Brexit: what say ye?

User avatar
JD
Posts: 12719
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by JD »

Painboy wrote: 11 Dec 2019, 17:39 I'm a big proponent of a hybrid system where just the House is elected via parliamentary rules. That way no more gerrymandering and you would give smaller parties a possible voice in federal government.

I wouldn't mind seeing something like that, maybe where one house was elected district-by-district or state-by-state while the other house was at-large combined with PR or something.
I sort of feel like a sucker about aspiring to be intellectually rigorous when I could just go on twitter and say capitalism causes space herpes and no one will challenge me on it. - Hugh Akston
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15735
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Eric the .5b »

Mo wrote: 11 Dec 2019, 18:33
Eric the .5b wrote:It's not the UK, but the seemingly-endless reign of Netanyahu is another reason I'm ice-cold on parliamentary systems right now. They seem to have some of the worst features of old-style political machines.

Contra Thoreau, I'd rather have literally constant campaigning than some parties dedicated to putting one particular fuckhead in power every chance they get. Imagine the GOP dedicated to putting a younger Trump in the White House every time they had a majority.

(And fuck the "oh, the political landscape would be completely different if we were parliamentary" noise. We'd still have the same people, the same politicians, the same interest groups, etc. Maybe it's be called the MAGA Party or something, but it'd be a very similar shit storm.)
The Knesset and Israel is a special kind of political dysfunction. As far as parliamentary governments go, Israel is an outlier in being pretty dysfunctional. In the entire history of Israel, no party has had a majority.
Well, substitute "form a government" for 'have a majority", since forming coalition governments or having minority governments subject to the check of opposition parties are also supposed to be benefits of parliamentary systems.
Mo wrote: 11 Dec 2019, 18:33OTOH, as far as presidential governments are concerned, the US is the outlier in being the one that is not dysfunctional. Second place for least dysfunctional presidential country is Mexico and third is Brazil or Argentina or possibly Chile, I guess. There’s a reason why post-WWII when we were recommending democratic structures, we typically went with Parliamentary systems.
That's a conventional wisdom, but I dunno. Looking at the Economist Group's Democracy Index, I'm skeptical. Sure, most of Western Europe rates well, but given how popular parliamentarianism is, there are a lot of countries using it that really aren't great democracies. Morocco, Iraq, Armenia, Thailand, Pakistan, and Jordan are all parliamentary systems, for example. There seem to be a lot of parliamentary countries that are doing worse than Israel—or many presidential countries.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31049
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Warren »

The Reason interview with Daniel Hannan is really good.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Mo »

Eric the .5b wrote:
Mo wrote: 11 Dec 2019, 18:33
Eric the .5b wrote:It's not the UK, but the seemingly-endless reign of Netanyahu is another reason I'm ice-cold on parliamentary systems right now. They seem to have some of the worst features of old-style political machines.

Contra Thoreau, I'd rather have literally constant campaigning than some parties dedicated to putting one particular fuckhead in power every chance they get. Imagine the GOP dedicated to putting a younger Trump in the White House every time they had a majority.

(And fuck the "oh, the political landscape would be completely different if we were parliamentary" noise. We'd still have the same people, the same politicians, the same interest groups, etc. Maybe it's be called the MAGA Party or something, but it'd be a very similar shit storm.)
The Knesset and Israel is a special kind of political dysfunction. As far as parliamentary governments go, Israel is an outlier in being pretty dysfunctional. In the entire history of Israel, no party has had a majority.
Well, substitute "form a government" for 'have a majority", since forming coalition governments or having minority governments subject to the check of opposition parties are also supposed to be benefits of parliamentary systems.
Mo wrote: 11 Dec 2019, 18:33OTOH, as far as presidential governments are concerned, the US is the outlier in being the one that is not dysfunctional. Second place for least dysfunctional presidential country is Mexico and third is Brazil or Argentina or possibly Chile, I guess. There’s a reason why post-WWII when we were recommending democratic structures, we typically went with Parliamentary systems.
That's a conventional wisdom, but I dunno. Looking at the Economist Group's Democracy Index, I'm skeptical. Sure, most of Western Europe rates well, but given how popular parliamentarianism is, there are a lot of countries using it that really aren't great democracies. Morocco, Iraq, Armenia, Thailand, Pakistan, and Jordan are all parliamentary systems, for example. There seem to be a lot of parliamentary countries that are doing worse than Israel—or many presidential countries.
I mean if you define parliamentary system to include dictatorship with a fake parliament, sure. By the same definition I guess democratic republics suck because they include North Korea, DR Congo and the United States.

his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31049
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Warren »

Mo wrote: 12 Dec 2019, 18:47 North Korea, DR Congo and the United States.
One of these things is not like the others.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15735
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Eric the .5b »

Mo wrote: 12 Dec 2019, 18:47
Eric the .5b wrote:
Mo wrote: 11 Dec 2019, 18:33
Eric the .5b wrote:It's not the UK, but the seemingly-endless reign of Netanyahu is another reason I'm ice-cold on parliamentary systems right now. They seem to have some of the worst features of old-style political machines.

Contra Thoreau, I'd rather have literally constant campaigning than some parties dedicated to putting one particular fuckhead in power every chance they get. Imagine the GOP dedicated to putting a younger Trump in the White House every time they had a majority.

(And fuck the "oh, the political landscape would be completely different if we were parliamentary" noise. We'd still have the same people, the same politicians, the same interest groups, etc. Maybe it's be called the MAGA Party or something, but it'd be a very similar shit storm.)
The Knesset and Israel is a special kind of political dysfunction. As far as parliamentary governments go, Israel is an outlier in being pretty dysfunctional. In the entire history of Israel, no party has had a majority.
Well, substitute "form a government" for 'have a majority", since forming coalition governments or having minority governments subject to the check of opposition parties are also supposed to be benefits of parliamentary systems.
Mo wrote: 11 Dec 2019, 18:33OTOH, as far as presidential governments are concerned, the US is the outlier in being the one that is not dysfunctional. Second place for least dysfunctional presidential country is Mexico and third is Brazil or Argentina or possibly Chile, I guess. There’s a reason why post-WWII when we were recommending democratic structures, we typically went with Parliamentary systems.
That's a conventional wisdom, but I dunno. Looking at the Economist Group's Democracy Index, I'm skeptical. Sure, most of Western Europe rates well, but given how popular parliamentarianism is, there are a lot of countries using it that really aren't great democracies. Morocco, Iraq, Armenia, Thailand, Pakistan, and Jordan are all parliamentary systems, for example. There seem to be a lot of parliamentary countries that are doing worse than Israel—or many presidential countries.
I mean if you define parliamentary system to include dictatorship with a fake parliament, sure. By the same definition I guess democratic republics suck because they include North Korea, DR Congo and the United States.
As that's a common complaint about presidential republics, it seems reasonable to me. And not all parliamentary countries that score lower than the US on that list are dictatorships; many are just crap democracies.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17882
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Aresen »

A Westminister Parliament with a majority government is almost an elected dictatorship.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15735
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Eric the .5b »

And pointedly, the American colonists who were quite familiar with a Westminster system opted to use a completely different system entirely, even at colony levels. Of the Quakers, the slavers, and everyone else, nobody had their legislatures as parliaments by the time of the revolution, and neither during the Articles of Confederation or the writing nof the Constitution was the idea of a Westminster re-tread popular.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18935
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by dbcooper »

Has been a good day on the internet for telling Corbyn tards to "go back to student politics".
Slip inside a sleeping bag.
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Mo »

Eric the .5b wrote: 12 Dec 2019, 21:18 And pointedly, the American colonists who were quite familiar with a Westminster system opted to use a completely different system entirely, even at colony levels. Of the Quakers, the slavers, and everyone else, nobody had their legislatures as parliaments by the time of the revolution, and neither during the Articles of Confederation or the writing nof the Constitution was the idea of a Westminster re-tread popular.
The counter to that is that when the US government, who were quite familiar with a presidential system, were setting up new governments post-WWII in Japan and Germany, we decided not to set up presidential systems, but parliamentary ones.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Mo »

dbcooper wrote: 13 Dec 2019, 03:48 Has been a good day on the internet for telling Corbyn tards to "go back to student politics".
I wonder what the election would have looked like the other way had Corbyn not been leading Labour.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31049
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Warren »

Eric the .5b wrote: 12 Dec 2019, 21:18 And pointedly, the American colonists who were quite familiar with a Westminster system opted to use a completely different system entirely, even at colony levels. Of the Quakers, the slavers, and everyone else, nobody had their legislatures as parliaments by the time of the revolution, and neither during the Articles of Confederation or the writing nof the Constitution was the idea of a Westminster re-tread popular.
Yeah but those were people who thought a 2% tax was an insufferable scourge worth going to war to get out from under.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4662
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Painboy »

Mo wrote: 13 Dec 2019, 06:45
Eric the .5b wrote: 12 Dec 2019, 21:18 And pointedly, the American colonists who were quite familiar with a Westminster system opted to use a completely different system entirely, even at colony levels. Of the Quakers, the slavers, and everyone else, nobody had their legislatures as parliaments by the time of the revolution, and neither during the Articles of Confederation or the writing nof the Constitution was the idea of a Westminster re-tread popular.
The counter to that is that when the US government, who were quite familiar with a presidential system, were setting up new governments post-WWII in Japan and Germany, we decided not to set up presidential systems, but parliamentary ones.
IIRC the reason the post war Japanese government was set up that way was because they had a monarch and it was felt that the UK had the best example of a working constitutional monarchy, so they went with that.
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31476
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by thoreau »

Germany, Italy, and Austria also got parliamentary systems, albeit not Westminster style. Their second chambers are strong by parliamentary standards, so closer to the US, but their heads of state are quite weak.

The confounding factor in a lot of this analysis is that a lot of the presidential systems are in former Spanish colonies with US influence. So then the question is whether presidential systems are bad, or former Spanish colonies are messed up, or US meddling in the wake of colonial rule got them off to a bad start.

"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25728
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by JasonL »

dbcooper wrote:Has been a good day on the internet for telling Corbyn tards to "go back to student politics".
And that’s something we can all be thankful for.
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15735
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Eric the .5b »

Mo wrote: 13 Dec 2019, 06:45
Eric the .5b wrote: 12 Dec 2019, 21:18 And pointedly, the American colonists who were quite familiar with a Westminster system opted to use a completely different system entirely, even at colony levels. Of the Quakers, the slavers, and everyone else, nobody had their legislatures as parliaments by the time of the revolution, and neither during the Articles of Confederation or the writing nof the Constitution was the idea of a Westminster re-tread popular.
The counter to that is that when the US government, who were quite familiar with a presidential system, were setting up new governments post-WWII in Japan and Germany, we decided not to set up presidential systems, but parliamentary ones.
Indeed. Wanting a different system for conquered enemies that we intended to use as satellite states during the Cold War is an interesting detail. (And yes, it accommodated Japan being a monarchy.)
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15735
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Eric the .5b »

thoreau wrote: 13 Dec 2019, 12:24The confounding factor in a lot of this analysis is that a lot of the presidential systems are in former Spanish colonies with US influence. So then the question is whether presidential systems are bad, or former Spanish colonies are messed up, or US meddling in the wake of colonial rule got them off to a bad start.
Which is why I turned that around and looked at parliamentary systems, which are all over the place. A lot of them are rated as significantly worse than most South American countries, and Israel, far from being a low-end outlier, is one of the highest-ranked outside of western Europe.

That may deserve a deeper statistical analysis, but the common claim that most presidential countries suck and most parliamentary countries are great doesn't hold a drop of water. It basically requires no-true-Scotsmanning nearly every parliament outside of Europe. Meanwhile, the supposed weird outlier US isn't even the best-ranked democracy using a presidential system.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Mo »

If you compare your map with this map. Most of those poorly governed/unfree countries are presidential systems, not parliamentary systems. I am lumping constitutional monarchies and parliamentary republics together and excluding the semi-presidential from either side because they’re a little of both. Even looking at the bottom of the barrel for both models, I’ll take Iraq and Morocco over Sudan and Afghanistan.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25728
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by JasonL »

I have no strong views about parliamentary systems. I don't think they matter much. I think the real horror is voters.
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21194
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Institutionally, I'd prefer a parliamentary system and I suspect the Founders would have also, had they been able to glimpse not all that far into the future. I waiver, however, when I consider the endless campaign cycle that would ensue in the U.S. without firm controls over the length and nature of political campaigning, and that, in turn, of course raises 1st Amendment issues. Yeah, I know, we're in an endless political cycle, as is. Maybe we should just get on board with Thoreau and accept we're doomed and pray for that meteor.
User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 31476
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by thoreau »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 13 Dec 2019, 18:22Maybe we should just get on board with Thoreau and accept we're doomed and pray for that meteor.
The sooner we ingest the purple drink, the faster the meteor arrives. Or so I'm told.
"...if that monkey gets any smarter it's going to start shorting TSLA."
--JD
User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 17882
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Aresen »

I have read only a very few of the writings of the US Founding Fathers, so I am not really cognizant of the arguments surrounding the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

However, IIRC, the USFF thought they could avoid the development of political parties, which they saw as one of the flaws in the Westminster Parliament. The Congress was supposed to be a body of individual statesmen not beholden to parties.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31049
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Warren »

JasonL wrote: 13 Dec 2019, 17:55 I have no strong views about parliamentary systems. I don't think they matter much. I think the real horror is voters.
Yeah this.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15735
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Eric the .5b »

Mo wrote: 13 Dec 2019, 17:26 If you compare your map with this map.
What "map" of mine or yours are you even talking about?

I've been going by the Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index, as shown here, and checking against the list of presidential countries on that very page you link.
Mo wrote: 13 Dec 2019, 17:26Even looking at the bottom of the barrel for both models, I’ll take Iraq and Morocco over Sudan and Afghanistan
A problem there is that Sudan's a federal parliamentary republic. South Sudan's a presidential republic, but both of those countries are pretty damned repressive places that are in or have been in a civil war within the last couple of years, and I'm happy to call both shitty governments. (The Democracy Index gives Sudan a 2.15—Authoritarian. It doesn't include South Sudan; Freedom House describes both countries as "Not Free".)

For convenience, here's a table of those countries with a Democracy Index ranking, slopped through Emacs:

Code: Select all

CountryDemocracy Index Overall Score
Uruguay8.38--Full Democracy
Costa Rica8.07--Full Democracy
Chile7.97--Flawed Democracy
United States7.96--Flawed Democracy
Cyprus7.59--Flawed Democracy
Panama7.05--Flawed Democracy
Argentina7.02--Flawed Democracy
Brazil6.97--Flawed Democracy
Colombia6.96--Flawed Democracy
Philippines6.71--Flawed Democracy
Ghana6.63--Flawed Democracy
Peru6.60--Flawed Democracy
Dominican Republic6.54--Flawed Democracy
Indonesia6.39--Flawed Democracy
Ecuador6.27--Flawed Democracy
Paraguay6.24--Flawed Democracy
Mexico6.19--Flawed Democracy
Senegal6.15--Flawed Democracy
El Salvador5.96--Hybrid Regime
Benin5.74--Hybrid Regime
Bolivia5.70--Hybrid Regime
Honduras5.63--Hybrid Regime
Zambia5.61--Hybrid Regime
Guatemala5.60--Hybrid Regime
Malawi5.49--Hybrid Regime
Liberia5.35--Hybrid Regime
Kenya5.11--Hybrid Regime
Sierra Leone4.66--Hybrid Regime
Nigeria4.44--Hybrid Regime
Turkey4.37--Hybrid Regime
Gambia4.31--Hybrid Regime
Comoros3.71--Authoritarian
Nicaragua3.63--Authoritarian
Angola3.62--Authoritarian
Venezuela3.16--Authoritarian
Zimbabwe3.16--Authoritarian
Afghanistan2.97--Authoritarian
Burundi2.33--Authoritarian
Turkmenistan1.72--Authoritarian
Chad1.61--Authoritarian
PalauN/L--Freedom House "Free"
MaldivesN/L--Freedom House "Partly Free"
SeychellesN/L--Freedom House "Partly Free"
South SudanN/L--Freedom House "Not Free"
I'll see about a similar table of parliamentary countries and a comparison table—with better formatting—sometime Not Today. Long tables to look over and other stuff to do.

(Annoyingly, this is in that rough band of number of items where I expect that getting this info in text files and munging them would take as much time as copy-and-pasting-and-checking.)

I'd agree with Iraq (4.06) over Afghanistan (2.91), but I'd also put about 73% of presidential countries over Iraq, assuming Maldives and Seychelles are worse in a comparison. Similarly, I'd take the US over France or Belgium, Cyprus over Greece or India, Mexico over Moldova or Fiji, Kenya over Bosnia and Herzegovina or Lebanon, Liberia over Pakistan or Kyrgyzstan, etc.

It might just be sheer number of parliamentary countries, but every given band in the Democracy Index appears to have more parliamentary than presidential examples. It's only in the most authoritarian depths than both start getting crowded out.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 15735
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Brexit: what say ye?

Post by Eric the .5b »

Also, looking at Venezuela's ranking—even beyond the news of the last damn decade—I'm reminded to think, "Wow, fuck Joe from LoL and his, "Chavez is maligned/Oh, I'm not defending Chavez, I'm defending the honor of Venezuelan democracy...' bullshit".
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
Post Reply