a parliamentary democracy would be a step forward, but an impossible step.

Can you picture him answering questions being fired at him from the well of parliament?

He wouldn't last 1 session.

Although the founders wanted to avoid a king, it seems we've ended up with one anyway.

seize the government and decide that only their party would have power for ever.

anything we want to touch here

I am interested in a discussion on strengthening the bureaucracy and making it more independent.

an utter mess.

Yes, the US system is in a poor state, but there are many plus points too.

The issue with both is accountability. Both have not adjusted to the corporate world of the 21st century, which has resulted in corporations emerging as more influential that citizens.

Both systems have perhaps deliberately, reduced civil engagement. As a result of the economic disaster here in Ireland, and I note, and similarly in the UK, due to Brexit, there has been a greater recognition, for the teaching of Civics to the young. Young people need to understand the need for Governmental/Federal services, the importance of their vote and their responsibilities as citizens. Whether it happens or not remains to be seen. If it doesn't happen, we will be back at this point again.

The social injustice has been used by the infamous "bad actors". If this is not addressed we will all be back here again.

Both systems have flaws but the bureaucracy is way more independent in Parliamentary systems. Now even that can be a problem in terms of the bureaucracy sabotaging the will of the people for class interests/markets. On the other hand there are benefits.

All these systems need reforms.

Irish Civil and Public Service, there have been some awful levels of incompetence being covered up by "an inquiry", which usually results in the guilty parties retiring with a big fat pension. The good thing is that the Civil and Public service are fully funded, but the downside is often a complete lack of accountability.

Yes, Reform is the way to go, but it's a pity that MSM (and consequently politicians) end up focusing on the micro issues rather than exposing that big picture.

With winner-takes-all, small parties never have a chance. When two parties compete for the same voter-segment, in the end both lose because they split them among each other.

=> The consequence is an electoral system where only two parties can survive.

=> If there are only two parties, there is no real need for bipartisanship. (For example, bipartisanship and nonpartisanship in the US is largely enforced via traditions, not via written procedures.)



Compare that with other democracies around the world. European democracies have 2 big parties and approximately 5 small parties that complement the political spectrum.

Whether you are far-left, center-left, center-right, far-right, socially conservative, socially liberal or care especially about this or that topic... In a multi-party democracy there is not only more choice for the voter but also a far better chance that your vote matters. (There's usually a cut-off that discards parties that get less than 5% of the popular vote.)

And when no single party can in practice hold all the power, negotiations and bipartisanship become necessary traits for survival.
For example, Germany's two biggest parties never got along. But when a weird electoral result forced them to join forces, they got their act together and worked together. Because that's how all german governments had always worked: By two parties forming a temporary alliance to combine their Representatives into a power-bloc with 50+% of the votes.

Coalition governments aren't allowed in the US although some small splinter parties have been taking money to take votes from the Democratic Party in particular.

had is that you'll have either Fine Gael or Fianna Fail as the big party going into Coalition with a small party like the Irish Labour Party or the Green Party, and the smaller party ends up getting all the blame at the next election. It happened in the UK a couple of elections ago, where the Lib Dems got hammered for going into coalition with the Conservatives (deservedly imo).

As we discussed earlier, reform of the system is the way to go. I hope someone has been keeping a list of all the screwing with the system that has gone on over the last 2 years. I believe there is an opportunity for final accountability to be visited on Republicans in 2020, with a tsumani election giving Democrats a chance to fix the system, but they need to be planning now for the following 2 years.

Countries like Canada and (usually) the UK may have many parties, but the coalitions are (usually) stable, so in practice, there are two.

If the coalitions don't stay together, the government collapses.

Our parties are, in effect, coalitions.

How many governments have collapsed in Italy since WW2?

They can only remain stable under two circumstances - they're formalized as parties (like in the US), or one member of a coalition is large enough to wield substantial influence on its smaller partners (as is often - though not always - the case with Likud in Israel or either Labour or Conservative in the UK).

Even formally circumscribed coalitions can fall apart. The Democratic Party used to be a coalition of northern labor, intellectuals, and pretty much any politician from the South. That changed starting with Nixon's southern strategy, which pushed the conservative Southerners over to the Republican side.

I suspect (hope?) something like that is about to happen to the Republican Party. It's currently a coalition of rural white voters, evangelicals, business interests, and libertarians. These are not all natural allies.

Any changes to our government would require Constitutional Amendments OR a Constitutional Convention to re-write the document.

Those are not going to happen.

For those of you really interested in this topic, you might want to read Woodrow Wilson’s book, Congressional Government (1885). It’s still relevant today...maybe more than ever. Wilson, starting with his doctoral thesis, argued for a “responsible parties” form of government, much like in the U.K. where one party is responsible for governing at any one time, in which the mass public knows who to hold responsible for policies and their impact on the electorate. With the U.S. system often it is difficult, especially with divided governments, to know which party to hold accountable...and the parties tend to blame the other side for policy failures and try to claim policy successes for their side. Lots of forces against this model in the U.S., but the fact that we don’t have it explains a lot about gridlock, etc. ... and Brexit shows that a responsible parties system doesn’t always result in timely policy solutions.

Parliamentary Authority and PMQ's when the government of the day is held to account publicly every week of the year. Tis a bear pit
The civil service is the civil service - while led by ministers appointed by the crown they have limited scope too do much damage without the consent of Parliament - also we do not have elections for the judiciary as a branch of government, all judges and prosecutors etc are appointed through a standard process - no votes, no political bias etc - in fact if a judge was on record in showing a political bias their career would not go very far - this makes for an excellent check on the excesses of any given government - any decision can be subject to judicial review....
Finally, there is less personality politics - you vote for the party not the leader. The PM is a constituency MP - who was voted for by the party to lead them. I think that is one of the biggest differences - coupled with very low spending limits on campaigns to try and ensure an equal playing field

It has its challenges - a non elected House of Lords (who scrutinise new laws) as an example and we are led by a bunch of numpties but I do think it is more transparent (although still murky) that the US political system (for which I have a deep seated fascination)

And if none of that sells it - I can pretty much guarantee anyone standing for Parliament who used his personal relationship with God as a selling point would be carted off by the men in white coats, for a spell somewhere calming!!