Depends on how it's done.

I don't think we'd like a system like Israel's Knesset where a party getting 2% (I think it is) of the votes gets seats in a very small legislature and thus becomes king-makers. I think that India has a similar problem.

[link|http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html|Israel]:

unicameral Knesset or parliament (120 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms)
elections: last held 28 January 2003 (next to be held fall of 2007)
election results: percent of vote by party - Likud Party 29.4%, Labor 14.5%, Shinui 12.3%, Shas 8.2%, National Union 5.5%, Meretz 5.2%, United Torah Judaism 4.3%, National Religious Party 4.2%, Democratic Front for Peace and Equality 3.0%, One Nation 2.8%, National Democratic Assembly 2.3%, Yisra'el Ba'Aliya (YBA) 2.2%, United Arab List 2.1%, Green Leaf Party 1.2%, Herut 1.2%, other 1.6%; seats by party - Likud 38, Labor 19, Shinui 15, Shas 11, National Union 7, Meretz 6, National Religious Party 6, United Torah Judaism 5, Democratic Front for Peace and Equality 3, One Nation 3, National Democratic Assembly 3, YBA 2, United Arab List 2

[link|http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html|India]:

bicameral Parliament or Sansad consists of the Council of States or Rajya Sabha (a body consisting of not more than 250 members, up to 12 of which are appointed by the president, the remainder are chosen by the elected members of the state and territorial assemblies; members serve six-year terms) and the People's Assembly or Lok Sabha (545 seats; 543 elected by popular vote, 2 appointed by the president; members serve five-year terms)
elections: People's Assembly - last held 20 April through 10 May 2004 (next to be held NA 2009)
election results: People's Assembly - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - INC 145, BJP 138, CPI(M) 43, SP 36, RJD 21, BSP 19, DMK 16, SS 12, BJD 11, CPI 10, NCP 9, JDU 8, SAD 8, PMK 6, TDP 5, TRS 5, JMM 5, LJSP 4, MDMK 4, independents 5, other 30

Yes, parliamentary democracies are different from what we have in the US, but similar issues arise due to the needs for majorities or supermajorities to pass legislation.

Representing a broad range of views is a good thing in a legislature. But ultimately a majority has to rule and that majority shouldn't be held hostage to a tiny fringe minority. Minority governments often are not as moderate as the population as a whole. :-(

So I agree that breaking the Republocrat hold on US government would be a good thing in the abstract, but in practice it depends on how it's done. IMHO.

Cheers,
Scott.

In these places, IIRC, the Prime Minister (the chief executive-equivalent) is selected by the Parliament; he serves at their pleasure until the next vote of "no confidence" or until the next scheduled election, which ever comes first.

In the US, the Chief Executive would be chosen directly by the electorate, thereby limiting the effect of any n^th-party candidates on the selection process. A run-off election will still result in a direct election of the Chief Executive; any n^th-party candidates forming Parliamentary-style "coalitions" will mean squat in the "forming of the government"; all it could possibly do is make passing legislation more difficult (which may or may not be a good thing). Note that the concept of a "no confidence" vote will still not exist in the Constitution.

Post #180,296 by Another Scott 10/21/04 2:49:02 PM Reply	Depends on how it's done. I don't think we'd like a system like Israel's Knesset where a party getting 2% (I think it is) of the votes gets seats in a very small legislature and thus becomes king-makers. I think that India has a similar problem. [link\|http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html\|Israel]: unicameral Knesset or parliament (120 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms) elections: last held 28 January 2003 (next to be held fall of 2007) election results: percent of vote by party - Likud Party 29.4%, Labor 14.5%, Shinui 12.3%, Shas 8.2%, National Union 5.5%, Meretz 5.2%, United Torah Judaism 4.3%, National Religious Party 4.2%, Democratic Front for Peace and Equality 3.0%, One Nation 2.8%, National Democratic Assembly 2.3%, Yisra'el Ba'Aliya (YBA) 2.2%, United Arab List 2.1%, Green Leaf Party 1.2%, Herut 1.2%, other 1.6%; seats by party - Likud 38, Labor 19, Shinui 15, Shas 11, National Union 7, Meretz 6, National Religious Party 6, United Torah Judaism 5, Democratic Front for Peace and Equality 3, One Nation 3, National Democratic Assembly 3, YBA 2, United Arab List 2 [link\|http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html\|India]: bicameral Parliament or Sansad consists of the Council of States or Rajya Sabha (a body consisting of not more than 250 members, up to 12 of which are appointed by the president, the remainder are chosen by the elected members of the state and territorial assemblies; members serve six-year terms) and the People's Assembly or Lok Sabha (545 seats; 543 elected by popular vote, 2 appointed by the president; members serve five-year terms) elections: People's Assembly - last held 20 April through 10 May 2004 (next to be held NA 2009) election results: People's Assembly - percent of vote by party - NA; seats by party - INC 145, BJP 138, CPI(M) 43, SP 36, RJD 21, BSP 19, DMK 16, SS 12, BJD 11, CPI 10, NCP 9, JDU 8, SAD 8, PMK 6, TDP 5, TRS 5, JMM 5, LJSP 4, MDMK 4, independents 5, other 30 Yes, parliamentary democracies are different from what we have in the US, but similar issues arise due to the needs for majorities or supermajorities to pass legislation. Representing a broad range of views is a good thing in a legislature. But ultimately a majority has to rule and that majority shouldn't be held hostage to a tiny fringe minority. Minority governments often are not as moderate as the population as a whole. :-( So I agree that breaking the Republocrat hold on US government would be a good thing in the abstract, but in practice it depends on how it's done. IMHO. Cheers, Scott.
Post #180,301 by inthane-chan 10/21/04 3:00:13 PM Reply	The number three is a wonderous thing. Three branches of government. Hmm.. Three houses of Congress? Senate, House, and Parliment? All I want for my birthday is a new President!
Post #180,330 by jb4 10/21/04 6:22:02 PM Reply	One major difference: In these places, IIRC, the Prime Minister (the chief executive-equivalent) is selected by the Parliament; he serves at their pleasure until the next vote of "no confidence" or until the next scheduled election, which ever comes first. In the US, the Chief Executive would be chosen directly by the electorate, thereby limiting the effect of any n^th-party candidates on the selection process. A run-off election will still result in a direct election of the Chief Executive; any n^th-party candidates forming Parliamentary-style "coalitions" will mean squat in the "forming of the government"; all it could possibly do is make passing legislation more difficult (which may or may not be a good thing). Note that the concept of a "no confidence" vote will still not exist in the Constitution. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #180,381 by Silverlock 10/21/04 9:46:07 PM Reply	Gridlock is preferred At least by me. When the politicians are deadlocked and can't make substantive change, they also can't do substantive harm. Witness the catastrophe Bush has left us with having full control. ----------------------------------------- How do you convince a Washington Journalist that you're not slapping him in the face? Tell him you're not.
Post #180,384 by daemon 10/21/04 9:50:08 PM Reply	Amen corner on that one that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
Post #180,399 by a6l6e6x 10/21/04 11:10:11 PM Reply	Exactly why Eisenhower years were so good. :) Alex In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, poet (1772-1834)

Welcome to IWETHEY!