I forgot to comment this. Maybe is old news already.

The IMF contacted me by email.

The Greek PM just quit.

Well, he is going to be a candidate in the elections. He might very well win (haven’t seen any polls) and if so it’s quite the opposite of quitting.

However, he might face a rough time. Most likely we’ll see a very divided parliament with Syriza maybe still on top but diminished (and maybe unable to govern).

Edit: Ah, found polls. Syriza has about an 18 point lead over the second party (as of July 25th). A whooping 42% of projected vote versus a 23% of the second party. More than when they won the elections with just an 8% lead. So we might have Tsipras for a while.

This is definitely not quitting, although it can backfire spectacularly. This is a somewhat common political tactic in Europe. Call early elections to consolidate support.

It’s just a ridiculously nonsensical approach to “governing”. He’s not a leader. He’s like a little kid playing government.

Greece is in bad shape. It needs to actually do something, not dick around to decide who might come up with a plan.

They already had elections. He is the prime minister. Govern.

I do agree with you. But when you govern in coalition, as is the case here, strengthening your support might be the only way to gain authority to do something. This is what is happening: sections of his party and the coalition are rebelling and they can’t pass shit. You call elections to either strengthen your power and be able to do something or be thrown out.

That’s a bit like saying “Obama is the president, so he needs to stop global warming/enact single payer health care/fix the tax code/etc”. Those of us who are familiar with American politics know that there are various checks and balances to his power, and expecting immediate progress on every issue is unrealistic.

In America, every two years we have an opportunity to alter the government’s political spectrum, in hopes of improving the odds that stuff gets done. That’s not how it works in much of Europe. If a government can’t make progress due to gridlock, they don’t need to wait until the next election (which might be many years away). They can call a snap election in the hopes of ending gridlock immediately. Of course, this is not guaranteed to succeed, but if the alternative is total gridlock then the downside risk is small.

It’d be like Obama was stuck fighting with Congress, and so he decided to call for a new election. It’s silly.

When government is gridlocked, you make compromises. That’s how it works. That process is hard. But it’s unlikely to just go away by having another election.

This whole ordeal just seems to highlight the fact that Tsirpras has no idea what he’s doing. He came to power with big promises that sounded cool, but he has no idea how to actually implement any of them, because he was basically full of shit. And now he’s just engaging in various pointless electoral processes instead of actually governing the country.

This is how things work in a parliamentary system. He may be full of shit in terms of policy, but when you are in a weak coalition and you see a chance at a majority you take it. I’m sure the same thing would happen in any parliament around the world.

I bet he would have done that at least once in his administration if it was a course of action our constitution allowed! Since it is allowed by the rules of parliamentary democracy it’s a shrewd play. It’s no weirder than the filibuster or recess appointments or executive signing statements or any of the other oddities allowed under the rules of our government.

Not really. As you probably noticed, compromises between Democrats and Republicans are few and far between. And they are rarer than ever before, because party discipline is enforced more than ever before.

Now imagine a system in which party discipline is paramount, and people willing to compromise can be easily excluded from government by party leadership. That’s how parliamentary democracies are often designed. And that’s why snap elections are usually a necessity.

You realize that the complete lack of compromise is a relatively new thing? That in the fairly recent past, Republicans and Democrats actually compromised all the time?

The end of earmarks has definitely contributed to this.

Anyway, this thread will revive soon it seems (as soon as fresh polls and policy statements -for what they are worth- are out). What’s happening: it seems the “rebel” syriza members are going to create their own party. Since the above polls tracked voting intention before the elections where announced, it is possible part of that 42% of support will go to the new party. In that case the elections will get interesting, otherwise, it seems it’s going to be a clear power grab for Syriza (plus, cleaning the parliament from rebel members).

Is it possible that the rebel Syriza gets almost all of Syriza’s support? Isn’t Syriza’s support all anti-austerity, the pro-austerity folks would vote for the traditional parties instead of Tsirpas?

Of course. But the trends that are currently driving Congressional inflexibility, party discipline and party-centric voting, have always been baked into most parliamentary democracies. I don’t think Congress will change direction in the near future. And so I think it’s laughable to ask Greece to look to Congress as an example of political know-how.

The problem is Congress and the President due to gerrymandering and the electoral college, as well as off-year election cycles, is a recipe for both sides have advantages at different times- which leads to gridlock and the hardening of minds and positions.

The US has a bigger fundamental problem due to its political system, and it’s just starting. Having a generation that has now grown up since 1994 with “news you can agree with” is going to make it worse.

Parliamentary systems are at least somewhat resistant to this scenario.

Yes, it’s certainly possible, we need to wait for polls.meow ever the 42% polled previously is in late July, after all the drama and the backpedalling.