Best system of government: presidential, parliamentary or mixed?

[Frodo]

I was hoping for someone (who I respect) to critique me...

Mixed -I would prefer a President elected via the national popular vote (no electoral college), along with a unicameral House of Representatives elected via the mixed-member proportional representation electoral system.  The judiciary remains lifetime appointment only, with no term limits.  Although, instead of nominations being submitted to the Senate (which would be dissolved), they would be submitted to the unicameral House.  

In that paradigm, is the President accountable to the House and is the Cabinet drawn from the House or not? Is there a separate head of government from the President? Is it the premier-presidential system where the President selects a Prime Minister and Cabinet from the House that is solely accountable to said House or something else?

Come to think of it, what I am proposing is not so much 'mixed' as it is an altered version of the current US presidential system -though it will still require a wholesale revision of the Constitution.  There will still be three separate branches of government with a balance of power between them with checks and balances.  Just more accountable and representative than what we have now.   Or at least so I intend it.  

Going all the way to a full-scale parliamentary system is a bridge too far for a country as conservative (with a small 'c') as the United States.  I think most Americans want to reform what we have so it would work better for us, not jettison it altogether in an attempt to make ourselves into a bigger version of old England.   

[politicallefty]

Would you also support proportional representation? Does it scare you that people like me would have their own party?

It's not a top priority for me. My first priority would be to eliminate partisan gerrymandering. I could certainly envision a proportional Congress under a parliamentary system. I would prefer to enact a national MMP system like New Zealand. Under MMP, I would set the districts under the Wyoming Rule (547) and an additional 202 party list proportional seats (with a 5% national threshold). That would establish a 749-seat House, with 375 seats needed for a majority.

I was hoping for someone (who I respect) to critique me...

Come to think of it, what I am proposing is not so much 'mixed' as it is an altered version of the current US presidential system -though it will still require a wholesale revision of the Constitution.  There will still be three separate branches of government with a balance of power between them with checks and balances.  Just more accountable and representative than what we have now.   Or at least so I intend it. 

Going all the way to a full-scale parliamentary system is a bridge too far for a country as conservative (with a small 'c') as the United States.  I think most Americans want to reform what we have so it would work better for us, not jettison it altogether in an attempt to make ourselves into a bigger version of old England.

I'm not a terribly active poster, but I would hope I have your respect.

So, you abolished the Senate, made the President elected through a national popular vote, and made the House elected through an MMP system. There would be a huge shift in power, but it would be from the consolidation of legislative power in a unicameral branch. I do think your idea is an improvement from what we have now, but accountability is still too diffused. The President can easily assign any blame to Congress and Congress can easily assign blame to the President. (I also think if you have a unicameral Congress, it should have a more prominent leader than a Speaker. The Speaker should be a more ceremonial role, while the actual party leader should be called Premier or maybe Chancellor or whatever other title may fit best.) Also, I'm curious to know how elections would occur. What would the terms be for the President and Congress? Would they face the same elections or would the President be forced to face an almost inevitably poor midterm?

Overall, I do agree with you that a full parliamentary system is almost certainly a bridge too far for this country. Assuming everyone agrees with maintaining an independent judiciary, we're dealing with a trifecta of power (President, House, and Senate). Your proposal eliminates the Senate, while keeping a separate President and House. My proposal basically eliminates the Presidency, while keeping the House and Senate. The practical effect of my proposal turns the Speaker into our new Prime Minister or Chancellor. I think one of the problems with your proposal and with our current system is that Congress doesn't have a strong enough voice against the President. The Speaker is powerful, but the position and title doesn't quite command enough respect. (In terms of the Senate, Senate Majority Leader just doesn't have enough command with such a title.) Even if the President and Cabinet are fully separate from the House, I think the leader of the House should have a more respected title.

[Blue3]

An ideal system of government I've been toying with the idea of for a while:


-unitary (the national/central government can still create provinces and delegate powers, but true authority rests with the national/central government... no claims of state sovereignty or states' rights)

-unicameral, based on population (so the U.S. House of Representatives, but not Senate)

-the "Speaker of the House" also assumes all the powers of the Presidency as well as the traditional powers of the Speaker, is just called the President. Head of state and head of government.

-but in order to be confirmed as President, after being nominated by a simple majority of the Congress... their choice then needs to be confirmed directly by the people in a Yes/No referendum vote.

-instant runoff voting in all elections

-automatic voter registration/updating, mandatory voting, nonpartisan redistricting, and one nationwide way to vote

-still a Constitutional and a Supreme Court


Then we can have clear accountability. No more blaming Presidents because Congress isn't doing their job. No more gridlock, but a responsive and adaptable government. No more votes just for show. No more one party in one branch holding the rest hostage. Accountability and clarity.  I think such a system would be most responsive to the will of the people, and most clear and accountable so the people would know who to hold accountable if things went well or not well. The president will have the power that the people think he/she has, and people would know the real power (at least on domestic policy) lies with Congress and that Congress matters.

[Fight for Trump]

My ideal system:

- Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
- Broad Royal Prerogative
- First-past-the-post elections, with non-partisan drawing of districts
- Non-mandatory voting
- Hereditary upper house with no appointments, members can only be unseated by vote of their peers
- Clergy seated in the upper house
- Mentally capable criminals may vote, non-resident citizens may not vote
- Spending bills must originate in lower house
- No fixed elections, maximum of 5 years between elections

So basically the British system before life peerages.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

My ideal system:

- Parliamentary constitutional monarchy
- Broad Royal Prerogative
- First-past-the-post elections, with non-partisan drawing of districts
- Non-mandatory voting
- Hereditary upper house with no appointments, members can only be unseated by vote of their peers
- Clergy seated in the upper house
- Mentally capable criminals may vote, non-resident citizens may not vote
- Spending bills must originate in lower house
- No fixed elections, maximum of 5 years between elections

So basically the British system before life peerages.

Are all clergy seated in the upper house or just those of the state church?

[Fight for Trump]

Are all clergy seated in the upper house or just those of the state church?

I prefer having an established church and having its senior clergy in the upper house. Of course, I still support religious freedom and secular government, but I like the idea of theological input in the legislative process.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

My ideal government would be:

Parliamentary Republic (but the 'President' would have the trappings of monarchy)
Lower chamber elected by STV with top-up proportional seats, upper house by sortition
Regional governments, and a strong focus on parish councils at the lower end
Some amount of direct democracy brought in
Four year terms

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Are all clergy seated in the upper house or just those of the state church?

I prefer having an established church and having its senior clergy in the upper house. Of course, I still support religious freedom and secular government, but I like the idea of theological input in the legislative process.

I for one would find it hilarious if we made Fundamental Baptist the established state church and pastor Steven Anderson was one of the Upper House members.