3 ms·

The three branch system allows any two to gang up on the third. Parliamentary systems don't have any checks like this and trend towards unitary authoritarians.

LorenPechtel 1y ago
No. The three branch system allows any two to gang up legally against the third. But, as we are seeing, all the actual power relies with the executive. They can simply ignore the actions of the other two.
- pjc50 1y ago
  What actually happened is that all four branches were held by Republicans, so none of them is going to hold any of the others accountable.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    If the collective elected government agrees on policy, is that not democracy working well?
    - magicalist 1y ago
      Who cares about the constitution, he said he has a mandate!
      - throwaway48476 1y ago
        Every country has a constitution, usually it's ignored. The value of a piece of paper is only as much as the people that comprise the system that upholds it. If you completely ignore the people and just whine at them about constitution this and that they're going to ignore it and rip it up. Society is also a compact and if the supermajority wants something they're going to get it.
        ben_w 1y ago
        The Republicans in the USA don't have the support required to count as a supermajority: """Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed in one of two ways: a two-thirds supermajority votes of each body of United States Congress or a convention called by Congress on application of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states. Once proposed, the amendment must be ratified by three-quarters (currently 38) of the states (either through the state legislatures, or ratification conventions, whichever "mode of ratification" Congress selects).""" - the wikipedia page on Supermajority, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#United_States
jltsiren 1y ago
In modern parliamentary systems, political leaders are not in direct control of the executive branch. Politicians may issue priorities and guidance, but career civil servants run the show. Department heads serve fixed terms that are independent of the election cycle, and they cannot be removed without a criminal conviction. If politicians want major changes, they can change the law. And in many countries, the constitutionality of proposed legislation must be established in advance. The descent to authoritarianism usually begins with a party gaining enough power that it can override the checks and balances. Which often involves rewriting the constitution.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  An authoritarian unelected deep state is even worse.
refurb 1y ago
True. The US system has power more fragmented than most. In Europe, the Senate often doesn't wield any power (it rubber stamps anything the legislature approves). The executive is a part of the legislative. In parliamentary system, individual MPs are "whipped" into voting with the party, and can basically be pushed out of power if they don't go along with it. If the party in power has a large majority, there is nothing but the courts to stop them from passing whatever they want.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  Canada is a dictatorship though most don't realize it. MPs can't tweet anything unless it's approved by the PM. You have a hundred heads speaking with one voice.
  - refurb 1y ago
    It’s an interesting system looking from the outside in. A party with a majority in power has little to stop any legislation the party decides to pass. The senate is mostly a rubber stamp. The courts are independent but won’t nullify legislation unless it violates the charter. MPs can’t not vote with the party unless they want to risk their political career (or it’s a free vote - but that’s reserved for unimportant legislation. The ruling party can pass whatever the heck they want without much concern.
    - throwaway48476 1y ago
      [flagged]

LorenPechtel 1y ago

No. The three branch system allows any two to gang up legally against the third. But, as we are seeing, all the actual power relies with the executive. They can simply ignore the actions of the other two.

pjc50 1y ago
What actually happened is that all four branches were held by Republicans, so none of them is going to hold any of the others accountable.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  If the collective elected government agrees on policy, is that not democracy working well?
  - magicalist 1y ago
    Who cares about the constitution, he said he has a mandate!
    - throwaway48476 1y ago
      Every country has a constitution, usually it's ignored. The value of a piece of paper is only as much as the people that comprise the system that upholds it. If you completely ignore the people and just whine at them about constitution this and that they're going to ignore it and rip it up. Society is also a compact and if the supermajority wants something they're going to get it.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        The Republicans in the USA don't have the support required to count as a supermajority: """Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed in one of two ways: a two-thirds supermajority votes of each body of United States Congress or a convention called by Congress on application of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states. Once proposed, the amendment must be ratified by three-quarters (currently 38) of the states (either through the state legislatures, or ratification conventions, whichever "mode of ratification" Congress selects).""" - the wikipedia page on Supermajority, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#United_States

jltsiren 1y ago

In modern parliamentary systems, political leaders are not in direct control of the executive branch. Politicians may issue priorities and guidance, but career civil servants run the show. Department heads serve fixed terms that are independent of the election cycle, and they cannot be removed without a criminal conviction. If politicians want major changes, they can change the law. And in many countries, the constitutionality of proposed legislation must be established in advance. The descent to authoritarianism usually begins with a party gaining enough power that it can override the checks and balances. Which often involves rewriting the constitution.

throwaway48476 1y ago
An authoritarian unelected deep state is even worse.

refurb 1y ago

True. The US system has power more fragmented than most. In Europe, the Senate often doesn't wield any power (it rubber stamps anything the legislature approves). The executive is a part of the legislative. In parliamentary system, individual MPs are "whipped" into voting with the party, and can basically be pushed out of power if they don't go along with it. If the party in power has a large majority, there is nothing but the courts to stop them from passing whatever they want.

throwaway48476 1y ago
Canada is a dictatorship though most don't realize it. MPs can't tweet anything unless it's approved by the PM. You have a hundred heads speaking with one voice.
- refurb 1y ago
  It’s an interesting system looking from the outside in. A party with a majority in power has little to stop any legislation the party decides to pass. The senate is mostly a rubber stamp. The courts are independent but won’t nullify legislation unless it violates the charter. MPs can’t not vote with the party unless they want to risk their political career (or it’s a free vote - but that’s reserved for unimportant legislation. The ruling party can pass whatever the heck they want without much concern.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    [flagged]