Would a different kind separation of powers in gov be workable?

[snorkack]

Obviously, with a multiplicity of parties (say four or more), it is very difficult for a one party majority government to form, whether in a parliamentary system or the US system.

This is not obvious in case of US system. If a majority Senate opposition usually will not block duly elected minority President from forming an administration, and the minority president is usually even allowed to pack his cabinet with minority members, why would the multiple parties not let a minority president govern?

Provided that a President gets elected in the first place, of course. Because a President needs to get a majority Representatives from a majority of States. It is quite easy to not get that... which results in a deadlock electing a President. But not a Vice President because unlike President where Representatives have a choice of 3 candidates and are counted by States which have a majority for one candidate, Vice Presidental contingent election has 2 candidates, Senators vote as individuals and in case of a tie there is usually the incumbent (who can elect himself if running for reelection and among the two candidates).

 

[SteamKing]

This is not obvious in case of US system. If a majority Senate opposition usually will not block duly elected minority President from forming an administration, and the minority president is usually even allowed to pack his cabinet with minority members, why would the multiple parties not let a minority president govern?

Provided that a President gets elected in the first place, of course. Because a President needs to get a majority Representatives from a majority of States. It is quite easy to not get that... which results in a deadlock electing a President. But not a Vice President because unlike President where Representatives have a choice of 3 candidates and are counted by States which have a majority for one candidate, Vice Presidental contingent election has 2 candidates, Senators vote as individuals and in case of a tie there is usually the incumbent (who can elect himself if running for reelection and among the two candidates).

You are describing what happens when a president and vice president do not receive a majority of the votes cast by the electoral college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

The last time the House elected a president was 1825. The last time the Senate elected a vice-president was 1837.

Even in presidential elections where the candidates are close in the number of popular votes cast, the number of votes in the electoral college may be quite different. All a candidate is required to do to become president or vice-president is to get a simple majority of electoral votes, 270. There have been a few presidential elections where the winning candidate did not receive a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton never won the popular vote for either of his terms, and George W. Bush lost the popular vote in his first election. However, both candidates were able to receive at least 270 electoral votes, which is what counts. (Clinton won 370 and 379 electoral votes, and George Bush received 271 electoral votes in those elections.)

Still, even if a president is elected under those circumstances, the business of running the government must proceed, which is why the senate usually defers to the new president in his cabinet selections. One party shutting down the government is not a popular thing in the US: doing so punishes not only the opposition party, but the majority party as well, since benefits and services to constituents are shut down, too.

Unlike a parliamentary system, where several governments may fall in a short amount of time, the US system is based, for good or bad, on fixed lengths of terms. Both the president and the congress know that they must get along to some degree because they are stuck with each other until the next election.

 

[SteamKing]

Italy's government has not fallen and whilst it has many problems I'm unaware of how that is traced to coalitions. Nor why it is a good case study compared to countries that regularly have coalition governments and get along fine. Care to elaborate?

Don't look now, but the latest Italian government just fell Feb. 14. Surprise, surprise, it fell because the governing coalition broke down because one of the coalition members lost faith in the prime minister's ability to govern and to keep the Italian economy out of trouble. Italy is now looking at its third government in the last three years.

http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/15/matteo-renzi-poised-to-be-asked-to-form-italy-s-next-government/

 

[Tosh5457]

Problems faced by a republic following Montesquieu separation of powers:
-If voter supports party A on issues of military but party B on issues of healthcare, then he has to choose which area is more important to him.
-Everything that happens is the fault of president/prime minister. :D (yes, I know that from constitution perspective it is incorrect, however, people just seek some personification of gov that can be blamed). Anyway, there is no way for voter to only partially punish his gov for shortcomings in only one area.

What if there was a a possibility to divide gov into more detailed functions and give voter a chance to vote on politicians responsible for them separately? Each branch with its own taxes to finance its own expenditures? (Plus some constitutional safeguards concerning deficits and making future promises for each branch separately; and clear rules concerning areas of responsibility)

Possible branches ex.: education, social security, healthcare, infrastructure; security and national defence.

(On the other hand such system may allow to limit role of distinguishing between legislature and executive or point in having two chambers of parliament)

Do you consider such idea as workable or not? (yes, I know that's a pure political fiction)

Then those people who run healthcare, social security, etc... would to be very good politicians to get elected, or else another better-looking and well-spoken politician would take most of the votes in the elections. So you'd probably get incompetent people in all those important areas, instead of people who know what they're doing. In the current system they don't even need to be politicians, because the prime-minister/president elects them.

For example in the 2011 Portuguese elections, the prime-minister chose technicians to the ministers (economy, public finances, healthcare, etc...), who in most cases know what they're doing, instead of politicians. On the contrary in the previous elections the then prime-minister elected politicians to the ministers, and it was the most corrupt and incompetent government we've seen in a while.

 

[Czcibor]

Then those people who run healthcare, social security, etc... would to be very good politicians to get elected, or else another better-looking and well-spoken politician would take most of the votes in the elections. So you'd probably get incompetent people in all those important areas, instead of people who know what they're doing. In the current system they don't even need to be politicians, because the prime-minister/president elects them.

For example in the 2011 Portuguese elections, the prime-minister chose technicians to the ministers (economy, public finances, healthcare, etc...), who in most cases know what they're doing, instead of politicians. On the contrary in the previous elections the then prime-minister elected politicians to the ministers, and it was the most corrupt and incompetent government we've seen in a while.

So far in my country position of healthcare minister is cursed. Whoever (except maybe deceased prof. Religa, but he was respected from unrelated reasons) would take this job leaves it in shame. There is serious mismatch how much people in my country are willing to pay for their health care premium (tax), and what they expect in return.

You know, you expressed mostly arguments (BTW: which are absolutely correct) not specially against my idea, but against democracy as such.

So maybe I should ask you a different question: how to have a boring and professional technocratic system on permanent basis (not as such emergency during the crisis), while still keeping masses convinced that they have a democracy? ;) (mostly an ironic question, but if accidentally you have an answer, I'd be very willing to listen)

 

[SteamKing]

You know, you expressed mostly arguments (BTW: which are absolutely correct) not specially against my idea, but against democracy as such.

Winston Churchill had a quote about democracy, which I think is appropriate here:

"Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

(http://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government)

There are many different forms of democracy practiced today, some forms have advantages over other forms, etc., but the key point I think all of these forms are based on, what makes a particular form of government work for a long duration for a particular society, is obtaining a government by the consent of the governed.

If a form of government becomes so entrenched that it no longer can be altered or reformed by those whom government purports to serve, then it necessarily becomes a tyranny, whether by one or by many. Obviously, the founders of the US system experienced difficulty in getting redress for their grievances from the British Parliament and the Sovereign, and were denied a voice in those councils making the governing decisions, and thus decided to strike out on their own and develop a model of governance different from the parliamentary system.

Over the years, both systems have had to adapt to the rise of party politics, which were beginning to evolve in Britain at the time of American independence and which took about 50 years in the US to form into roughly the system used today, albeit with different political parties. In the years since independence, both the British parliament and the US government have changed in the details of how the two countries are governed while retaining broadly the same framework of their respective forms of government.

This is not to say that further reforms are impossible in either system, but that whatever particular ideas one might have about how a government might be changed, it is vital that the proposal be discussed at length before making any changes, to avoid, as much as possible, any adverse consequences to such changes.

In the US, the paradigm of a seemingly desirable change in the Constitution which led to many adverse societal consequences was the 18th Amendment (1920) imposing a prohibition on the manufacture and sale of alcohol for personal consumption. While the societal situation before 1920 had its less than desirable qualities, it quickly became apparent that removal of one vice led to the growth of other, more serious vices, so much so that the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. Given that for an amendment to the US Constitution to take effect it must be passed by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and then ratified by three-quarters of the states, the imposition and repeal of Prohibition in the US took place at lightning speed. There remain places in the US where it is still illegal to manufacture or sell alcohol, but it is a local, rather than a national, issue of governance now.

 

[Czcibor]

There are many different forms of democracy practiced today, some forms have advantages over other forms, etc., but the key point I think all of these forms are based on, what makes a particular form of government work for a long duration for a particular society, is obtaining a government by the consent of the governed.

Rather be perceived as legitimate by governed, in whichever way it is perceived by society as the correct. (including divine rights of kings, mandate of heaven, or approval of priest class, whatever)

Obviously, the founders of the US system experienced difficulty in getting redress for their grievances from the British Parliament and the Sovereign, and were denied a voice in those councils making the governing decisions, and thus decided to strike out on their own and develop a model of governance different from the parliamentary system.

Or maybe you rather took advantage of weakness and mental illness of head of British state, George III? (of course a system in which an insane head of state can't be easily replaced is asking to be overthrown) The grievances that colonizers could have against their king were rather unimpressive in comparisons of grievances that could have Blacks or Natives against colonizers.

If a form of government becomes so entrenched that it no longer can be altered or reformed by those whom government purports to serve, then it necessarily becomes a tyranny, whether by one or by many.

In the US, the paradigm of a seemingly desirable change in the Constitution which led to many adverse societal consequences was the 18th Amendment (1920) imposing a prohibition on the manufacture and sale of alcohol for personal consumption. While the societal situation before 1920 had its less than desirable qualities, it quickly became apparent that removal of one vice led to the growth of other, more serious vices, so much so that the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. Given that for an amendment to the US Constitution to take effect it must be passed by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and then ratified by three-quarters of the states, the imposition and repeal of Prohibition in the US took place at lightning speed. There remain places in the US where it is still illegal to manufacture or sell alcohol, but it is a local, rather than a national, issue of governance now.

Honestly speaking I perceive recent US system as neither easily reformable nor serving its citizens (in comparison to democracies in northern Europe). On the other hand it at least pass the test that I mentioned - its perceived as legitimate by its subjects.

I see some advantages of democracy, especially its mechanism of forcing revolutionaries to follow parliamentary mechanism, if they have as big support as they claim. I see too many well entrenched special interest groups (both in my country and abroad, including the USA) to say that democracy defends against them.

There is a problem how to have both masses making decisions (to get their approval and reflect their interests) and how to have some professionals making decisions (to get reasonable decision). I think mostly in line of:
-census democracy (yes, first pass a test to vote);
-deliberative democracy which relies on focus groups randomly selected from citizens (forcing them to first analyse subject and interrogate experts).
(of course there is also widely applied mechanism of using international, independent bodies, which roughly works, but leaves rather limited amount of voice for the governed)

Maybe there are different ideas how to deal with incompetence, while still maintain real influence of citizens on power. That's why I asked.

 

[SteamKing]

Rather be perceived as legitimate by governed, in whichever way it is perceived by society as the correct. (including divine rights of kings, mandate of heaven, or approval of priest class, whatever)

None of those forms of government require the consent of the governed. Being seen as 'legitimate' (whatever that may mean) and obtaining consent to be governed are two different things, IMO. In recent times, the Soviet Union was perceived as 'legitimate' in the eyes of its citizens and the rest of the world, yet it collapsed astonishingly swiftly. Historians and political philosophers will be picking through the metaphorical rubble left by this collapse for many years to come.

Or maybe you rather took advantage of weakness and mental illness of head of British state, George III? (of course a system in which an insane head of state can't be easily replaced is asking to be overthrown) The grievances that colonizers could have against their king were rather unimpressive in comparisons of grievances that could have Blacks or Natives against colonizers.

While the constitutional role of the British sovereign has evolved since 1776, even then the power of the king was not absolute. The English Civil War of 1649-1660 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 had settled that question, at least for England and then Great Britain. While the sovereign was then and still is Head or State, Parliament is supreme.

Living in a modern society, you may perceive the colonists' complaints as petty or of no importance measured against your own experience, but, to them, the colonists were earnest about their desire to participate more fully in self-government than they were allowed. They were taxed, drafted, and harassed with no say whatsoever in Parliament.

All but three of the original 13 American colonies were royal colonies, that is to say, they were the property of the Crown and ruled directly by the sovereign through a royal governor. The rest were proprietary colonies, basically commercial ventures which were intended to be run at a profit for the benefit of the proprietor and his associates. Trade with nations or other colonies outside of the British empire was strictly prohibited, and most manufactured goods had to be imported from Britain, usually at inflated prices, since the colonies were captive markets in all senses of the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Colonies

By the time of the American Revolution, the royal colonies ceased being directly controlled by the king and instead became property of the British state, that is to say, under the control of Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

It is rather unfortunate that George III took the colonists' grievances as a personal affront, rather than instructing his ministers that he desired a peaceful resolution to the conflicts with the colonists. While it is not clear that George's later mental problems had a direct bearing on these matters, it is important to remember that George became king at 22 in 1760 on the sudden death of his father and was still quite a young man in the run up to 1776. His sudden accession to the throne undoubtedly upset many political calculations in Britain, and it is clear that George himself personally disliked many of his most important ministers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_Great_Britain

The lack of flexibility of the king and his ministers in dealing with the colonies contributed to the break with the colonies as much as any other reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

Honestly speaking I perceive recent US system as neither easily reformable nor serving its citizens (in comparison to democracies in northern Europe). On the other hand it at least pass the test that I mentioned - its perceived as legitimate by its subjects.

The Constitution was deliberately made difficult to amend, because the founders did not wish the government to be changed or altered on a whim. The method of electing a president through an electoral college rather than by popular vote was also seen as making the candidates for that office responsive to the interests of the country as a whole in collecting the electoral votes necessary to win.

In the years since 1789, the conception of what the federal government should have control of has changed quite radically. In the beginning, the federal government was intended to serve the interest of the individual states and have little influence on the daily lives of citizens. Since 1933, the creation and perpetuation of the welfare state has altered the purpose of the federal government, where the interests of the individual states are subordinated to those of the federal government, and the lives of individual citizens are increasingly regulated and controlled from Washington, DC.

I see some advantages of democracy, especially its mechanism of forcing revolutionaries to follow parliamentary mechanism, if they have as big support as they claim. I see too many well entrenched special interest groups (both in my country and abroad, including the USA) to say that democracy defends against them.

Everybody acts like 'special interest groups' are some new phenomenon which heretofore never existed in politics. Special interest groups exist to some degree in all forms of government. If a group of people with shared outlook and political goals wish to band together, that is fine. It's when a group fosters corruption in the political process or advocates the armed overthrow of the government that things get out of hand.

There is a problem how to have both masses making decisions (to get their approval and reflect their interests) and how to have some professionals making decisions (to get reasonable decision). I think mostly in line of:
-census democracy (yes, first pass a test to vote);
-deliberative democracy which relies on focus groups randomly selected from citizens (forcing them to first analyse subject and interrogate experts).
(of course there is also widely applied mechanism of using international, independent bodies, which roughly works, but leaves rather limited amount of voice for the governed)

Maybe there are different ideas how to deal with incompetence, while still maintain real influence of citizens on power. That's why I asked.

In a republican form of government, the members of parliament, or the representatives and senators in the US system, are supposed to be the 'focus' group which is concerned with governing. They are supposed to meet and deliberate, using the machinery of the state to obtain the expert information they need to make their decisions.