election but will only act as a spoiler for the party from which it takes votes. If you have a parliamentary system, multiple parties within the parliament can form coalitions of enough somewhat like-minded members to elect a prime minister, who for that reason is almost always something of a compromise. This also tends to deter extremist factions from seizing power.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

26 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why do we not require SC justices [View all] Trump Must Go Dec 2018 OP

Because the Constitution says Supreme Court justices are confirmed The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2018 #1

I understand this, my real question is Trump Must Go Dec 2018 #5

"We" would have to go through the lengthy and probably fruitless process The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2018 #7

"Why do we not change the Constitution to require a 2/3 vote?" elocs Dec 2018 #12

Because both sides want justices that will further their agenda fescuerescue Dec 2018 #16

Because that was supported by the filibuster procedure pnwmom Dec 2018 #22

The Constitution is why DetroitLegalBeagle Dec 2018 #2

Since the Constitution does not state how many vote are needed Trump Must Go Dec 2018 #15

Oh, I'm not so sure that's possible DetroitLegalBeagle Dec 2018 #26

Because the rules of the Senate are defined by the majority. Glamrock Dec 2018 #3

Not in this instance. In this, the rule is defined in the Constitution. WillowTree Dec 2018 #9

Didn't he change the filibuster rule before thr Gorsuch nomination? Glamrock Dec 2018 #21

Yes, but the 60 vote rule was for cloture - ending debate and proceeding to a vote The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2018 #25

The answer to that question, like the answers to most questions about MineralMan Dec 2018 #4

It's ridiculous that we still have the Electoral College. CTyankee Dec 2018 #8

Until the Constitution is changed, we will still have it. MineralMan Dec 2018 #10

Other democracies exist very well by not having the EC. CTyankee Dec 2018 #11

Almost all other first-world democracies have parliamentary governments. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2018 #14

I don't see "coalition of multiple parties" and being relevant. CTyankee Dec 2018 #17

Here's the problem, I think: The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2018 #18

I probably need help with my civics so help me through this. CTyankee Dec 2018 #19

The *only* constitutional duty the VP has, besides being the backup for a president The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2018 #23

good post. thank you. CTyankee Dec 2018 #24

At some point, we need to amend to set some SCOTUS rules Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2018 #6

"3/5 or 2/3 to confirm" With that rule in this political climate, no one would ever be confirmed. WillowTree Dec 2018 #13

Counterpoint: an older jurist with a non controversial record Algernon Moncrieff Dec 2018 #20