Just quit it USA, you're making monarchy look good.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Regardless of whose fault it is, the current situation is a clusterfuck of global proportions. If it keeps going and the US defaults on its loans then the US government will be responsible for two global recessions in a decade. Personally, I blame the Tea Party, and it drives me nuts that a bunch of whackadoos from a powerful, yet backward nation can have a direct impact on my quality of life, even though you're not even bombing us! But that's not my point here.

My point here is to point out an aspect of what I see as an imbalance of power between the executive and legislative branches in the US; or at least, an improper delegation of roles. I think it's crazy that it's the executive branch that's responsible for the Health Care legislation. My understanding is that technically it's not, it's come up through the congress for the executive to sign, but the thing is called Obamacare and Obama has won two elections with it as his primary policy. It's not the role of the executive branch of government to be proposing policy, that's the legislature's job. The executive's job is to run the country; which it can't do in the US because the legislature is blocking supply because they have a beef with the executive. This is all backwards.

In Oz, our legislature takes on most of the roles of the executive in the day to day running. "What's the difference?" I hear you ask, well there is one very important difference. Our executive (Queen Lizzy 2) can sack the legislature. See, we've had a government shutdown before, just like the US. The right didn't like what the left was doing (serendipitously, healthcare was at the centre of it, but it was just one of many left wing policies after 22 years of conservative rule) and having control of the Senate, blocked supply (it's worth noting that it took having a majority in the Senate to be able to do so). The governmemt shut down. Public servants went without pay and our debts were left unserviced. So the Queen sacked 'em all (well technically, the Queen's representative, the Governor General did). Every last one of them. A new election was called and *every* seat was up for grabs (we do half Senate elections here, so a normal Senate term is 6 years, or 2 of the 3 year terms that the Reps get).

We all went off and had a new election. The right won, but we still got our UHC, and the country was able to move on. We don't *have* to have Queeny sack 'em all to do this; if a bill is blocked by the Senate twice, then the government can sack everyone (this is called a Double Dissolution election; both houses are dissolved).

So the question I pose is this: Should there be some safety valve in the US system that means when something is so contentious that the branches of government are unable to work with each other then *somehow* new, full elections can be called so that someone can get elected with a clear mandate?


Obviously, I think there should be. I also think that Obama has a clear mandate for the healthcare policy, having won two elections already running on it.

Comments

[flaming-goat.livejournal.com]

I was just coming here to see if anyone was going to be writing about the shutdown, and all I see is one by a fucking Australian. WTF, mates? There's like 800,000 people with copious free time now, you'd think one or two would be on here.

The executive's job is to run the country; which it can't do in the US because the legislature is blocking supply because they have a beef with the executive. This is all backwards.

That's the way the Constitution has it. But why do you care? It's not your government.

if a bill is blocked by the Senate twice, then the government can sack everyone (this is called a Double Dissolution election; both houses are dissolved).

That sounds whackadoodle to me, so are we even? We both have screwy government systems. I'm sure there's worse ones out there though.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

LOL, you just checked the last couple of posts and made a conclusion based ont that, didn't you?

Really, why should anyone outside the US care about what's happening in US politics? It's not like the US has any influence on events elsewhere around the world, is it?

Because there are systems like North Korea and Iran, that somehow makes the current situation in the US any better? Who knew.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Our government works pretty damn well; I personally think it's structurally the best system there is.

But why do you care? It's not your government.

The US is tanking it's dollar because of all of this, that means the AU$ is going through the roof. We're an export based economy, that means that everything that our country makes money on just got more expensive (for everyone else in the world, we don't actually get extra money for it), which makes our products less competitive. This leads to an economic slow down that harms me directly.

With great power, comes great responsibility, but the US body politic seems to want great power with no responsibility.

But, surprise surprise, an American that doesn't have a concept that there is a world outside their own country. For some perspective, here's how the USA looks to the rest of us:

[usekh.livejournal.com]

We care because if the US does default you guys plunge the entire world into a recession AGAIN.

It pisses a lot of us off that we have to worry so much about what the US does. Trust me I would be a lot happier if we didn't need to worry.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Here's another one; AFOAF is doing his PhD in computer security and needs to access the National Institute of Standards and Technology webpage for research purposes, but it's down.

The US push using its rules quite forcibly on other nations, therefore they have a responsibility to keep things running.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It is rather demeaning to refer to someone as a "f**king Australian."

BTW, my post on FBI reform could be seen as shutdown-related. Rationalizing FBI practices could save money on the federal budget side and on the wealth creating side as well.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I probably should just refrain from posting anything at all, but stuff like this, unfortunately, presses every single one of my buttons.

I'm not even going to defend the situation because it is stupid, but when your post comes off as "Why can't you idiots over there just be more like US when we manage these things so much better", well, my pet peeve is triggered. There are probably any number of ways to alter the structure of the US system to address these kinds of problems, some more subtle than others. Until the Carter administration, budget disagreements that went overlong just meant that operations would slow down, but not stop. Nobody went home, and when the budget was finally ironed out, the difference was papered over. The country and thew world never blinked. After Carter, the rules explicitly stated you HAD to send people home and close offices. If all that was necessary to avoid this before was a little flexibility between the operations end and the legislative bodies, then clearly we're not talking about something as big as a structural overhaul to fix this.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I was trying to say that we have a way around your current problems, not that you should do the same, just that the problems happen elsewhere and other places have found a solution. That's why I asked what ways around the problem could there be? Another example could be; let's say one party takes the presidency, both houses and has 5 judges, and then proceeds to implement FEMA death camps. Due to the highly politicised nature of all three branches of government there would be no release valve other than armed insurrection. I like the way the US has fixed terms, because you always know when you have to vote and the timing of the election can't be made political (one of the big problems with our system), but it's always bothered me that there's no way of going back to the people if a government is elected and turns completely horrible.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

This could devolve into semantics, because you're correct, but so am I, but that may be obsfuscated by my casual language. You're right that the Queen herself can't call up and sack the government, that's the role of the GG, but it is the power invested in the Queen by the constitution that she delegates to the GG. The Queen *can* overrule the GG, but you're right, that would result in a constitutional crisis and the end of the monarchy. So her role isn't titular; Elizabeth Windsor's role is purely ceremonial, but the role of the Monarch is very real.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

It's not that we make Democracy look bad so much as Queen Lizzy 2 actually makes monarchy look good.

Also, I'm not so sure that dissolving our government and calling for new elections would be a good solution for the US... my take is that this would happen whenever the party in control of the House thought they have an advantage from new elections. It's not like the folks who run the US think a functioning government is more important than scoring political points after all. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Queen Lizzy 2 actually makes monarchy look good.

Aint that the truth; we've got King Chuck coming up next, unless he does the sensible thing and abdicates. He doesn't *have* to, but he did go and marry a divorcee...

I heard something the other day that it's almost impossible to have a functioning democracy over 30 million people; which is maybe why the US sucks so bad at it, it's just too damned big. Time for some successions...

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

So the question I pose is this: Should there be some safety valve in the US system that means when something is so contentious that the branches of government are unable to work with each other then *somehow* new, full elections can be called so that someone can get elected with a clear mandate?

No, I think that's too extreme. And at a time when there are budget concerns, probably too costly. I worry that the trigger of new elections would be like a crisis that someone could use to manipulate themselves into office, mandate or not. I agree that the Repubs and Tea Party are to blame, and it goes all the way up to John Boehner. But I've seen some people online try to push this as "Obama's shutdown" or the "Democrats' shutdown" (well, okay, it's more likely to be labelled "Democrat's shutdown"). I would hate for those Repubs and Tea Party people to somehow benefit from this crisis that was caused by their incompetence. If a safety valve existed, it would be used as a political strategy.

However, I think there should be stricter consequences than there are now. It's ridiculous to me that this can happen. That this is happening.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

A friend just quoted a poll that said there's a 70% disapproval rating over how the GOP has handled this. Hillz '16 it is.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Scratch a progressive and you'll find an autocrat.

Not to coin a phrase, but, this is what democracy looks like.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

No, it's what US democracy looks like; which is far from the best example in the world.

I fail to see how having a non-political person whose only power is the ability to call an election is autocratic as well. I would argue that the power POTUS has is far more autocratic, executive orders and all that.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I like the naked lady on a horse, myself.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

but the thing is called Obamacare

No, it's not. It's called the Affordable Care Act and does not mention Obama once in its 2000 pages. But Republicans keep calling it Obamacare to whip the partisan mobs up.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

It's shorthand for "The Black President is trying to do something constructive, attack! Attack! Attack!"

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So the question I pose is this: Should there be some safety valve in the US system that means when something is so contentious that the branches of government are unable to work with each other then *somehow* new, full elections can be called so that someone can get elected with a clear mandate?

I discussed the "bug, not feature" aspect in another comment, but the other issue is the supposition (and the American left rhetorically does this as well) that the system is (or should be) more parrliamentary. Our representation significantly relies on geographic lines, which means that even if I'm unhappy with 434 other reps but like mine, you're going to run into a problem. Decades of politicians drawing borders (both Republican and Democratic) has also meant that there aren't a ton of swing districts available (I prefer straight split line, myself (http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html)), so you're going to run into situations where one party is unduly benefiting - the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 the Republicans now.

I also think that Obama has a clear mandate for the healthcare policy, having won two elections already running on it.

And House Republicans have a clear mandate to fight it, having won two elections already running against it. The legislature is equal to the president in our system, and the House is equal to the Senate. It's a wrinkle people miss.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

That's why we should have proportional representation in the House; each State gets so many Representatives, at least 10 times as many as they have currently, and those seats are apportioned out in a ratio equal to the proportion of votes for a particular party. That is, if 50% of the votes go Republican in Iowa, 50% of the Iowan representation is Republican; also, the people should have the power of recall over the House of Representatives.

In single-seat races, like Senate seats or the Presidency, we should have instant run-off voting, so that you vote for a hierarchy of candidates. That would make third parties viable.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

My friend applied for an Australian Visa. They asked him if he had any criminal convictions or felonies. He said he didn't know that was still a requirement.




I saw that somewhere but I couldn't find it again.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

lol

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Monarchy is *inherently* a bad idea. Power does NOT belong as some hereditary trademark.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

That said, it'd be nice if recalling our elected officials was easier. But that certainly doesn't require me to, literally, enthrone someone above me.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Remember it's always the other person's fault, that's why nothing is getting done.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Finger pointing is a national pastime.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

(http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/10/juan_linz_dies_yale_political_scientist_explains_why_government_by_crisis.html)
I have to thank jonathankorman for pointing out this article; it's MOST excellent (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/10/juan_linz_dies_yale_political_scientist_explains_why_government_by_crisis.html) I think you (and a lot of the other community participants) would find it very illuminating. Juan Linz's writings and research on Democracy paint a very gloomy future for our country I'm afraid.

Also, it's amazing seeing what are essentially House Republican and Paul Rand talking points being rehashed here as "fact," suggesting that a default or the possible default ain't such the big deal. Reverse the role of the parties and personalities, would those same people be as adamant for these same positions (er talking points) if Obama and the Democratic party were the ones making these same points about the country won't default, not such a big deal, the economy will be just fine??

Fuck no.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"Reverse the role of the parties and personalities, would those same people be as adamant for these same positions (er talking points) if Obama and the Democratic party were the ones making these same points about the country won't default, not such a big deal, the economy will be just fine??"

Hah. We all know the answer to that, so no need to continue.


"Fuck no."

Oh, all right, if you insist.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

This problem dates back to the legislation proposed by Alexander Hamilton to establish a privately owned national bank to manage federal funds. Hamilton was in the executive branch. There was nobody in the legislative branch who could come up with an better alternative. American legislators are not elected for their capacity to legislate, but for their capacity to pander.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

As a child, I learned the powers of government and branches of government such that the President is the Chief Executive and Chief Legislator. That is, our system is sort of built on the presumption that the President will push for policies and legislation and introduce bills he/she wants passed more so than any other party than maybe over-active members of Congress wanting to pass bills honoring grandmothers and puppies.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

it drives me nuts that a bunch of whackadoos from a powerful, yet backward nation can have a direct impact on my quality of life

That is because said whackadoos have carefully-drawn districts of very Conservative voters where it is pretty much impossible to vote them out.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Jerry Mander is proud, very proud.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

The safety valve used to be the absence of "safe districts". By winning majority control of state legislatures (except for two of the 50 states) - responsible for re-drawing voting district lines after each new federal census - both parties have managed to create Congressional Districts where their candidate is practically guaranteed re-election. This act of "Gerrymandering" districts has become our major problem. It essentially allows incumbents to pick their voters, rather than voters selecting them. Those candidates then get to say they represent the "American people", or at least the whackdoodles that re-elected them... who also claim to be the only 'real' Americans. We don't currently have a solution to the problem.

But they do a wonderful job of naming new post offices.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Which are the two states that are exempt from this?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Oh look, war widows on the news crying, with their govt IOU's. Pawn the car to pay for the funeral dear, and thanks for your service.

[gillianinoz.livejournal.com]

Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. s 2384) is a crime under United States law, as follows:
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority therof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

"by force", the House isn't holding the government at gunpoint, literally anyways.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

the US government will be responsible for two global recessions in a decade
A global recession is a global responsibility. Any other country or group of countries in the world has the option of taking economic and political action to steer the global economy in a better direction, or of insulating themselves from the economic repercussions of wackadoos from backward nations.