5 ms·

In many western countries, when a government can't form a working coalition or agree on a budget, new elections are called.

pjc50 8y ago
Yes, this is a feature of Westminster systems, although it's actually possible to have a change of government in that situation without having fresh elections if enough MPs "cross the floor" or a coalition flips. We're extremely close to that now in Brexit.
javagram 8y ago
The US system is so archaic at this point, the founding fathers never anticipated the federal government budget being this important to the country. Provisions for dealing with something like a shutdown just aren’t in the constitution other than 2/3 supermajority requirements for veto override or impeachment, which is a recipe for gridlock. Many US states have much more sane budgeting systems and manage to run even under divided government without issue.
- warrenm 8y ago
  >a recipe for gridlock That was the whole point of how the government of the US was designed: it's supposed to be hard to "get things done" at the federal level
  - javagram 8y ago
    Yea, because the feds were supposed to only handle post roads, the military, and free trade between the states and tariffs on international commerce. The modern welfare state, where millions of people are immediately hurt by the federal system grinding to a halt and stopping, would have been anathema to the framers. Nevertheless by popular vote such programs have been federalized and now we have a constitution that doesn’t support their smooth operation.
    - xtian 8y ago
      > The modern welfare state, where millions of people are immediately hurt by the federal system grinding to a halt and stopping, would have been anathema to the framers. So too would have been the dominance of corporate interests in the political system. But here we are.
      - scarmig 8y ago
        So too would women, blacks, Asians, and the poor having the right to vote be anathema to them. Why again do we really care about parsing exactly what the Founders would say about the modern world?
        xtian 8y ago
        Same reason you’d want to understand the intent behind the design of a software system before you modify it. Afterwards, though, you still go ahead and modify it to meet new requirements. Anyway, extending the franchise doesn’t really have anything to do with the prominence of the federal government, whereas the increasing power of corporations does.
        sangnoir 8y ago
        The argument is that the modern software system has become so complex, worrying about what the intent of the original design is almost pointless. Say a single-user app that was originally written in assembly for PDP and has now evolved (or wrapped) into a multi-cluster, multi-zoned gRPC service - how important is the original intent when it was never designed for the current use case?
        xtian 8y ago
        If you want to do good engineering work on a complex system, it's imperative to understand and remain laser-focused on what the system as a whole is actually trying to accomplish. The original intent is never irrelevant in that context. In fact, it's the foundation for evaluating all the subsequent decisions that resulted in "a multi-cluster, multi-zoned gRPC service".
- roywiggins 8y ago
  There's nothing stopping Congress from amending the Antideficiency Act or just passing a law that would provide for an automatic fallback appropriation if there's no new budget. http://ultimatehistoryproject.com/anti-deficiency-act-history-behind-the-governement-shutdown.html http://ultimatehistoryproject.com/anti-deficiency-act-histor...
  - javagram 8y ago
    Agreed, however as your link discusses there are important reasons the anti-deficiency act was passed. A permanent fallback appropriation would remove congress’ ability to reallocate or reapportion spending without a 2/3 majority vote in both houses to override the presidential veto, something that seems unlikely in the modern party system. Also military funding has to be reappropriated regularly under the constitution, a permanent military appropriation is unconstitutional. “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”
robbick 8y ago
AFAIK - no other western country has these budget limits, if a budget doesn't pass then you continue to work from the old budget, no lack of pay etc
- CPLX 8y ago
  Interestingly that’s how the US worked too until the Carter Administration, and the decision to do it the current way is controversial. It seems like there might actually be nothing stopping us from doing it the same way right now.
RightMillennial 8y ago
That sounds like quite an improvement over our system in the U.S. This budget standoff with a month long shutdown is a disaster.
richardknop 8y ago
Not necessarily. There are examples of stalemates in Europe when government could not be formed in years. For example in Belgium but also other countries. In those cases what would usually happen is there would be an interim government of bureaucrats / experts (university professors etc) appointed to lead the country until new election or until political parties can form some sort of a coalition.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  None of these cases meant all government employees went unpaid. It’s not comparable at all.
jcranmer 8y ago
Tell that to the Belgians, who took 541 days to form a government.
- HarryHirsch 8y ago
  The big difference is that in Belgium if the government can't come up with a new budget the old one remains in force. You don't have the annual circus with spending re-authorizations for projects that span multiple budget periods and for infrastructure that needs to be maintained.
roywiggins 8y ago
American shutdowns were invented when someone realized that the Antideficiency Act probably prevents the government spending money if Congress failed to pass a budget. We could, if we wanted, amend that act to provide for an automatic continuance of funding, but we haven't. Deadlocks like this are definitely a feature of our system that Westminster-style systems resolve differently, but shutdowns are an artifact of an old law more than the constitutional organization. (ditto the "debt ceiling", which only exists because of a stupid statute)
- noir_lord 8y ago
  Other countries have a "If we have no functioning democratic government the budget is the same as last year" clause as well as a "In the event the government can't do it's job, the civil service (when it's called that) keeps the lights on" Continuity of government is kinda the #1 priority of government as everything else they do is subordinate to that.
  - ConceptJunkie 8y ago
    > Continuity of government is kinda the #1 priority of government as everything else they do is subordinate to that. Well, to be fair, anything that is considered "essential" for the government to do is not, by definition, shut down. Obviously, there will be differing definitions of "essential", but the continuity is there. That said, amending the appropriate legislation to prevent this nonsense from being necessary when branches of government are at a stand-off should be the desired goal.
- jrwoodruff 8y ago
  Yea, and if we did the continuance bit, we'd end up always running on automatic continuance funding, because that means all the politicians can continue to not do the hard work of negotiation and compromise. I like the 'triggers an election' thing. Puts the right pressure in the right place - if people in place can't get along and come to a reasonable compromise to keep the country working, then the people need a way to make some changes.
  - 8y ago
Merad 8y ago
In the US a significant portion of one of the two major political parties believes that the vast majority of the government fundamentally should not exist. Do other western countries face a similar challenge?

pjc50 8y ago

Yes, this is a feature of Westminster systems, although it's actually possible to have a change of government in that situation without having fresh elections if enough MPs "cross the floor" or a coalition flips. We're extremely close to that now in Brexit.

javagram 8y ago

The US system is so archaic at this point, the founding fathers never anticipated the federal government budget being this important to the country. Provisions for dealing with something like a shutdown just aren’t in the constitution other than 2/3 supermajority requirements for veto override or impeachment, which is a recipe for gridlock. Many US states have much more sane budgeting systems and manage to run even under divided government without issue.

warrenm 8y ago
>a recipe for gridlock That was the whole point of how the government of the US was designed: it's supposed to be hard to "get things done" at the federal level
- javagram 8y ago
  Yea, because the feds were supposed to only handle post roads, the military, and free trade between the states and tariffs on international commerce. The modern welfare state, where millions of people are immediately hurt by the federal system grinding to a halt and stopping, would have been anathema to the framers. Nevertheless by popular vote such programs have been federalized and now we have a constitution that doesn’t support their smooth operation.
  - xtian 8y ago
    > The modern welfare state, where millions of people are immediately hurt by the federal system grinding to a halt and stopping, would have been anathema to the framers. So too would have been the dominance of corporate interests in the political system. But here we are.
    - scarmig 8y ago
      So too would women, blacks, Asians, and the poor having the right to vote be anathema to them. Why again do we really care about parsing exactly what the Founders would say about the modern world?
      - xtian 8y ago
        Same reason you’d want to understand the intent behind the design of a software system before you modify it. Afterwards, though, you still go ahead and modify it to meet new requirements. Anyway, extending the franchise doesn’t really have anything to do with the prominence of the federal government, whereas the increasing power of corporations does.
        sangnoir 8y ago
        The argument is that the modern software system has become so complex, worrying about what the intent of the original design is almost pointless. Say a single-user app that was originally written in assembly for PDP and has now evolved (or wrapped) into a multi-cluster, multi-zoned gRPC service - how important is the original intent when it was never designed for the current use case?
        xtian 8y ago
        If you want to do good engineering work on a complex system, it's imperative to understand and remain laser-focused on what the system as a whole is actually trying to accomplish. The original intent is never irrelevant in that context. In fact, it's the foundation for evaluating all the subsequent decisions that resulted in "a multi-cluster, multi-zoned gRPC service".
roywiggins 8y ago
There's nothing stopping Congress from amending the Antideficiency Act or just passing a law that would provide for an automatic fallback appropriation if there's no new budget. http://ultimatehistoryproject.com/anti-deficiency-act-history-behind-the-governement-shutdown.html http://ultimatehistoryproject.com/anti-deficiency-act-histor...
- javagram 8y ago
  Agreed, however as your link discusses there are important reasons the anti-deficiency act was passed. A permanent fallback appropriation would remove congress’ ability to reallocate or reapportion spending without a 2/3 majority vote in both houses to override the presidential veto, something that seems unlikely in the modern party system. Also military funding has to be reappropriated regularly under the constitution, a permanent military appropriation is unconstitutional. “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

robbick 8y ago

AFAIK - no other western country has these budget limits, if a budget doesn't pass then you continue to work from the old budget, no lack of pay etc

CPLX 8y ago
Interestingly that’s how the US worked too until the Carter Administration, and the decision to do it the current way is controversial. It seems like there might actually be nothing stopping us from doing it the same way right now.

RightMillennial 8y ago

That sounds like quite an improvement over our system in the U.S. This budget standoff with a month long shutdown is a disaster.

richardknop 8y ago

Not necessarily. There are examples of stalemates in Europe when government could not be formed in years. For example in Belgium but also other countries. In those cases what would usually happen is there would be an interim government of bureaucrats / experts (university professors etc) appointed to lead the country until new election or until political parties can form some sort of a coalition.

jplayer01 8y ago
None of these cases meant all government employees went unpaid. It’s not comparable at all.

jcranmer 8y ago

Tell that to the Belgians, who took 541 days to form a government.

HarryHirsch 8y ago
The big difference is that in Belgium if the government can't come up with a new budget the old one remains in force. You don't have the annual circus with spending re-authorizations for projects that span multiple budget periods and for infrastructure that needs to be maintained.

roywiggins 8y ago

American shutdowns were invented when someone realized that the Antideficiency Act probably prevents the government spending money if Congress failed to pass a budget. We could, if we wanted, amend that act to provide for an automatic continuance of funding, but we haven't. Deadlocks like this are definitely a feature of our system that Westminster-style systems resolve differently, but shutdowns are an artifact of an old law more than the constitutional organization. (ditto the "debt ceiling", which only exists because of a stupid statute)

noir_lord 8y ago
Other countries have a "If we have no functioning democratic government the budget is the same as last year" clause as well as a "In the event the government can't do it's job, the civil service (when it's called that) keeps the lights on" Continuity of government is kinda the #1 priority of government as everything else they do is subordinate to that.
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  > Continuity of government is kinda the #1 priority of government as everything else they do is subordinate to that. Well, to be fair, anything that is considered "essential" for the government to do is not, by definition, shut down. Obviously, there will be differing definitions of "essential", but the continuity is there. That said, amending the appropriate legislation to prevent this nonsense from being necessary when branches of government are at a stand-off should be the desired goal.
jrwoodruff 8y ago
Yea, and if we did the continuance bit, we'd end up always running on automatic continuance funding, because that means all the politicians can continue to not do the hard work of negotiation and compromise. I like the 'triggers an election' thing. Puts the right pressure in the right place - if people in place can't get along and come to a reasonable compromise to keep the country working, then the people need a way to make some changes.
- 8y ago

Merad 8y ago

In the US a significant portion of one of the two major political parties believes that the vast majority of the government fundamentally should not exist. Do other western countries face a similar challenge?