Are there too many "checks and balances" in the US political system?

[Mordecai]

The threat of a filibuster (instead of a talking filibuster) should go. Other than that, the system is pretty good. The main thing wrong with the House is gerrymandering and that's an issue that resides with the state legislatures. However, I do think that a debt ceiling increase should be tied to congressional budgets and appropriations so you're not tempting fate with stupidity.

One of the double-edged swords of a parliament is that the head of government basically always has the votes needed to get its legislation passed in the lower house and the only thing stopping it is the upper house, because the head of state is usually only a ceremonial figure who rubber stamps whatever the government passes. So when you have good governments (Hawke, Keating) they're really good and when you have terrible governments (Howard, Abbott) they're really terrible.

Just imagine the kind of damage the Gingrich revolution or the Tea Party could do if the political agenda was determined by them in the House, and the only thing stopping them was Harry Reid and a handful of Blue Dog Democrats.

[Mordecai]

Just imagine the kind of damage the Gingrich revolution or the Tea Party could do if the political agenda was determined by them in the House, and the only thing stopping them was Harry Reid and a handful of Blue Dog Democrats.

I don't think that's such a bad thing. Someone like Gingrich may not have come to power if the US were under a parliamentary system. If he did, he would have ultimately been held accountable for his actions. It's one thing to hold a position, but it's quite another to actually enact it.

Are you sure? If it was Prime Minister Reagan he probably could have held power till the day he died, with no term limits and only popular support from the caucus required to stay in power. Even if they were to lose the next election, they have that power in the mean time to push their agenda. Our Prime Minister right now is slashing education funding, pawning off public assets, dismantling environmental protection laws, dismantling hate crime laws, reinstating knights and dames, violating Indonesian sovereignty, etc. etc. At least with your Republican House you have Obama's veto.

I agree with the accountability argument, but it's also dependent on having an Opposition that is cohesive and well-organized. I guess I should explain that our Labor Party has a really terrible time with being organized and supporting the leader. It's the one thing that the conservatives know how to do well, fall in line behind the leader as they all go like lemmings off the cliff.

There's another thing I forgot to mention, which is that in Australia we have a federal government agency that does the redistricting, which works pretty well. I truly don't believe a federal parliament could work in the United States without a federal agency doing the redistricting.

[Mordecai]

There's another thing I forgot to mention, which is that in Australia we have a federal government agency that does the redistricting, which works pretty well. I truly don't believe a federal parliament could work in the United States without a federal agency doing the redistricting.

The drawing of congressional districts is not the exclusive province of the state legislatures. Congress could enact a law setting up a national redistricting commission with its own guidelines. From Art I sect 4 of the US Constitution (emphasis added):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In 1967 Congress used this power to require all districts to be single member.

I didn't know about that. It's a shame that it's not used.