Is there any chance of the US reforming it's democracy to a system which is more european in it's style of democracy.

The US seems very partisan in it's views with one side just looking out do the other. The two party system seems incredibly undemocratic offering voters little choice at the ballot paper to choose outside the norm...

Will the US ever look at moving towards a:
Living constitution, where the people decide on in referendums on Abortion, Death penalty, Gun rights,....
The politicians only have to legislate under strict confides of the constitution...
The supreme court has little wiggle room so supreme justices (who are not elected) have alot less say on the law.


A parliment where the people vote in members. They elect a Prime Minster who appoints a cabinet from other member (usually from his own party). Prime Ministers are the leaders until there party wants them gone.

Because parties relie on strong leadership and enforced whip is used to keep within party lines... Voting against the party usually means expulsion.. It happen to a member in Ireland when she refuse a tribunal to investigate her father... She is now an independent and doesn't enjoy the benefit of the party machine.

This close party ties reduce lobbying alot.. Lobbying has to be done at party level or ministerial level. Which far easier to see. Lobbying for anything major to a member usually results with nothing. this really does reduce corruption...

There is a upper house (senate) which consists of Prime minister picks, local goverment reps, educational instituation reps... which check and verify all legislation and also vote on it. They have limited right of refusal as they are not directly elected but offer guidance to the much more powerful lower house.

The president is just a figure head but is elected by the people.

Single tranfer voting is used in elections which means people can vote for weaker parties with out throwing away there vote on a more realistic candidate. This would offer more representation from varing groups in society.

Strangely enough this is the system of goverment the US installs when promoting peace but doesn't use themselves.

For example: Ireland is going to the polls in two weeks with 7 parties getting members elected from pro business - low tax to socialists.. It offers great balance. Because of the for metioned constitution social issues like abortion, stem cell... are not discussed as they percevied to be referendum issues not general election issues. So the country main choices are:
Are we going to pay more tax for more public services?
Are we going to less tax and get less public services?
How should the public service money be spent i.e. Health, Education, Crime, Eviroment, Millitary....

Ireland has enshired Neutrality (that was our choice, other countries haven't). It was because of our history which has been just one long war. This issue is now been looked at again especally in relation to a European army.

I believe the US deserve this type of choice between truely differing parties while leaving aside social issues.

I'm not thrilled with our two part system, but what you suggest will never happen here...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Steve's right on this one - What you propose is a lot of change and disruption without a lot of perceived benefit. And an unfortunately more significant factor is that those who've built an established power structure within the current system will do their best to maintain the near-choiceless status quo.

There are some who promote ballot access for smaller parties and/or acceptance voting in elections, but it's an uphill battle and I'd be surprised if either of these efforts are successful in more than a handful of states in my lifetime.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

The political systems and institutions of Western Europe are no more democratic than those of the USA. If anything, they are perhaps less so. Are you suggesting that union officials ought to be able to override elected representatives? Are you suggesting that we ought to get rid of your right to sue anyone for anything? And how is it considered an improvement when tiny parties holding 3-5% of the popular vote can dictate policy over a majority through coalition leverage? There are plenty of flaws in the democratic process in the US, but copying Western Europe's form of flawed democracy is a cure that is more dangerous than the disease itself.

A review of your ideas shows some remarkable conflicts - a hodge-podge of mix-matched systems. For example:

Yet the US has shown more political diversity in actual policy prescriptions than any country in Western Europe over the last thirty years. In Europe, you have a hundred political choices that all collude to produce the same result (protect the status quo is the only policy Europe seems to favor).

Will Europe ever let their own people have a referendum on the death penalty? And if they did, do you think they'd let that referendum be 'binding'?
I don't think so...

What country do you speak of here? I'm not aware of any country in Europe that has a "supreme court"? By the way, unelected judges generally have far more power and direct influence over European government, policy and law than in the US.

And how do you reconcile this with your passion for referendums? And many people will argue that a Parliamentary system is even more undemocratic than the Congressional format used in the US.

The model that you praise here is that which is used in Italy and France, two of the most politically corrupt nations in the western world. Eliminating political fundraising is what reduces political corruption.

In every nation that uses this format, the upper house is known as an old-age home for political cronies and produces nothing of value. No one pays any attention to them.

The only exception is that of Britain and their House of Lords which is probably the finest upper chamber anyone has ever created. It works so well the Brits have been working hard to get rid of it.

Like France? Or Germany? Or what?

Yes, more representation. It will also result in a dead-locked House where nothing ever changes, they just shuffle the chairs around the coalition table once in a while.

Huh? We only install despots in military coups.

So this is just a 'praise Ireland' post? Sorry, Ireland has a very unimpressive history with democracy and has only achieved some progress in the last 10-15 years. How well did the Irish system work before then when Ireland had the lowest GDP, highest unemployment and shortest lifespan in Western Europe?

Yes there are Coalitions. But they usually keep the bigger party in check. Smaller parties use there influence to get some issues on the agenda but it envolves auctioning an the bigger parties run each other off against each other.

I am sure in the US a coalition party would have got more action on Iraq.

By the way it was a coalition partner which set up the partnership for peace which is how Ireland has very little strikes. All the major employers (including the goverment) signed a deal with the unions and all wages are linked to preformance and inflation.

People don't generally change. We don't swing hugely to the right or left

In Ireland: Had a death penalty ref about 4 years ago...Because our constitution is about 1800 pages long the supreme court has alot less room to move in. Roe v Wade is unthinkable here we have had at least 3 refs on abortion and qualifing it in the last 20 years. The parliment runs the show. Congress there only hold the purse strings in most cases. The president veto doesn't really exist.Sorry man that accolade is in the first world is held for the US. ye're term for lobbing is called bribary here... So if we get more cases it is because we have stricter lawsWe do. It's just no as big of news. But they get alot of goverment work done.The difference between the house of loards and senate is that we don't have life pearages. The house of loards do alot less work than our senate as they don't have to be reelectedSo your excuse less democracy works. We get plenty done. Have you noticed the EU.So Iraq is another despot thing thenHighest Representaion in the world. Highest homeownership. The system worked well before the economic boom and it was the beauty of the system which delivered it. Ireland was in a terible state after the english left but we eventually got on our feet for a number of reasons.
I can still goto the polls in 10 days time with more than two realistic candiates in my area. I have a choice of which candidate from the bigger parties without being a member. It will probably be my second or third preference vote that will be used.

You're all wrong, the model for a functioning democracy is ours - Australia. We gave you the secret ballot after all

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

I'd like to see instant runoff and coalition parties here. That and severe restrictions on lobbying and corporate fundraising. (Allowing companies to only give $5000 every few years to a candidate, even with a PAC)

That would help, at least to me.

~Ben

I should add to my jocular post (above).

We pinched the best of the British and American systems (for our federal system I mean).

We have an elected lower house (preferential voting system) but our senate (our upper house) is elected but uses a system similar to that in the US where we return senators based on quotas of votes in a state.

The idea was that in this way states' rights were to be protected. Unfortunately that isn't the case now - the party system has seen to that (senators vote along party lines or else) and our current federal government (supposedly conservative but in reality reactionary) has severely damaged states rights, this driven by an egotistical Prime Minister control freak.

But I think our electoral commission system is something that would refresh US democracy where I'm afraid the state based electoral system suffers terribly from partisan corruption.

Australian Electoral Commission

That goes for you Europeans as well

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Hi Diuretic, our system is pretty good, although I think there are still some major flaws particularly in relation to the preferential voting system. The best example of this (and some of the US members might be interested in this) was in the 1998 Federal election when the One Nation Party (and I want to be absolutely clear here that I have NEVER voted for them, LOL) received over 900,000 first preference votes across the country; compared to the National Party who received about 500,000 first pref votes. One Nation did not win a single seat and the Nationals won 11. I see that as being disproportionate.

Still, I don't know if there is such a thing as a "perfect" electoral system, as all of their good points and bad points.

Good point noahath - I had a look at the Tasmania Hare-Clark system and found it mind boggling but interesting and I saw the NZ system in operation when I was over there during an election and I was frankly stunned that it seemed to work (multi-rep electorates). Yes, preferential voting does have problems but as its proponents argue, it seems to represent the political will of an electorate better than the "first past the post" system.

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

First past the post can cause people you wish to vote for not to run because they could interfere witha candidate which they PERCIEVED to by closer than a candidate they totally disagree with.

Yes the count is comlicated but intreging. To win you need transfers which means not alienating other parties. It also relies beating the guy in your own party which can cause more discussion than beating the other party...

The sysem is far fairer and stops a strong candidate being eliminated because a contender has a fairly similar position.

I'd recommend you do a thorough analysis of the effect of endless coalition governments in Europe. Proportional representation makes coalitions inevitable and coalitions make cutting programs almost impossible. If you are a socialist and love a never ending growth to the size of government, then proportional representation and coalition governments is the way to go.

More action on Iraq? Like who the heck wants or needs that?

Suffice it to say that a shortage of "action" is not what is hampering the operation in Iraq.

Ireland is a lovely country that has been ruled quite disasterously for centuries. Ireland has less than a decade of actual decent quality government and a growing economy and on this basis, Ireland is now held to be the model for the world and an example of perfection incarnate? I think not.

I welcome your advice, comments and prescriptions for America's political problems. But insisting that Ireland is some kind of political paradise that the USA ought to emulate is just silly.

Proportional representation systems are designed to prevent any kind of swing at all. Same policies all the time. When 5% of the electorate can hold the other 95% hostage, nothing ever changes.

Your "Ireland is great" speech is quite nice and very boring.

Ireland is a nice place. Please stay there. You don't appear to be very sincere in your interest to discuss US politics. You apparently are only interested in Ireland.