[techdragon]

Ok… so looking from the outside in Australia… a country with mandatory voting that always happens on weekends to make it incredibly easy for people to do their civic duty, thus allowing us to levy a fine against anyone who doesn’t vote… with electoral divisions and regional boundaries managed by a specific government department that has been structured so as to prevent politicians doing any gerrymandering…

In the USA it’s clear that voter suppression and gerrymandering have allowed for partisan groups of elites with both progressive and conservative views to hold onto power for decades as the voting public they represent feels more and more like their vote does not matter, or that they are unable to vote due to their financial situation (no time off, no money for transit, no money for required identification, required identification needs a fixed address and their homeless, etc)… it’s pretty dire… and I have always been kind of shocked how it’s managed to limp along with such statically low voter turnout for decades… money is speech (citizens united) and media are allowed to treat made up news as entertainment with no need to distinguish really from fiction (FCC vs Fox News)…

I don’t see any way the situation doesn’t eventually lead to demagoguery… because at some point your public is just so disenfranchised that a demagogue doesn’t have much work to do beyond “I’m not them, get the fuck out and vote for me so I can change things”…

But the problem with a demagogue is that even if they don’t turn dictator, they are by nature of their rise to power, going to be very dictator like, it’s their choice, their charisma, their force of will that motivated the voting public… the only problem is that the checks and balances to prevent the demagogue from becoming a dictator, have only been barely tested, first with FDR, then with Nixon, one who died before the change to the system was relevant, the other begrudgingly bowed out before the system had to fully engage with the issue...

How would you do it better?

[skissane]

> How would you do it better?

Many political scientists believe that the parliamentary system used in most of Europe, and in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, is superior to the presidential system in producing political stability and good policy

Many have also said that Latin America has experienced the brunt of the negatives of the presidential system, while the US largely escaped them due to wealth, cultural norms, and maybe even good luck. But over the last few years, things in the US have been degenerating to the point that maybe they aren’t escaping those negatives any more

Maybe one of these days it will get so bad that Americans will listen to these political scientists and switch to the Westminster system. Maybe what America really needs is a Prime Minister. The Westminister system doesn’t require a monarchy, see Ireland and Malta for examples of parliamentary republics with predominantly British political traditions. In a parliamentary republic, you have a figurehead President while the Prime Minister holds the real power. Other examples of parliamentary republics (albeit non-Westminster) include Austria, Germany and Israel