[socalstanfan1]

For those on this board who dream of a parliamentary "democracy" for the USA, look at the UK.  I have lived here for 25 or my past 27 years.  It is less a democracy than a term limited dictatorship, with few checks and balances and with a parliament which speaks with vitriol rather than reason.  And don't get me started on the House of "Lords" ........

I was just thinking about the musings on this thread regarding a Parliamentary system.  I don't have the first-hand experience of Stymie, so I won't bother casting an opinion about how it works, but it does seem to be indulging in fantasy to consider this as an alternative to the US system, at least for the foreseeable future.  Basically scrap the Constitution (held by many people on both sides of the proverbial aisle as a nearly sacred document, regardless of whether we see it as a text to go back to in a fundamentalist fashion, or a "living" document, developing with society) and create a system that would be clearly derivative of someone else's government?  In a country that still prides itself on being at the cutting edge of government innovation so recently (at least historically speaking). Not..gonna...happen.

Furthermore, despite all the legitimate concern about government deadlock, I'm don't feel so totally helpless about US politics.  Given time, we might see gradual improvements and tweaking of the system.  Things have always been contentious in Congress, but not always this bad.  Much as the founders intended, the current divisions in Congress seem to reflect, to some degree, the divisions within the nation itself.  Certainly this is the case with the way the Senate reviews SC nominees.  But is that all bad?  The biggest issues, it seems to me, are the abuse of the filibuster in the Senate and the use of the so-called "Hastert Rule" in the House, whereby a speaker will not allow an bill to go forward unless the majority of the majority party agrees to it.  Both of these things seem anti-democratic, (Particularly in the way the filibuster is being used in the Senate in recent years), and the Hastert Rule in particular is more about maintaining party discipline, rather than actually getting anything done. But they are not really about legislating. 

Allow nominees and bills to move forward to be voted upon by all members in both chambers of Congress.  If a coalition of members of both parties agree to a piece of legislation, or accept the nominee to the SC, let it be so.  I could see, over the next few years, modifying of some of the parliamentary rules and behaviors of parties to unblock some of the gridlock in Congress, and with that the system would not seem so broken...merely unwieldy and slow moving, kind of as was expected all along.

On the other hand, if the majority of Americans were to pick a buffoon like Trump as their next President, replacing reason with Pro-Wrestling Style hysteria and PT Barnum-ish showmanship, I would truly lose hope...

[socalstanfan1]

For those on this board who dream of a parliamentary "democracy" for the USA, look at the UK.  I have lived here for 25 or my past 27 years.  It is less a democracy than a term limited dictatorship, with few checks and balances and with a parliament which speaks with vitriol rather than reason.  And don't get me started on the House of "Lords" ........

I was just thinking about the musings on this thread regarding a Parliamentary system.  I don't have the first-hand experience of Stymie, so I won't bother casting an opinion about how it works, but it does seem to be indulging in fantasy to consider this as an alternative to the US system, at least for the foreseeable future.  Basically scrap the Constitution (held by many people on both sides of the proverbial aisle as a nearly sacred document, regardless of whether we see it as a text to go back to in a fundamentalist fashion, or a "living" document, developing with society) and create a system that would be clearly derivative of someone else's government?  In a country that still prides itself on being at the cutting edge of government innovation so recently (at least historically speaking). Not..gonna...happen.

Furthermore, despite all the legitimate concern about government deadlock, I'm don't feel so totally helpless about US politics.  Given time, we might see gradual improvements and tweaking of the system.  Things have always been contentious in Congress, but not always this bad.  Much as the founders intended, the current divisions in Congress seem to reflect, to some degree, the divisions within the nation itself.  Certainly this is the case with the way the Senate reviews SC nominees.  But is that all bad?  The biggest issues, it seems to me, are the abuse of the filibuster in the Senate and the use of the so-called "Hastert Rule" in the House, whereby a speaker will not allow an bill to go forward unless the majority of the majority party agrees to it.  Both of these things seem anti-democratic, (Particularly in the way the filibuster is being used in the Senate in recent years), and the Hastert Rule in particular is more about maintaining party discipline, rather than actually getting anything done. But they are not really about legislating. 

Allow nominees and bills to move forward to be voted upon by all members in both chambers of Congress.  If a coalition of members of both parties agree to a piece of legislation, or accept the nominee to the SC, let it be so.  I could see, over the next few years, modifying of some of the parliamentary rules and behaviors of parties to unblock some of the gridlock in Congress, and with that the system would not seem so broken...merely unwieldy and slow moving, kind of as was expected all along.

On the other hand, if the majority of Americans were to pick a buffoon like Trump as their next President, replacing reason with Pro-Wrestling Style hysteria and PT Barnum-ish showmanship, I would truly lose hope...