[deleted]

Comments

• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Parliamentary systems are generally more stable and more populist-friendly than Presidential/Congressional systems.

  Also, the US Judiciary is a clusterfuck. Alternately the strongest and weakest branch depending on how daring the chief executive is feeling at a given moment. As much as America needs a parliamentary system, it needs judicial reform to match.

  source

  • spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Can you share where you got the populist-friendliness of parliamentary systems? Piqued my curosity

    source

    • wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Probably depends on what you mean by populist.

      • Enacts the popular-will of the people: sure, maybe
      • Stuffed full of people who will lie to the people just to be popular: sure, maybe.

      source
• SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  They do, it’s impeachment, it works about as well as a non-confidence vote.

  source

  • insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    it works about as well as a non-confidence vote

    That doesn’t seem true.

    en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_prime_ministers_defeat…

    vs

    Nixon resigning so he could get pardoned (that’s it).

    source

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Leader resigns before the vote, next leader takes over and nothing changes no new election happens. Trick is to resign before the vote.

      There’s always ways out.

      source
  • 9point6@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    A successful no confidence vote in the UK triggers an election at the earliest opportunity

    source

    • higgsboson@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      And likewise a successful impeachment would be required for it to mean anything in the US.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Party leader resigns and their next party leader takes over and nothing changes most time. A no confidence election doesn’t happen if they resign, there’s ways around it.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • wetbeardhairs@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    No confidence votes are a referendum that forces a new vote. Impeachment is done by representatives and kicks off a process that gets blocked by the senate and results in no change, ever.

    source

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It was ridiculously political (shocker) and a lot more complicated, but the simple explanation is that the case against Nixon was so solid that he preemptively resigned to save face and get a pardon.

      So not a true impeachment but effectively the only successful one.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Under most (all?) parliamentary systems, a simple majority is all that’s required to pass a no confidence vote.

    source

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      And when the leader resigns before the non confidence vote is cast? What happened then?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• mlg@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Impeachment is the US legislative form of this, but it almost never happens because getting the two party system to engage it in both the house and senate is too high of a task.

  That being said, be careful what you wish for: en.wikipedia.org/…/No-confidence_motion_against_I…

  Parliamentary can be better, but there’s always the chance it backfires and it becomes a massive bribery scheme, which would be even worse in the US because lobbying in the US is legal. You’d just end up in a situation where highest bidder can change between parties on a whim with reduced repercussion from voters.

  All they really need to do is reset the senate into proportional representation with a constitutional amendment because state’s rights stopped existing decades ago, especially after SCOTUS torpedoed basically all the individual rights asserted by previous cases, including limits on lobbying.

  source

  • squaresinger@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Resetting the senate into proportional representation isn’t enough. It will still not fix the two-party issue. You’d need a senate that’s fully proportional, not just a bunch of first-to-the-post races.

    It needs to be setup in a way that if 5% of all voters across the whole US vote for party X, then party X should have 5% of the seats in the senate, regardless of whether that party won a single state or not.

    The problem right now is that the first-to-the-post system punishes vote splitting.

    Say there’s three parties on an imaginary spectrum (purposely avoiding the labels left and right here). The spectrum goes fro 0 to 1, with 0 and 1 being extreme positions. Party A is at 0.2, Party B is at 0.6 and Party C is at 0.9.

    Party B and C are very popular, party A is tiny.

    Our imaginary voter is at 0.1 of that spectrum. So they would really like Party A to win. They don’t really want party B to win, but they would absolutely hate it if party C wins.

    But if they vote for A, that vote is lost because A has no chance of winning, thus their vote for A causes and advantage for C to win, compared to the voter voting for B.

    In fact, if 60% of the voters split their votes equally among A and B, and the rest votes for C, C will win, even though a majority would be against this.

    ---

    Germany has a quite good system. They have first-to-the-post direct mandates to make sure there’s direct representation of constituencies. And then there’s a pool of list mandates that are filled on-demand to make up for the difference between the direct mandates and the national proportional vote.

    That would mean if our hypothetical party won 5% of the votes but no state, they would have no direct mandates in the senate but would get enough list mandates so that 5% of all seats would be filled with their representatives.

    This would allow coalitions which in turn increase voter choice, representation and compromise.

    source