Poli-Sci: The Perils of Presidentialism

[Anders_Hallin]

Jeff, I’d say that that’s a difference between majoritarian and proportional systems. Westminster democracies are indeed the winner-takes-all usually-one-party government that tries to win by gaining the median voter and gets punted for going too far to either side. The proportional parliamentary systems usually have minority or coalition governments with non-government party influence through the committee system, and thus often low levels of accountability, but the systems are made so that they correctly reflect the entire spectrum of political opinion, and gains legitimacy by mirroring the population correctly. Also, the parliament rules are obviously made to handle party strife while maintaining efficiency.

[Jasper_Phillips]

@extarbags

It’s interesting to me that “Liberal Identification” gets higher as Democratic party identification gets stronger, but actual support for liberal ideals is highest at “leaning Democratic.”

See also the bit about "Independent Democrats were more liberal than weak Democrats and about as liberal as strong Democrats while independent Republicans were less conservative than strong Republicans but just as conservative as weak Republicans. "

It looks to me like both aspects might stem from “drag” coming from the ongoing shift of American politics rightward, such that “leaners” are often people who’ve been left behind by their party, rather than in between the parties per se.

[Gav]

@jeffd

Parliamentary systems aren’t perfect, but one thing they do much better than Presidential systems is enable voter accountability. When a party wins a majority they get to do anything and everything they want. If people like it, they keep their majority. If not, they lose it. This actually has a moderating influence on the parties. Even though the Conservatives in Great Britain might secretly want to dismantle the NHS, but they don’t dare actually do so or even talk about it because of the inevitable voter backlash.

The one problem parliamentary systems have is when no one can get a clear majority and you end up with fragile coalition governments. Then you end up with one election after another. From what I gather, Italy has this problem.

Israel has a similar problem. The other thing that happens there is that you get a very small group of king-makers who can force major concessions out of the other two parties to give them a majority.

[jeffd]

Related.

It’s very long, but the short version seems to be: American Presidentialism is not always such a great system.

@Bruce Ackerman

Once the crisis begins, it gives rise to a vicious cycle. Presidents break legislative impasses by “solving” pressing problems with unilateral decrees that often go well beyond their formal constitutional authority; rather than protesting, representatives are relieved that they can evade political responsibility for making hard decisions; subsequent presidents use these precedents to expand their decree power further; the emerging practice may even be codified by later constitutional amendments. Increasingly, the house is reduced to a forum for demagogic posturing, while the president makes the tough decisions unilaterally without considering the interests and ideologies represented by the leading political parties in congress. This dismal cycle is already visible in countries like Argentina and Brazil, which have only recently emerged from military dictatorships. A less pathological version is visible in the homeland of presidentialism, the United States.

We see this dynamic every day in the US. Congress is unwilling or unable to do the job of governing, so the President figures out a way to get around them. I think I’ve brought it up previously in this thread, but look at the stuff that’s happened lately: Congress allows wars without direct authorization. Congress refuses to deal with CO2 emissions so the President goes around them and uses the EPA. Now we have Congress refusing to raise the debt ceiling and the President (at least theoretically) contemplating all sorts of exotic measures (magic platinum coins, option scams, Constitutional showdowns, etc) in order to get around them.

I’m not sure where this ends, but I am sure it cannot continue.

[Jason_McCullough]

I do wonder how much crap can pile up in the system before a crisis can make it collapse.

[Lum]

We may find out if the Tea Partiers block the debt ceiling bill tomorrow.

[thrasymedes]

Let’s assume this deal causes another recession - as bad as or worse than the last one. Who will people vote for? I think the intensity of the division between left and right will grow stronger - as each side blames the other for the crisis. If left-wingers stop voting for moderates and compromisers, it really could end up in a political deadlock. It’s going to get worse before it gets better, anyway.

[Chris_Nahr]

So what’s wrong with splitting up the federation into Jesusland and the United States of Canada, anyway?

[CSL]

@Chris Nahr

So what’s wrong with splitting up the federation into Jesusland and the United States of Canada, anyway?

Maybe us and the French are still getting used to living in one house? We don’t need another roommate.

[arctangent]

@Chris Nahr

So what’s wrong with splitting up the federation into Jesusland and the United States of Canada, anyway?

I don’t like cold weather.

How about Jesusland and the United Atlantic States of America?

[jeffd]

Matt Yglesias highlights another example of the executive getting to unilaterally make law because Congress won’t bother.