Parliamentary vs Presidential

[Steve Eppley]

Donald D wrote:
>I do not consider Parliamentary government as a reform - it is a
>throwback.
>
>The parliamentary form of government is an example of a government
>not having any separation between the legislative and executive
>branches. 
-snip-

I agree.  Unfortunately, CV&D seems to be myopically focussing on
the parliamentary form (with prop rep) as the "only" way to get rid
of the two party system, in particular the problem with the way we
currently elect the President: "vote for only one", "plurality wins
state" (with "plurality wins district" variations noted in Maine and
Nebraska), electoral_college_majority//House_majority.

I think the alternative multiparty method of electing the President,
which we're developing now here in EM, is something which needs to be
brought to CV&D's attention once we've finished analyzing it.
Besides the arguments that our alternative is better than the
parliamentary form, it would also be less controversial in the U.S.
since it conforms to the tradition of separation of powers, and it's
more feasible to enact since it won't require amending the
Constitution and possibly won't require an act of Congress either.

Because of CV&D's focus on parliamentary prop rep, which would
eliminate the popular election of the executive, they think
single-winner reform is unimportant.  And because they think it's 
unimportant, they think Instant Runoff is adequate even though they 
acknowledge that Condorcet is technically superior.  I hope we can 
get them to consider analyzing what reforms are needed if the U.S. 
rejects or intolerably delays the parliamentary form.  (My use of 
the word "intolerably" is meant to be from CV&D's point of view,
not my own.)  I think they need to generalize their focus from the 
"prop rep movement" to the "multiparty movement".

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)