What if we had parliamentary elections instead?

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Let's say they are held every five years. 

For just an example, the election in 2003 was a victory for the Conservatives (Republicans), then the Progressives won in 2008 and the Obama government was re-elected in 2013, but Donald Trump took over the Conservative Party in a leadership election (despite not being an MP) and the Conservatives won control with a majority in 2018.  Since then, that majority has been chipped away at through lots of by-elections.

The House is probably much larger (say 601 seats) and instead of losing seats, states gain seats.  It would make sense for the map to be drawn by a nonpartisan independent commission but I suppose it could still be drawn by the individual state parliaments, which means it would probably lean Conservative.

So the next scheduled election would then be 2023.  Donald Trump would be PM until then unless the Progressives could force a vote of no confidence that will succeed by either having defections from the Conservatives or winning more by-elections to get a bare majority (301 seats).

What would likely happen under this parliamentary scenario and would you prefer this to the current system?

Would Progressives from 2008-2018 have dramatically changed government policy and would all of that have been repealed by the Conservative government starting in 2018?

Would voter turnout be much higher with parliamentary elections?

[Thank you for being a friend...]

Another interesting revision in this parliamentary system could be naming the constituencies... for example: Susan Wild, Progressive MP for Lehigh Valley and the Poconos.

[LabourJersey]

I think on the whole turnout would be higher for parliamentary elections because the actual vote is more straightforward for the average or low-information voter. If you want one party to control all of government, you vote for them; if not; vote for an alternative. You eliminate the kind of "check on the president's power" or "I want both parties to work together" sentiment that is hilariously misplaced nowadays.

I think the political landscape of the US would be wildly different under a Parliament, though. Imagine how different Obama's administration would have been if he had a friendly Congress for 8 years--you can see Cap-And-Trade, Immigration Reform, minimum wage increases and a whole host of other progressive policies enacted. He would have vastly more successful as a President (assuming he won eight years of power of course, but even 4 or 5 years would have seen a good amount of accomplishments), and that would have minimized the general malaise with Obama that was necessary for Trump to squeak by in 2016 (obviously that's not the only reason Trump won, but I think it's an important aspect.

That's not to say that there couldn't be a Trumpian force in US parliamentary politics; but I think his "I alone can fix it" image was especially powerful in a system with a President often at odds with Congress than in a parliamentary system.

And also the timing of these elections is everything: the UK would be a very different place if the general election was held in late 1978 as opposed to May 1979: that Winter of Discontent was a huge factor in the election of Thatcher.

[Lechasseur]

I'm sure the US would be a much better place with a parliamentary system, things could actually get done and there wouldn't be the deadlock that's been in place for the last 25-30 years

[QAnonKelly]

We need that sweet, sweet MMP baby.

[MillennialModerate]

Before the deadlock and lack of partisanship I would have gladly said our system is way better.
I don’t like that you don’t directly vote for the leader of the country.

However the way partisan gridlock has prevented anything of importance from getting done has really made me consider the idea that the parliamentary system might be not a bad idea.

Now a few simple fixes would make our system better:


• Uniformity across all states (runoffs, legislative, voting, Gov terms)
• Make the POTUS Primaries similar in all parties
• DC statehood
• PR Statehood (w/VI)
• END of the Fillibuster makes a trifecta majority enough to do things without the other party). A trifecta is hard enough to attain and if you attain it you should be able to pass whatever you want
• Make Gerrymandering illegal. Let independent commissions and neutral judges dictate all districts.
• Increase the size of the house by 100 (not a lot but enough to make it fairer)

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I worked on something adjacent to this, making congressional districts the size of English parliamentary constituencies. I called members MH’s (members of The House) and gave each one names, which could be tricky at times

[beesley]

I worked on something adjacent to this, making congressional districts the size of English parliamentary constituencies. I called members MH’s (members of The House) and gave each one names, which could be tricky at times

Gosh, even Wyoming has the equivalent of about 5 or 6 of our seats.

[Damocles]

Would be pretty based, IMO. However you’d also need a whole host of reforms in order to make the House more representative:

- Some form of proportional representation. The percentage of seats controlled by each party should always approximate the percentage of votes it received.

- Apply the Cube Root Rule to sizing the House of Representatives. This would shrink electorate sizes and provide for automatic size changes every 10 years.

- Raise the floor for representation to 3 representatives per state. This prevents a situation where any one party controls 100% of an entire state’s delegation to the House.

- Promulgate uniform standards for casting ballots, counting, tabulating, and certifying tallies for elections to the House, which all states must adhere to.

- Promulgate uniform standards for registering political parties and standing for election in any given state, to prevent any quirks from unfairly disqualifying any particular candidate.

- Abolish districts entirely and go to state-level representation. This removes any opportunity for gerrymandering or other ratf#%kery by state boards of elections and districting commissions.

- Use closed lists. This permits a party to maintain ideological consistency and control, and gives voters a clear sense of choice between several alternative parties. And if a substantial portion of a given party’s MPs are unhappy, they can always threaten to leave and start another party.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I worked on something adjacent to this, making congressional districts the size of English parliamentary constituencies. I called members MH’s (members of The House) and gave each one names, which could be tricky at times

Gosh, even Wyoming has the equivalent of about 5 or 6 of our seats.

Oh yea it was beautiful and terrible. California has 500 seats alone. Congress is the size of a small town.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The issue is the Senate. Typically parliamentary regimes work with one house being effectively supreme - it solely empowers the executive, and therefore it is logical that it is where legislation is initiated, while the non-supreme house has powers to ratify/delay/veto etc - the testing of this led to a constitutional crisis back in the day in the UK, when the Lords tried to flex their power against Lloyd George's reforms, and were forced to back down. There is only one exception I can think of where a parliamentary government requires assent from both Houses, and that's the Italian Parliament - which is a total farce.

This also would cause a snarl with a concept that is pretty much uniformly considered sacrosanct in American politics across the aisle - the importance of checks and balances. A legislature with total power over the executive would perhaps feel wrong for many Americans. Now, I, as a Brit who is not steeped in that tradition, and in fact think Montesquieu's instinctive obsession with limiting power was more based on a selfish belief that empowering power aristocratic despots was for some reason synonymous with liberty, do not share that belief, but this is the nature of cultural clash.

[Damocles]

The issue is the Senate. Typically parliamentary regimes work with one house being effectively supreme - it soley empowers the executive, and therefore it is logical that it is where legislation is initiated, while the non-supreme house has powers to ratify/delay/veto etc - the testing of this led to a constititional crisis back in the day in the UK, when the Lords tried to flex their power against Lloyd George's reforms, and were forced to back down. There is only one exception I can think of where a parliamentary government requires assent from both Houses, and that's the Italian Parliament - which is a total farce.

This also would cause a snarl with a concept that is pretty much unformly considered sacrosanct in American politics across the aisle - the importance of checks and balances. A legislature with total power over the executive would perhaps feel wrong for many Americans. Now, I, as a Brit who is not steeped in that tradition, and in fact think Montesquieu's instinctive obsession with limiting power was more based on a selfish belief that empowering power aristocratic despots was for some reason synonymous with liberty, do not share that belief, but this is the nature of cultural clash.

The senate is dumb and broken anyway.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The issue is the Senate. Typically parliamentary regimes work with one house being effectively supreme - it soley empowers the executive, and therefore it is logical that it is where legislation is initiated, while the non-supreme house has powers to ratify/delay/veto etc - the testing of this led to a constititional crisis back in the day in the UK, when the Lords tried to flex their power against Lloyd George's reforms, and were forced to back down. There is only one exception I can think of where a parliamentary government requires assent from both Houses, and that's the Italian Parliament - which is a total farce.

This also would cause a snarl with a concept that is pretty much unformly considered sacrosanct in American politics across the aisle - the importance of checks and balances. A legislature with total power over the executive would perhaps feel wrong for many Americans. Now, I, as a Brit who is not steeped in that tradition, and in fact think Montesquieu's instinctive obsession with limiting power was more based on a selfish belief that empowering power aristocratic despots was for some reason synonymous with liberty, do not share that belief, but this is the nature of cultural clash.

The senate is dumb and broken anyway.

my pet theory is the 17th Amendment was wrongheaded: it should have been kept as an indirectly elected chamber, but transformed it a clearly lesser chamber that largely stuck to the roles of the Bundesrat (e.g. its powers over appointing the judiciary transferred to the House). It is beyond crazy to me that a chamber specifically designed to be anti-democratic is more powerful than the democratic chamber, in a country that most people consider the most powerful democracy in the world. (If anyone is tempted to quote this pointing out that America is a Republic not a Democracy, please do something more productive with your time, like sticking a fork in an electrical outlet.

[Damocles]

my pet theory is the 17th Amendment was worngheaded: it should have been kept as an indirectly elected chamber, but transformed it a clearly lesser chamber that largely stuck to the roles of the Bundesrat (e.g. its powers over appointing the judiciary transferred to the House). It is beyond crazy to me that a chamber specifically designed to be anti-democratic is more powerful than the democratic chamber, in a country that most people consider the most powerful demoracy in the world. (If anyone is tempted to quote this pointing out that America is a Republic not a Democracy, please do something more productive with your time, like sticking a fork in an electrical outlet.

Yea, but, but, then rural conservatives wouldn’t be able to hold this country in the 18th century!!!!

[Mr. Morden]

For just an example, the election in 2003 was a victory for the Conservatives (Republicans), then the Progressives won in 2008 and the Obama government was re-elected in 2013, but Donald Trump took over the Conservative Party in a leadership election (despite not being an MP) and the Conservatives won control with a majority in 2018.

Seems pretty unlikely that this would happen, though I guess it depends on how party leaders are chosen in this system.  Even in a system where ordinary voters have input into who the party leaders are, Trump would have had virtually zero support among Republicans in parliament (recall that IRL he really didn't have any support from congressional Republicans until after he'd won a few primaries and was a solid frontrunner), so if MPs have any input into the party leadership at all, I don't see how he'd take over the party.

The more likely scenario for Trump becoming PM would be an electoral landscape that's fractured with a bunch of smaller parties, in which Trump creates a brand new party that absorbs a lot of support from formerly Republican voters, and ends up as the largest party in a right-wing coalition.

[Torie]

One advantage is that you can get rid of a PM with issues by the PM's party dumping the PM, or a no confidence vote and a snap election. So you don't have to live with a Trump absent getting a two thirds vote of the Senate. To me that is a major advantage.