Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post - Would America be better served by the westminster system of govt?

Zaleukos · 11-16-2006, 05:16 AM

I think the US system is better than westminster due to the formalization of checks and balances. The founding fathers were brilliant, though I suspect they were influenced by the English having Monarchs not being chosen by parliament...

But I prefer a Proportional Representation system to the First Past the Post used by the Anglosaxon world. FPP tends to result in "wasted" votes (if you live in the wrong district), potentially lowers voter turnout, invites gerrymandering, and produce large tent parties. PR results in coalitions between parties where the balance of between different ideological wings is much more transparent as each ideology has its own party. As a right-wing liberal/livertarian I dont risk my vote going to union-hugging protectionists or moral conservatives. FPP has advantages in that it is easier to form a functioning government and there is a clearer geographical bond between the voter and his/her personal representative, but I think that having a broader spectrum represented in parliament is more valuable. In the end I guess it boils down to whether one finds geographical or ideological representation more important... The US is after all vastly bigger than any EU country so geography becomes a problem in a different way. But why not introduce PR at state level or in presidential elections?

EDIT: Sweden has proportional representation and parliamentarism (what was called westminster in this thread). Since the prime minister almost always is supported by a majority in the parliament this means that he has to screw up pretty badly for the parliament to act as a check on him. The parties in the governing coalition act as checks on each other instead. In a way the UK is more problematic as the FPP system results in ONE party controlling both the executive and the legislature, but this is somewhat offset by looser party discipline than in many other countries:p

The UK system actually seems to work so much better in practice than it should in theory:p I guess tradition has some value after all...

[ 11-16-2006, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Zaleukos ]

11-16-2006, 05:16 AM	#36
Zaleukos The Magister Join Date: September 29, 2003 Location: Sweden Age: 49 Posts: 146	I think the US system is better than westminster due to the formalization of checks and balances. The founding fathers were brilliant, though I suspect they were influenced by the English having Monarchs not being chosen by parliament... But I prefer a Proportional Representation system to the First Past the Post used by the Anglosaxon world. FPP tends to result in "wasted" votes (if you live in the wrong district), potentially lowers voter turnout, invites gerrymandering, and produce large tent parties. PR results in coalitions between parties where the balance of between different ideological wings is much more transparent as each ideology has its own party. As a right-wing liberal/livertarian I dont risk my vote going to union-hugging protectionists or moral conservatives. FPP has advantages in that it is easier to form a functioning government and there is a clearer geographical bond between the voter and his/her personal representative, but I think that having a broader spectrum represented in parliament is more valuable. In the end I guess it boils down to whether one finds geographical or ideological representation more important... The US is after all vastly bigger than any EU country so geography becomes a problem in a different way. But why not introduce PR at state level or in presidential elections? EDIT: Sweden has proportional representation and parliamentarism (what was called westminster in this thread). Since the prime minister almost always is supported by a majority in the parliament this means that he has to screw up pretty badly for the parliament to act as a check on him. The parties in the governing coalition act as checks on each other instead. In a way the UK is more problematic as the FPP system results in ONE party controlling both the executive and the legislature, but this is somewhat offset by looser party discipline than in many other countries:p The UK system actually seems to work so much better in practice than it should in theory:p I guess tradition has some value after all... [ 11-16-2006, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Zaleukos ]