The American Prospect Magazine Column Says Current Lengthy US House Speakership Battle Would Not Occur with a Parliamentary System

Posted on by October 23, 2023

This is an interesting column from The American Prospect magazine that asserts that many of the current ills of US politics would not occur if this nation had a parliamentary electoral system.

Comments

The American Prospect Magazine Column Says Current Lengthy US House Speakership Battle Would Not Occur with a Parliamentary System — 18 Comments

  1. There’s something truly wrong with this article in that parliamentary governments can collapse and demonstrate instability. The UK, Canada and even Israel have had 4+ prime ministers in 2 years. The biggest differences not mentioned between American and other Western democracies at a national level are the inability to call for special elections (rather than waiting for 2 years), the federated distribution of power between the states and national government and winner take all instead of proportional election outcomes.

  2. I think it would actually be worse if we had a parliamentary system. Everything would just come to halt while they haggle over who should be prime minister.

    At least under a Presidential system, the executive is separate and not affected directly by the Speakership contest in the House.

  3. PARL ROT =

    SAME TOP MONSTERS HAVING LEGIS AND EXEC POWERS.

    ZERO LEARNED FROM HITLER PARL REGIME 1933-1945

    WORSE ROT WITH PARL-GERRYMANDER REGIMES AS IN THE UK AND CANADA
    —
    P-A-T

  6. I am not a huge fan of Parliamentary vs Presidential systems of Government. But I do think that Congress should allow States with multiple House seats to elect said House members using a legitimate form of proportional representation.

  7. This article does not really deal with the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    In fact, parliamentary democracies have not had an issue concerning the Speaker is that the Speaker is not a political position as it is in the United States. The Speaker in the British House of Commons is a neutral presiding officer. After being elected in the UK, the Speaker quits the party caucus so as to maintain a neutral position in carrying out parliamentary responsibilities.

    If the Speaker of the House of Representatives were a non-political, neutral presiding officer, we probably would not have people like Newt Gingrich and Jim Jordan trying for the position.

  8. Proportional representation-yes. That way the political parties would have to form coalitions and have to work together.

  9. “…The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers…”
    “…Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…”
    -Article I

    They make their own rules. I dunno what they are, but I think they could more quickly choose a Speaker if they had different rules. But this is the first time this has happened this way, so they’re learning while they’re fighting.

    @Gene … you’re right, but I think this would be more similar to choosing the Prime Minister.

    @Edward … Yes, “allow” but not force. Repeal the law that forces states to use single-member districts.

  10. A.C.

    SINGLE OFFICE –

    APPROVAL VOTING – VOTE FOR 1 OR MORE– HIGHEST WINS

    POSSIBLE SHORT TERMS — ONE MONTH FOR EACH SPEAKER ???

    — PENDING CONDORCET – RCV DONE RIGHT [WITH APPV TIEBREAKER]

  13. The liberal left really, really, really, really wants to destroy the separation of powers to make it easier for them to get teh absolute power the lust after.

  14. The House GOP demonstrated the progress that remains to be done in that party by failing to elect Jim Jordan. They will most likely fail to take advantage of Donald Trump’s incredibly generous offer to be drafted as their Speaker as well, sadly. What a sad lot of tossers.

  15. The most recent nominee is Tom Emmer (R-MN). What is interesting about him is the method by which he was nominated. according to the WSJ:

    “Under conference rules, House Republicans decided their nominee by secret ballot. If no one receives a majority of votes on the first ballot, the candidate with the fewest votes on that and each succeeding ballot is out of the running. Voting continues until a single candidate receives a majority.”

    This method is identical to that used in the Libertarian National Convention to choose their Presidential nominee. it is a form of successive run-off voting, until a nominee with a majority is chosen. A simplified method that can accomplish a similar result on one ballot is instant run-off voting.

  16. Did he win an election? Last I saw there were 9 candidates vying to become nominee.

  17. “Did he win an election?”

    He has most recently won the nomination. The election comes next.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.