Why can't we parliamentary system?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I'm sick and tired of this 2 party system. I'm on the Far-Right, but I'm sure all of you guys on the Far-Left agree with me. The GOP and Dem parties don't represent the people. They represent themselves. If we had a parliamentary system, you'd get people from the Far-Rught, the Far-Left, and you'd get some in the middle. Ideally, there would be 4 parties.
1. Far-Right( ultra-conservative party for people like me) 2. Far-Left Progressive ( a true Socialist/Communist party) 3. Moderate( a true Centrist party) 4. Libertarian( a party for Libertarians) I'd also like to see the U.S. become a lot more regional. If we had a parliamentary system, here's what I think the U.S would look like 1. Far-Right ultra-conservatives control the South 2. Far-Left Socialists/Communists controls the West Coast 3. Moderate Centrists control the Northeast 4. Libertarians control the Midwest The federal government would have very little power. There would be a low National Sales Tax to fund things like defense. The regions( and states within the regions) can handle things like education and commerce. I think this would be a much better system than what we have now. |
Anonymous
Nah. Those categories don't really work - for example, there aren't that many "true communists" in the US. And here's a hint: Sanders isn't one, and neither is Stein/Green Party et cetera. As for regionalization that wouldn't work that well either. For example there are some very conservative parts of California, and some very liberal parts of Texas (like Austin) and in general it's more of an urban versus rural thing than it is pure geography. Take Pennsylvania for example - like James Carville said, "that state between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia - Alabama" - all of the cities like Philly, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Scranton are deep deep blue, but the rest of the state is deep deep red. It's all in the numbers, a successful Democrat candidate in PA only has to nail Philly and Pittsburgh and that outweighs the rest of the state. |
PaleoConPrep
Member Offline
Member Offline
| All the conservatives would move to the conservative region, and all the Libs would move to the Liberal region. I said Socialist/Communist. I'm saying it would be Far-Left. Also, I'd call Philly Centre-left. The suburbs tend to be more conservative. |
Anonymous
| Socialist and Communist are not the same. And each comes in a variety of flavors/ideologies. |
PaleoConPrep
Member Offline
Member Offline
| Yes I know. All I'm saying is that the West Coast would be Far-Left. You can call it whatever you want. |
Anonymous
| You do realize that the number of Marxists in the US is statistically insignificant? Meanwhile a third of the GOP believes Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. So I'm fine with shipping these climate change denying troglodytes off to Texas, Alabama and Mississippi for resettlement. Hell I'll even give them Arizona for good measure. |
PaleoConPrep
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
So we agree! This is exactly what I mean. With a regional system, we'd all be happy. Here are the states Conservatives would control
Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina. Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, and Alaska. You can have Arizona. |
Anonymous
By today's "conservative" standards, Ronald Reagan would be considered "Far Left" because he gave amnesty to illegals, raised taxes, made deals with democrats... |
Anonymous
Fence off bumfuck Nevada with Cliven Bundy and let the conservatives and militia dudes all go and hang out with him, since he'd apparently rather die than pay $1.35 for cattle to graze. At least they'd have some diseased half-feral cattle to eat. |
PaleoConPrep
Member Offline
Member Offline
| Reagan was OK. I like Coolidge a lot more. |
PaleoConPrep
Member Offline
Member Offline
| Nevada is trash. |
Anonymous
|
I think you mean proportional representation. Parliamentary politics does not in and of itself create room for multiple parties. Parliamentary systems mean the legislatures choose the executive branch.
Under a proportional system, liberals would do much better today. And the reason is there are a lot of wasted votes in cities. So under proportional representation, the house would tilt more libetal than today. Worse yet for you, fringe parties to the far left and right would likely hold less power because the kingmaker would be the centrists. Because they are necessary to form any government, both sides would have to bow to them. This is not true in countries with a very small center, but it is in the US. |
Anonymous
| This would be a great way to balkanize the united states, leading to internecine wars and greatly reducing the efficiency of our markets and economy. It would also prevent the federal government from accomplishing much of anything (take a look at India's parliamentary efficiency). We already have checks and balances to curtail the power of the majority. |
Anonymous
Obama says he deliberately sought out Marxists. |
Anonymous
Must be true! 
|