From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:04:55 GMT

In article <BruE1t.15p@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:

|>In article <1992Jul22.210443.5472@dscomsf.desy.de>
|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>
|>> The President has much too much power.
|>>
|>>The other democratised countries developed a party system which
|>>functions independently of the constitution and provides a lot of
|>the
|>>checks and balances. 
|>
|>   This analysis is exactly the opposite of other analyses I've
|>   heard on this topic!     I have frequently heard Europeans and
|>   others living under parliamentary systems complain about the 
|>   LACK of checks and balances in their systems.  Their argument
|>   goes like this:  in a parliamentary system the Prime Minister 
|>   is drawn from the party which has the most seats in parliament.
|>   The result is that you effectively get a dictatorship of one 
|>   party.   (but see below)

Actualy outside the UK single party rule is the exception. Most
continental governments are coalitions.

The problem in the US is that the President is now drivinf the whole
system, he introduces legislation and dominates the entire budget
system. The cabinet have no real authority to opose him because they
have no elected mandate, thus there is one person rule. In Europe the
Cabinet have much more personal authority, the head of government has to
be much more circumspect, his position depends on the support of his
collegues.

|>>The US constitution has only scope for two parties
|>>which 
|>
|>   What is it in the Constitution that Mr. Hallam-Baker sees as 
|>   requiring two parties?   The need for the president to be elected
|>   by a majority (at least of the electoral vote)? 

There is no need for a majority for most posts, merely a plurality. The
first past the post system locks the two party system into place.

|>  Parliamentary
|>   systems require majorities also, or they have to go through a 
|>   cumbersome process of trying to form a coalition.  This is often,
|>   fractious and unstable (Italy, for instance has averaged over one
|>   government per year in the postwar period).

And in the process has developed faster than almost any other in Europe.
Italy now outranks GB in terms of standard of living.


|>> have both ended up on the same end of the political spectrum.
|>
|>   I don't see what the Constitution has to say about this.

The constitution is the system of governement, no more, no less. It sets
the rules and the rules create and maintain two party rule.

|>>The system I would suggest is ATV, the ballot paper has several
|>>candidates and you put a number next to as many as you want. The votes
|>>are first counted according to the number of first preferences (number
|>>1s). If anybody has 50% of the vote they get in. Otherwise the person
|>>with the lowest number drops out and their votes goes to their next
|>>preference (ie the one they put number 2 next to).
|>
|>   I do agree that a different voting system might be in order.
|>   But, although I hate to say this, most of the schemes such as
|>   that described above (which I like also) require a more sophisticated
|>   voter than we may actually have. 

Despite apperances I don't think such a system is beyond the intelectual
grasp of the average American.


Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: alt.censorship