[paraclete]

That would be our House of Representatives.

Well the outcome might be like that or it might not, with 52% of the vote, under proportional representation, Democrates would take 52% of the seats so it might be more like your Senate, on the other hand there might be a number of independents

[tomder55]

What you are talking about is proportional representation under your Parliamentary system. So if we became more like you or Europe then we would have a better system ? Lolololololol ! No thanks ! I like the separation of powers even if it means a divided government . Actually ,I prefer a divided government with no one party having absolute control over the government .

[paraclete]

We have separation of powers Tom and our High Court is reasonably non partisan although we do get the odd old queer appointed now and again, you may be surprised to learn that the balance of power in our parliament resembles yours on most occasions, the governing party being unable to legislate without the goodwill of the opposition, when the right wing has had it too good they do stupid things like Work Choices, and when the left wing has had it too good they do stupid things like the Carbon Tax, but we have mechanism, not often used that can unlock the dead lock and clear the dead wood

[tomder55]

The founders designed our system for the Congress to be the most important branch of equal branches. That is why the Articles of the Constitution were arranged the way they are with Article One covereing the limited powers of the Legislature. And Article Two covering the Executive. I completely oppose a proportional representation based on a national popular vote . You want to know the difference here... The Dems are a regional party having the vast majority of their representatives in a handfull of highly populated urban states. If a party could gain a majority of representatives from those few states ,then they would have no incentives to represent the interests of the rest of the country . Both parties would concentrate all their efforts where the majority of the votes are .

[TUT317]

What you are talking about is proportional representation under your Parliamentary system. So if we became more like you or Europe then we would have a better system ? lolololololol ! No thanks ! I like the separation of powers even if it means a divided government . Actually ,I prefer a divided government with no one party having absolute control over the government .

Tom, I think you forgot to mention SCOTUS


Tut

[tomder55]

SCOTUS is the 3rd and theoretically least important under the founders system. Much of it's powers were seized because no one challenged the legitimacy of the 'Marbury v Madison' decision.

[TUT317]

SCOTUS is the 3rd and theoretically least important under the founders system. Much of it's powers were seized because no one challenged the legitimacy of the 'Marbury v Madison' decision.

Well, then the theory has proved to be incorrect.

Tut

[tomder55]

The theory was sound . SCOTUS has done a lot of good ,but in my judgement more harm in reshaping the powers of government beyond what was intended .

[TUT317]

the theory was sound .

Many things are sound in theory but don't work out in practice.

SCOTUS has done a lot of good ,but in my judgement more harm in reshaping the powers of government beyond what was intended .

Are you talking about the same," black robed oligarchs" you keep telling us about?

Tut

[tomder55]

Yup ;and in my view the error was in giving them lifetime appts . But also Congress and /or the President should've challenged the legitimacy of Marbury. The founders NEVER intended the Court's constitutional hegemony .

[paraclete]

Both parties would concentrate all their efforts where the majority of the votes are .

You know, Tom, you could almost be describing our system where the support for the right is concentrated in the country and the support fot the left is concentrated in cities and the industrial heartland. We are so sparsely populated in parts that some of our representatives have constituencies bigger than some of your states. Like you our legislature is the senior of the various branches of government, the other branches offering support and review. The force of democracy is not diminished here even if the voting system is a little different. I observed that in your last election it came down to concentrating your efforts to a very small geographical area. I have seen the map overlayed by electorial results of your country. The real difference between us is the leadership is directly answerable to the parliament

[talaniman]

yup ;and in my view the error was in giving them lifetime appts . But also Congress and /or the President should've challenged the legitimacy of Marbury. The founders NEVER intended the Court’s constitutional hegemony .

The founders are gone and for whatever reason its today conditions and people who have shaped the government to meet today issues.

You know, Tom, you could almost be describing our system where the support for the right is concentrated in the country and the support fot the left is concentrated in cities and the industrial heartland. We are so sparsely populated in parts that some of our representatives have constituencies bigger than some of your states. Like you our legislature is the senior of the various branches of government, the other branches offering support and review. The force of democracy is not diminished here even if the voting system is a little different. I observed that in your last election it came down to concentrating your efforts to a very small geographical area. I have seen the map overlayed by electorial results of your country. The real difference between us is the leadership is directly answerable to the parliament

Our leaders in theory are accountable to the voters, and we have an election every two years on some level or another, so in effect we have an ever changing(?) parlimentary coalition, but we callour democracy federalist which in my opinion I purely semantic.

Also in theory our 3 branches of government are equal, as a check and balance to each other. Scotus is an appointment by the president that has to be confirmed by the senate. We have no review and support as you say since depending on who is in power, it a heated debate.

The president is the only one affected by the electoral college, as any other office is filled by popular vote, and its easy to predict the leaning of states, so that's why we know in advance where those swing states that can be swayed one way or another are located.

It a science. No government on earth is better or worse, but the people are the ones that make it effective or not.

The more people you have, the more complicated it gets. Size matters.

[tomder55]

The founders are gone and for whatever reason its today conditions and people who have shaped the government to meet today issues.

So scrap the Constitution and be done with it . It would be better than this charade of pretending to be a Constitutional Republic when we are in fact post-Constitutional.

[talaniman]

We don't have to scrap it, just continue to build on it no matter what we call our democracy. What's wrong with that?

[paraclete]

so scrap the Constitution and be done with it . It would be better than this charade of pretending to be a Constitutional Republic when we are in fact post-Constitutional.

Yes, time for a rewrite Tom, put it in plain language and spell out the rights, duties and responsibilities so you don't have constant wranglings over meaning and intent

[talaniman]

so you don't have constant wranglings over meaning and intent

That's the job of SCOTUS, all you have to do is bring the case.

[paraclete]

Seems the job they do just creates more wranglings

[talaniman]

Americans love to wrangle and hold onto what they believe in and that's why we move so slowly as we are large and diverse, but that doesn't mean we all have to believe in the same things.

Wrangling is not a bad thing. It's the American way.

[paraclete]

Really, has that information filtered down to your school system yet, so like Superman you are fighting a never ending fight for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Once we might have believed you, but it rings a little hollow today. From what we have seen truth is optional, justice is of course as always blind and only for those who can afford it , and the american way, well, how's that working out for you?

[tomder55]

We don't have to scrap it, just continue to build on it no matter what we call our democracy. Whats wrong with that?

Why bother when our government makes the rules as it goes along and judges find powers for the government in the penumbras and emanations of the plain language of the Constitution ?