tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2221405275974541103.post1642090067406960364..comments2023-10-15T11:24:38.417-04:00Comments on The U.S. Parliament: Manifest for a U.S. ParliamentPart 1 - J’accuse!Jacobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14563739841535780915noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2221405275974541103.post-4772444956552485812009-06-30T14:36:01.505-04:002009-06-30T14:36:01.505-04:00I'm with you on proportional representation an...I'm with you on proportional representation and parliamentary government. The two-party winner-take-all system is for the birds.<br /><br />@Steve: Many of the other responsibilities you bring up for members of Congress really sound more like bureaucratic duties than legislative ones. Why are our lawmakers performing these duties in the first place?<br /><br />Regarding representation for local concerns, theoretically the federal government is dealing with national issues. State and local governments can advocate for your local and community concerns more easily than your congressman. It would also end the practice of larding up bills of national significance with earmarks for purely local priorities and spending.<br /><br />Regarding your hyperbole about "the end of democracy", that's laughable. No proportional representation system has those problems you're creating out of thin air. If you don't want a coterie of elite party bosses selecting your party representatives, join and vote for a party that lets its membership select their slate of legislators by a fair and democratic process for the members of that party. Done.Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03186773166703979971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2221405275974541103.post-72141094681948953392008-12-21T23:07:00.000-05:002008-12-21T23:07:00.000-05:00You are operating under the assumption that a legi...You are operating under the assumption that a legislator's primary responsibility is to represent some sort of ideology (left, center, right, libertarian, etc). Nothing could be further from the truth. <BR/><BR/>Among the responsibilities of members of Congress is to assist their constituents in resolving issues with the national government. For example, help getting a relative into the US, replacing a lost passport, qualifying a family member for acceptance into West Point, resolving a dispute with Social Security, assisting a relative who has been arrested overseas, etc.)<BR/><BR/>These issues are neither liberal nor conservative. If your system were adapted, who would citizens contact for assistance they no longer have a personal US representative? <BR/><BR/>There are concerns a community may have that are not liberal or conservative. Who would residents call if they need federal funding to repair a local bridge or assist homeless veterans? Who would they call if a local factory is seeking to sell products to the federal government or if there is concern that a local military base which is the major employer may be closed? <BR/><BR/>There are people who have been elected to Congress for reasons having nothing to do with whether they were Democrats or Republicans. They were elected because they were respected for their achievements--a decorated combat veteran (John Kerry), an admired business leader (Jon Corzine), a popular mayor (Richard Lugar), a respected athlete (Bill Bradley), or a highly regarded college professor (Hubert Humphrey). <BR/><BR/>Yet in your system, these people would be forced to rise up through a national political system that might have no interest in promoting them. <BR/><BR/>I want my representative to live in or near my community. I want this person to drive on the same roads as I do, shop in the same stores, send his/her kids to the local school. I want this representative to hold town meeting where people in the community can speak out on the issues that concern them. <BR/><BR/>It appears that under the parliament you propose, there is no guarantee that every state will have representation in this Parliament. Would it be fair to tax the people of Vermont, New Hampshire, or Delaware if no one in their state is a member of Parliament? The cry of the American Revolution was "No taxation without representation." <BR/><BR/>Currently, voters can and often do simultaneously vote for a Congressman of one party and a Senator of another party. You would take that right away. <BR/><BR/>For that matter, how would voters be able to remove a politician they don't like from office? Today they could run someone to oppose the incumBent in a primary election or support the opponent in a general election. If there is a politician who is seen as corrupt in this parliament, how can this specific individual be voted out of office? <BR/><BR/>There are plenty of flaws in our current system which need to be repaired. But your solution is to abolish democracy entirely. Instead of the voters choosing who would represent them, party leaders would make that choice. (If a party won 15% of the vote, it would be the party leaders who would actually select the representatives).<BR/><BR/>To summarize, your Parliament would deny Americans vital constituent services, strip communities of effective voices for local concerns, abolish the guarantee that every state would have a voice in the legislature, prevent constituents from simultaneously electing members of more than one political party, make the rise of local community leaders to national office all but impossible, and replace the choice of the voters with the choice of the party bosses. <BR/><BR/>It's been said that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy; your cure is less democracy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2221405275974541103.post-59153588173841602882008-12-18T05:34:00.000-05:002008-12-18T05:34:00.000-05:00thank you Lisa. In my next post, I will try to des...thank you Lisa. In my next post, I will try to describe the merits of a multi-party systemJacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14563739841535780915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2221405275974541103.post-17181305975987815652008-12-18T03:06:00.000-05:002008-12-18T03:06:00.000-05:00I think things are going to change when the Americ...I think things are going to change when the American standard of living drops dramatically, which might happen soon. My feeling has always been that Americans don't much participate in the electoral process because they're spoiled and complacent, and don't feel they really need to. We are going to see a huge increase in citizen participation when people really start struggling--in a ways they've never before imagined.<BR/><BR/>As to the two party system, I agree with much of what you said but at the same time I really don't think we presently have a true two-party system. It's really a one-party system which presents itself as two with the only differences being minor social ones. Both parties represent corporate interests almost exclusively and I definitely think we'd do well to get back to a country "of the people by the people and for the poople". I really think the founding fathers were onto something there! The parliamentary system sounds reasonable, but to me the much bigger problem for now is that the politicians we have to choose from are all puppets. Obama, unfortunately, is surrounding himself with the same old players and they're already promising to follow the same old playbook. The playbook that got us to where we are now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com