Which democracy do you prefer? [Archive]

02-20-2011, 10:00 PM

This is a really fantastic question. Interesting, provocative, liable to cause splits apart from the typical partisan ones.

No comment on France*, but I think the defining characteristic of American-style democracy isn't the democratic branches themselves, by the fully co-equal (if not superior in practice) judiciary. An aristocratic, largely self-selecting, body of scholars with the self-declared authority to overrule the will of the people? There's a bigger difference between Marbury v. Madison and parliamentary sovereignty than there is between George Washington and Sir Robert Walpole. The UK has been going through some constitutional changes the past decade or so, but obviously I distrust the common people and cast my ballot for good, decent rule by your betters.

*I did spend a year supposedly living and breathing the French constitution, but my brain kept locking up whenever I tried to understand the simultaneous existence of both a President and a Prime Minister (I eventually concluded it was like the Trinity: presented by God as an eternal mystery to humble our arrogant intellects). I also assumed they'd get tired of this republic and get started on the next one by the time the exam rolled around. That... that didn't work out.

burger

02-20-2011, 10:14 PM

I prefer dictatorship

J Arcane

02-21-2011, 01:06 AM

Personally, I was always something of a fan of the House of Lords as a concept.

I don't think that necessarily making it a group of actual hereditary feudal lords is necessarily a good idea, but I do like the idea of having a house of legislature that is largely irreplaceable except upon death. It creates a voice in the government that hasn't the slightest need whatsoever to be concerned about re-election.

This is much the same reason why the US Supreme Court is such an awesome idea.

The pressures of regular elections create a warping influence that is both good and bad, and I think it is useful to balance it on some level by one that is immune to those concerns. Having one regularly elected body, and one that is appointed on merit or elected only on death, seems like a good way to balance the dynamic.

Of course, the Brits have been systematically dismantling the House of Lords for generations now, so take that as you will.

J Arcane

02-21-2011, 01:18 AM

I lean towards Parlimentary a little more every day. A two party system doesn't really do a good job of representing the people since everything becomes a black and white situation. Nevermind when one party goes off the tracks and you're effectively voting for crap or shit.
I also have a deep distaste for the two party system here, but unfortunately I think more and more that the alternative would be worse in this case.

The Republicans have for sometime been the far more united of the parties. I think breaking up the two-party monopoly would only result in a mostly unchanged right-wing party, while the left-wing would fracture, resulting in a right-wing more powerful than the various left-wing parties we'd be left with could compete with.

If we were lucky, the various ex-Democratic parties would form a coalition and balance it out, but then we've basically just got a more complicated version of what we already have. If not, then the right-wing party divides and conquers, or worse, some of those former Democrats even join a coalition with the ex-Reps and create a largely unified and potentially unbreakable stranglehold on American politics.

Our only hope then, as much as it scares me to say it, would be the Tea Party. If the TP actually seized it's own grassroots back from itself, and fulfilled it's claimed promise of rejecting the mainstream Republican message and goals, then it would potentially fracture the right-wing party enough to prevent them from grabbing hold. But I think that potential crisis has already been averted in our present system, so I possess no great hope that such would take place here. Nor do I possess enough hope that the TP once in power wouldn't wind up just siding with the Reps every time anyway, as they've more or less been doing in the House since the last election.

Basically, I think a plurality of parties in the US would basically leave the left-wing a fractured and impotent mess, and result in an unchecked reign of right-wing terror that would make Thatcher's look positively friendly.

VerseD

02-21-2011, 03:17 AM

Churchill famously remarked, "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

What a democratic system is good at is meeting people's needs with equality and justice during times of peace and prosperity, but any little turmoil knocks the whole thing down. The intransigence of politicians in response to the economic crisis is nothing new to our system of government. It's natural, because when bold moves are required to deal with a desperate situation, men up for re-election are too timid to make them. Only a strong man like FDR can pull it off, but then you might as well have a philosopher-king.

Full democracy is even worse, and good luck to anyone who chooses it! This was attempted by the Athenians, and it worked fine in peaceful times. But once shit hit the fan, then the mob frenzy took over. The Athenians once ordered the execution of ten victorious generals for failing to retrieve the dead bodies from stormy waters, and near the end of the Peloponnesian War they voted their system out of existence. By far their worst crime, which has rendered democracy irredeemable in the eyes of all philosophers, was the trial and death of Socrates.

"As I lived by these laws, so I will die by them," and so passed the noblest man.

The Founders, as philosophers, were filled with a philosopher's distrust for the common people, hence the Electoral College and the two houses of Congress and other institutions meant to keep the riff-raff from running our Republic off its course. As much as I can respect that intention, given my studies on Athens especially, I think it's an outdated notion.

I would rather take the radical steps to abolish the Electoral College and make voting compulsory. I want a more accurate representation of the population, not just who can get excited the most by an individual politician or message (because the voting rates are atrocious here). George Bush did not win because he was preferred by the majority, but because he could activate with his rhetoric and character a specific population out of a desolation of apathetic non-voters. Obama won because the youth came out for him, and Republicans now are all about firing up the base. There's nothing here of the moderate and mild government that was intended; it's all populism.

There would be some willful movements, but the more violently we shift from left to right on the pendulum of politics, the faster we shimmy up toward progress.

I can't comment on the English Parliament -- is it only judicial review that distinguishes the USA, as Ox suggests? I've always thought the Supreme Court was a despotic institution. Anyway, I wouldn't rather either of those. I would rather a better democracy that takes up parts from experiments going on all over the planet: the compulsory voting of Australia and Argentina, the proportional representation of European states, and the regulated competitive social services of the Dutch. Tradition is overrated.

VerseD

02-21-2011, 03:28 AM

I don't think that necessarily making it a group of actual hereditary feudal lords is necessarily a good idea, but I do like the idea of having a house of legislature that is largely irreplaceable except upon death. It creates a voice in the government that hasn't the slightest need whatsoever to be concerned about re-election.

I can see why this would be attractive after the last round of US elections, but that process re-election is necessary to ensure the accountability of elected officials to their constituents. I do not think that the Justices of the Supreme Court should serve for life, either. There are no philosopher-kings, or at least I've never met one.

If we were lucky, the various ex-Democratic parties would form a coalition and balance it out, but then we've basically just got a more complicated version of what we already have. If not, then the right-wing party divides and conquers, or worse, some of those former Democrats even join a coalition with the ex-Reps and create a largely unified and potentially unbreakable stranglehold on American politics.

It would be a stranglehold in a way, but a ruling coalition would have to represent the interests of a much broader spectrum of people than a single majority party does. That's the beauty of proportional representation, which is the style of a lot of European democracies that I dream hopelessly we might emulate.

As it is in the USA, the constituents of a Green Party candidate who receives 10 percent of the vote will have no voice, while the constituents of a Democratic candidate who receives 45 percent of the vote and wins will have 100 percent of the voice. The victor has no reason to represent the population that did not elect him, even if it is a disunited majority; he can pretend that "the American people have spoken." A proportional government would be more representative because the minority party would still have a voice, and because third parties would finally get theirs. A third party leader might stand closer to one side of politics or the other, and the legislature would be more accurate in representing the gradations and specific politics of the population.

But it's not just at the extremes that people benefit. Most voters are middle of the road, forced to chose between the Giant Douche and the Turd Sandwich who are often the only options with the potential to win in a two party system. I have rarely agreed even fifty percent with a national politician I've voted for; it's always about the lesser of two evils. If given a better option not confined to the a party platform or to the strictures of "Winner Takes All" republicanism, more moderate voices would have greater weight than they do now.

So it's not really a stranglehold, and not nearly as much of a stranglehold as the terrified partisanship we have today; a coalition would be more of a bear hug on American politics.

Chris_D

02-21-2011, 05:41 AM

I've always had the feeling that 1 person, the president, has too much power in a US style system. But I can't claim to understand the details.

Reverant

02-21-2011, 05:44 AM

I did spend a year supposedly living and breathing the French constitution, but my brain kept locking up whenever I tried to understand the simultaneous existence of both a President and a Prime Minister (I eventually concluded it was like the Trinity: presented by God as an eternal mystery to humble our arrogant intellects). I also assumed they'd get tired of this republic and get started on the next one by the time the exam rolled around. That... that didn't work out.

I love that.

Personally, I'd prefer full democracy, but that'd require societal breakdown to size where that'd be manageable.

I also agree that we should abolish the electoral college. Do the people still in favor of it know it's 2011?

Also, I'd be in favor of making voting mandatory ONLY if we retain the right to leave blanks. There's nothing I despise more than filling in the circle for a candidate who has no rival. It's very undemocratic, and I often refuse to vote for those candidates out of principle.

ShivaX

02-21-2011, 05:50 AM

I also agree that we should abolish the electoral college. Do the people still in favor of it know it's 2011?

I still support the electoral college. Abolishing it would allow politicians to pander to the big cities and ignore/screw over the rest of the nation. I like that the state of Montana has some sway against New York City. Take away the electoral college and NYC will have more voting power than the entire Mountain timezone.

Ink Asylum

02-21-2011, 06:36 AM

I don't think the type of democracy is as important as the corrupting influence of the money needed to run near constant campaigns, particularly in the House of Representatives. When so much of a candidate's time and staff is devoted to raising millions and, when it comes to Presidential campaigns, billions their priorities are vastly skewed.

I'd also be in favor of some kind of system which would keep the salary and benefits of the more well-compensated members of government, especially the legislative branch, capped to the median income of american citizens. Anything to keep the people who write our laws feeling like the middle class rather than members of some pampered hobnobbing club.

Reverant

02-21-2011, 06:40 AM

I still support the electoral college. Abolishing it would allow politicians to pander to the big cities and ignore/screw over the rest of the nation. I like that the state of Montana has some sway against New York City. Take away the electoral college and NYC will have more voting power than the entire Mountain timezone.

Oh, sorry! I meant that we'd replace it with a straight-up national, popular election, but I see what you're going for. I think a state voting for a president isn't the right choice because it automatically throws out half the votes of the people who supported the loser.

Also, Montana has 3 electors and NY has 31. I wouldn't call that swaying power.

BigJonno

02-21-2011, 07:33 AM

I support systems that allow for the closest possible. match between people's votes and who actually ends up in power. I'm in favour of the electoral college system in the US being scrapped (any system that allows someone to get less actual votes than their opponent and still win is fucking stupid.)

As for the UK...

NSUKMa1cYHk

02-21-2011, 08:13 AM

(any system that allows someone to get less actual votes than their opponent and still win is fucking stupid.)
I take it you're unfamiliar with Arrow's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem). Every system allows someone to get fewer actual votes than his opponent and still win.

BigJonno

02-21-2011, 08:26 AM

I take it you're unfamiliar with Arrow's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem). Every system allows someone to get fewer actual votes than his opponent and still win.

Yeah, not something that I've come across before. I'll have a read when I've got the time and sufficient available brain power.

02-21-2011, 08:59 AM

burger

02-21-2011, 09:08 AM

I take it you're unfamiliar with Arrow's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem). Every system allows someone to get fewer actual votes than his opponent and still win.

I just read over the theorem...where does it say that? :confused:

BigJonno

02-21-2011, 09:17 AM

Brief summary: all of the debate about how proportional representation, or multi-party democracy, or parliamentary democracy being "truer to the people's will" is bullshit. All voting systems are fatally flawed: either they ignore the people's obvious expressed will in some circumstances, or they are incapable of resolving certain elections. When writing a constitution, you have to pick your poison. You can certainly make arguments for why you prefer the anti-democratic nature of one system for the anti-democratic nature of another system, they're all anti-democratic.

I'm a big fan of the Churchill quote mentioned earlier, we're looking for the least worst system. In my opinion, that's having the closest match to the way people vote, even if it means a lack of decisive leadership or any of the other criticisms that are thrown in that direction.

Nameless

02-21-2011, 09:29 AM

I used to be pretty big on parliamentary democracy, but the last five years of government here in Canada have shown some of its major flaws. The fact that we've been sitting in a minority government for almost seven years without much hope that this is going to change any time soon is worrisome.

Effectively, our minority government can't do anything significant. If they do try to do something even remotely controversial, it'll get shot down by the opposition parties, leading to a new general election (or, if the governor general can be convinced, yet another prorogation of parliament). So the ruling party is walking on eggshells all the time to avoid triggering an election, which really leads to the stagnation of our political arena.

Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of the Conservative party (who are in power right now), but I still think I'd rather they have a majority so at least our country can be governed without attempting to appease all the other parties at the same time. And if they screw up big time, then when an election comes around again, the Liberals will be back in power.

Basically, I'm starting to see the merits of the U.S. system.

02-21-2011, 09:48 AM

I just read over the theorem...where does it say that? :confused:
You're not going to find that as a direct quote, because I provided a summary. Arrow's theorem is a generalization of Condorcet's paradox. Arrow's original paper (http://gatton.uky.edu/Faculty/hoytw/751/articles/arrow.pdf) discusses how his theorem relates to the paradox in the first two pages if you doubt the accuracy of my summary.
I'm a big fan of the Churchill quote mentioned earlier, we're looking for the least worst system. In my opinion, that's having the closest match to the way people vote, even if it means a lack of decisive leadership or any of the other criticisms that are thrown in that direction.
Okay, this is why I don't summarize things. Never mind.

burger

02-21-2011, 10:04 AM

First off I was able to come up with an immediate counter example. Then when I read the wiki link I found nothing to suggest your original assertion. Perhaps you're confusing it with something else?

biosc1

02-21-2011, 10:18 AM

02-21-2011, 10:21 AM

What's your counter-example? I'm just trying to steal the idea because I've always wanted a Nobel Prize.

burger

02-21-2011, 10:32 AM

What's your counter-example? I'm just trying to steal the idea because I've always wanted a Nobel Prize.

Seeing as you still haven't cited anything that verifies your initial claim you might want to set your sites a bit lower than the Nobel Prize.

Your original quote...

Every system allows someone to get fewer actual votes than his opponent and still win.

It doesn't take much creativity, certainly less than what it takes to win a Nobel Prize, to envision a scenario where you simply list the candidates by number of votes received and declare the winner by whomever is at the top. There is no such scenario where someone could have fewer votes than the guy in front of him and still be at the top. That would require violating Number Theory which would probably earn you a Fields Medal or something. At the end of the day votes are simply some integer value greater than or equal to zero. Sorting them in ascending order is a trivial mathematical task.

As I said before. I think you're confusing something for something else because NOTHING in that link you specified suggested that there was NO system in which the winner would be guaranteed the victory by simply having the most votes.

My advice is to edit or remove your original claim and update it with something else. :cool:

Nameless

02-21-2011, 10:36 AM

The positive is that they haven't been able to push through anything stupid either. The check on their power means that they can only push through items that at least one of the other 3 parties (maybe even the independents) agrees to.

A government walking on eggshells isn't so bad...but I am certainly getting voter fatigue ;)

True, but if they did do something really stupid, the power might switch back to the Liberals' hands, like what happened in the 80s with Mulroney.

Also, I'm really not looking forward to going to the polls in a couple of months just to get another Conservative minority government.

Finally, another main problem with what we have going right now is the splitting of the vote. The vast majority of Canadians (about 64% in the 2008 election) are left-leaning and willingly voted for a left-leaning party. The problem is that vote is split amongst four parties, while all of the right-leaning votes go to the Conservative party.

Plus, the leftist parties can't even form a coalition, since the Liberals, NDP, and Green parties don't have enough votes for a majority, and nobody really wants to form a coalition with the Bloc, since they're separatists. Dion tried, and that did NOT end well for him.

I think it's time we gave oligarchies another shot.

BigJonno

02-21-2011, 10:41 AM

nobody really wants to form a coalition with the Bloc, since they're separatists.

Please tell me they have a droid army.

Nameless

02-21-2011, 11:00 AM

Please tell me they have a droid army.

I think they're working on it; why else would they need all that hydroelectric power?

02-21-2011, 11:06 AM

Yes, you're right. It's a trivial task to ensure that, of the votes cast, the individual with the plurality of those votes wins. To the extent that my original statement suggested I didn't understand the concept of integers, you're right that the wiki article does not support me. Frankly, I'm not sure why you're bothering to explain this to me: if you actually think I'm stupid enough not to grasp the concept of integers at this point, it's hard to believe you think you can impress the concept upon me now.

As I explained, however, voting systems are incapable of expressing the voters' preferences in all cases. I'll quote the introduction to the wiki article:
In short, the theorem proves that no voting system can be designed that satisfies these three "fairness" criteria:
If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.
Regarding my reference to "actual votes", you might note that I was using BigJonno's term, in response to the comment "I support systems that allow for the closest possible. match between people's votes and who actually ends up in power" and his critique of the American electoral college not fulfilling this requirement. Now, obviously as a technical matter, BigJonno would be wrong to say that George W. Bush received fewer "actual votes" than Al Gore in 2000: of the 538 individuals entitled to cast ballots for President, Bush received 271, Gore received 266, and there was one abstention. But I surmised that BigJonno was speaking more colloquially and meant that the actual preferences of the American people were not met as demonstrated by the fact that more Americans cast ballots for electors who were pledged to Al Gore than for electors who were pledged to George W. Bush. His criticism seems to be of voting systems that fail to accurately reflect the preferences of society. Hence, my reference to Arrow's theorem.

Now, if you can demonstrate why Arrow's theorem is irrelevant and construct a voting system that will accurately reflect the preferences of society, I do believe you will be eligible for a Nobel Prize. After all, Arrow got one for proving it was impossible, it would only be fair.

burger

02-21-2011, 11:21 AM

ShivaX

02-21-2011, 02:58 PM

Also, Montana has 3 electors and NY has 31. I wouldn't call that swaying power.

It is compared to less than 1 against 31.

If you go purely by population then Montana has less voting power than New York City (nevermind the rest of the state). The college guarantees every state has at least 3 electors and everything is based around that. Remove the college and most of the West loses any impact they can have on Presidential elections since a lot of those states have populations lower than single coastal cities.

I'd rather individual states have some political power. Take that from them and you're just asking for trouble. If you can't possibly affect a Presidential election and you never see the candidates (which noone outside of the coasts would anymore) then disenfranchisment will skyrocket. All the McVeighs will come out of the woodwork because legislation will tend to screw over the smaller population states. I mean why fund anything in the Dakotas? They don't have enough votes to matter when you can throw money at Los Angeles and get a far bigger return.

02-21-2011, 03:46 PM

It's not just on a state-by-state basis, but within the states as well. Pennsylvania is a swing state, but that's because it has, as James Carville put it, "Pittsburgh on one end, Philadelphia on the other, and Alabama in between." It's doubtful that President Obama would ever have met those small-town Pennsylvanians he spoke about at that San Francisco fundraiser.

It's interesting to contemplate how you'd run a national campaign that was done on a strict popular vote. There aren't a lot of examples to choose from: I think France is the only good one in the West, and their election laws are so different from ours it's not particularly helpful. For example, French candidates aren't even permitted to put up posters in front of their offices until two weeks before Election Day. Would American presidential candidates concentrate their time in cities, where the population is concentrated but the Democrats have a huge advantage? Would they focus on communities that are more evenly split but less dense? Would they try to visit a representative sample of towns? I'd probably bet the last one, simply because that's how Senatorial and gubernatorial candidates campaign. But in a 'rally the base' sort of election, I suspect you'd see the Republican spending almost all his time in smaller communities and exurbs while the Democrat never lost sight of skyscrapers.

But because the country is so large, it'd be extremely unlikely any community would ever see both candidates. There were dozens of times over the past cycle when Obama and McCain were within a few miles of each other on the trail at the same time, and way more instances when one of them visited an area the other had already hit earlier in the campaign.

And God forbid we had a close election. 2000 wasn't a nightmare because the Electoral College did one of its occasional dances with democratic perversity; it was a nightmare because of the Florida recount. The overall margin in the US popular vote in 2000 was one-half of one percent. Would 2000 have been better if we had had a recount of the whole country instead of just Florida?

VerseD

02-21-2011, 04:38 PM

And God forbid we had a close election. 2000 wasn't a nightmare because the Electoral College did one of its occasional dances with democratic perversity; it was a nightmare because of the Florida recount. The overall margin in the US popular vote in 2000 was one-half of one percent. Would 2000 have been better if we had had a recount of the whole country instead of just Florida?

Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida -- that's an insane margin. Add on all the debate about Ralph Nader's sway, the hanging chads, the uncounted votes in ethnic communities, and there were a lot of questions about the legitimacy of the result. I'm not trying to get conspiratorial, just saying that it was a bad day for democracy.

burger

02-21-2011, 04:42 PM

Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida -- that's an insane margin. Add on all the debate about Ralph Nader's sway, the hanging chads, the uncounted votes in ethnic communities, and there were a lot of questions about the legitimacy of the result. I'm not trying to get conspiratorial, just saying that it was a bad day for democracy.

Bad day for Democracy? None of that had anything do with Democracy though. Democracy doesn't include dangling chads and racism. Democracy functions just fine without either of those occurring.

That was a bad day for human nature and our ability to implement things. Nothing more.

02-21-2011, 04:47 PM

Bush started off with more than three times that margin in Florida, and Florida wasn't exactly unique in those problems; it was unique in (a) happening to be close in 2000 and (b) having enough electoral votes to matter. There was talk at the time of challenging Iowa and some other states which had similar problems. Minnesota and Alaska in 2008 were pretty bad, and that was after all the reforms we put in place to prevent another Florida.

If we had had a direct popular vote in 2000, it would have been extremely easy for Bush to find a shitload of stuff to challenge all over the country. Having worked election law in Philadelphia, I can vouch that there's more than a bit of fun to have here if an election is ever close enough to go looking.

Hemalin

02-21-2011, 05:14 PM

I still support the electoral college. Abolishing it would allow politicians to pander to the big cities and ignore/screw over the rest of the nation. I like that the state of Montana has some sway against New York City. Take away the electoral college and NYC will have more voting power than the entire Mountain timezone.
Isn't that happening now? Some regions already hold unbalanced power compared to other areas. I'm not sure why I should be concerned that that balance may shift somewhere else.

From the last few weeks of 2004 election. Why is this better than some alternative?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/2004CampaignAttention_%28edit%29.png

Hemalin

02-21-2011, 05:19 PM

If we had had a direct popular vote in 2000, it would have been extremely easy for Bush to find a shitload of stuff to challenge all over the country. Having worked election law in Philadelphia, I can vouch that there's more than a bit of fun to have here if an election is ever close enough to go looking.
Perhaps an easy way to get around that would be to only allow recounts in the districts that are close instead of allowing a close district in Florida to trigger a recount in Iowa.

Anyway, I have nothing against the electoral college, though I'd prefer a shift to the congressional district model. Throw in the Wyoming Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule) for good measure.

02-21-2011, 05:56 PM

Perhaps an easy way to get around that would be to only allow recounts in the districts that are close instead of allowing a close district in Florida to trigger a recount in Iowa.
I cannot tell you how much I'm laughing that you just endorsed the precise argument employed by George W. Bush's legal team in 2000.

evilgoodwin

02-21-2011, 06:15 PM

I think we should keep the two-party system, but take off the straight-ticket vote option and also stop listing the candidate's party on the ballot.

In case it's not obvious, I don't talk about politics enough to make an argument. :D

Superman's Dead

02-21-2011, 06:39 PM

Destro

02-21-2011, 07:49 PM

True, but if they did do something really stupid, the power might switch back to the Liberals' hands, like what happened in the 80s with Mulroney.

While I can't disagree with the sentiment, I for one really don't wish to see a Conservative majority. In the last 7 years this government has transformed the institution of Parliament into a game of PMO says. Without the opposing parties, well, who knows what they would get away with?

Another big problem is that all of the parties just disagree on certain terms just to do so. If party X likes pie, the other parties aren't allowed to like pie...and so on. The current government heckled MP Garneau with chants of "ground control to major tom" while he was speaking....because you know, going to space is bad?

The major problem in Canada, is that it was a system created for 2 parties (technically 4...but they were in two teams) and it doesnt work as well with more opposition.

It also doesnt help that the opposition parties are all..well...terrible. The Liberals are split into basically 2 parties, the NDP are pretty much pointless and change their ideas on a weekly basis in order to continue their leader's personal vendetta against the PM, the Bloc is seen as evil droid-army using Sith-leader democracy hating separatist (which by the way, not every member is an actual separatist, many are disillusioned Liberal party members from Quebec) and well..the "Green Party" who can't get an elected seat and has a joke for a platform...see: none.

Canadian politics are annoying because only 2 of the 4 real parties (see: have a seat in House of Commons) have a platform and an ideology. The other two are playing the "we are not them look at us" game. The big irony is that on any given day, most of these parties can go from left to right leaning and back again before lunch.

Having said that, I don't really see a problem with voting multiple times, but I am tired of the "Ooooo watch out, we might go to an election soon!" situation.

I still think Canada has a pretty neat system, we just need more people to vote (as Canada's vote rate is abysmal).

Ultima Thulian

02-21-2011, 07:59 PM

I'll take the Republic. Generally offers more stability than parliamentary systems.

Nameless

02-21-2011, 11:32 PM

I still think Canada has a pretty neat system, we just need more people to vote (as Canada's vote rate is abysmal).

I agree that our system is neat, but it's really under pressure right now and I'm interested to see how things will change to deal with the stresses. Will we start to see coalitions like in some European parliamentary democracies? Will the Liberals find a way to take back the polls? Or will Harper keep walking that balance and hold onto power for another 5 years (I'm sure there are a ton more Beatles songs he can exploit to get his approval rating up!)?

As for voter turnout, I guess that's never really been a concern of mine. I totally understand why some people want it to increase. But I suppose I just feel that if people want to vote, they have the option to. If they don't care enough to inform themselves and vote, then I'd rather they stay home on election day anyway.

Plus, I have this feeling (that I can't back up with facts or anything) that if more people were voting, the Conservatives would benefit the most. Call me a pessimist.

Destro

02-22-2011, 06:42 AM

You're a pessimist hehehe.

But seriously, who knows? The country needs to stop fearing the word "coalition". It not unconstitutional like previously announced by our PMO.

This is all just futile anyway, as we'll have our intergalactic federation soon enough on the Milky Way anyway. Long live earth president Nixon!

ElektroDragon

02-22-2011, 02:23 PM

unchecked reign of right-wing terror that would make Thatcher's look positively friendly.

One man's "unchecked reign of right wing terror" is another man's idea of the only way to save this country from itself. Unfortunately, it seems the lefties don't believe in the votes of the people, but in elitist rule of the privilidged few, democracy be damned, as can be see in Wisconsin and Illinois.

Why there wasn't a contingency plan for this kind of despicable behavior is beyond me.

diablopath

02-22-2011, 07:53 PM

One man's "unchecked reign of right wing terror" is another man's idea of the only way to save this country from itself. Unfortunately, it seems the lefties don't believe in the votes of the people, but in elitist rule of the privilidged few, democracy be damned, as can be see in Wisconsin and Illinois.

Why there wasn't a contingency plan for this kind of despicable behavior is beyond me.

Because the left coming out in Wisconsin to defend a few cherished ideas means that they're anti-democratic.

Negotiations and politics go past elections, man. Furthermore, when one party runs something, that doesn't mean they should only serve those that voted for them. They represent democrats, too. Obviously, they can't move forward without the votes of the democrats who chose to walk out of the legislature. That's the opposite of antidemocratic!

itchyeyes

02-22-2011, 08:40 PM

burger

02-22-2011, 09:06 PM

Because the left coming out in Wisconsin to defend a few cherished ideas means that they're anti-democratic..

And by cherished ideas he means bussing in people to protest :p

Ink Asylum

02-22-2011, 09:33 PM

One man's "unchecked reign of right wing terror" is another man's idea of the only way to save this country from itself. Unfortunately, it seems the lefties don't believe in the votes of the people, but in elitist rule of the privilidged few, democracy be damned, as can be see in Wisconsin and Illinois.

Why there wasn't a contingency plan for this kind of despicable behavior is beyond me.

If Wisconsin and Illinois mean not believing in the votes of the people how would you classify the behavior of the right in the two years following the election of Obama and the largest Democratic majority in a generation? The unprecedented congressional obstruction? The tea party protests?

If the righties are so respectful of the popular will they should've just sat down and shut up for two years and let Obama and the Dems pass whatever they wanted, since they were elected by the majority and all that.

burger

02-22-2011, 10:13 PM

If Wisconsin and Illinois mean not believing in the votes of the people how would you classify the behavior of the right in the two years following the election of Obama and the largest Democratic majority in a generation? The unprecedented congressional obstruction? The tea party protests?

If the righties are so respectful of the popular will they should've just sat down and shut up for two years and let Obama and the Dems pass whatever they wanted, since they were elected by the majority and all that.

Yeah...we voted them in to do nothing.

02-22-2011, 10:43 PM

Why not? The best solution to almost all problems is to do nothing.

My stepfather tells the story of an unusually cold winter many years ago. The Ohio River froze solid, and shipping was paralyzed. Commerce collapsed, raw materials couldn't reach factories and finished goods couldn't reach markets. At the board meeting for a shipping company, the members were in a panic. They turned to the CEO and asked him, "What are we going to do?"

The CEO leaned back in his chair and smiled. "Patience, gentlemen," he said. "Spring will come."

VerseD

02-23-2011, 03:46 AM

This CEO reminds me of Kutuzov, leaning back and letting his officers do as they will, advocating only a strategy of patience and time.

"But shan't we have to accept battle?" remarked Prince Andrew.

"We shall if everybody wants it; it can't be helped. . . . But believe me, my dear boy, there is nothing stronger than those two: patience and time, they will do it all. But the advisers don't see it that way, that's the trouble. Some want a thing—others don't. What's one to do?" he asked, evidently expecting an answer. "Well, what do you want us to do?" he repeated and his eye shone with a deep, shrewd look. "I'll tell you what to do," he continued, as Prince Andrew still did not reply: "I will tell you what to do, and what I do. Dans le doute, mon cher," he paused, "abstiens-toi" *—he articulated the French proverb deliberately.

* "When in doubt, my dear, do nothing."

The Chinese call it wuwei, something like action without action; and its easily applied to current events. As a Republican, stand back and wait for people to become dissatisfied with Obama. As a Democrat, wait for the Republicans to fail at fulfilling their Jacksonian campaign promises. Then, of course, many things will have to be done, and nobody is better than the Democratic party at wringing defeat from the jaws of victory.

Reverant

02-23-2011, 06:57 AM

My thoughts exactly.

Also, a two party system has the perverse effect of grouping issues that have no connection to each other whatsoever. For example, in a rational democratic system, a vote for the candidate who opposes abortion wouldn't also be a de facto vote for the candidate who also favors the death penalty.

This is precisely why I'm an independent. The choices are always binary, and that's wrong.

I can't be against abortion but be in favor of environmental controls.

I can't be a fiscal conservative but be in favor of slashing the military budget to a fraction or raising upper bracket taxes.

I can't be a conservative Christian and be in favor of social welfare programs.

(I will punch the first person in the mouth that says Jesus would have wanted a free market solution to poverty.)

Zanzibar

02-23-2011, 05:47 PM

Watery tarts distributing swords.

burger

02-23-2011, 05:52 PM

I will punch the first person in the mouth that says Jesus would have wanted a free market solution to poverty

I don't trust the opinion of the nation's top economic advisers let alone some carpenter ;)

Dorkandproudofit

02-28-2011, 03:43 PM

burger

02-28-2011, 03:56 PM

Your definition is far too rigid...the word democracy describes a class of political systems and not one in particular.

The US has a representative democracy. Typically the word is meant to contrast with socialism.

evilgoodwin

02-28-2011, 05:45 PM

What's so bad about socialism anyway? :D

ShivaX

02-28-2011, 08:48 PM

Typically the word is meant to contrast with socialism.

Er... I think its more to contrast with dictatorships and the like.

Socialist democracies certainly exist. Dictatorial democracies, not so much.

J Arcane

02-28-2011, 08:56 PM

The Scandinavian countries would certainly be surprised to be informed they were in opposition to democracy.

burger

02-28-2011, 10:52 PM

It's almost impressive how all three of you completely misinterpreted my benign and simple post.

You all get the "you completely read too far into my post" award.

ShivaX

02-28-2011, 11:39 PM

It's almost impressive how all three of you completely misinterpreted my benign and simple post.

You all get the "you completely read too far into my post" award.

I think you just did a terrible job trying to make your point.

If everyone reads the same thing, maybe you didn't make things very clear.

Edit: I'd go so far as to say its so bad, I'd like to hear anyone other than you explain your post in a way different than the way we "misinterpreted" it, especially given the context.

J Arcane

02-28-2011, 11:53 PM

Contrast, opposition, either way the semantic cookie crumbles, it's still suggesting that France and the Scandinavian countries are less than democratic.

diablopath

03-01-2011, 06:17 AM

Okay, let me get this off my chest here. I've been hearing the word "democracy" used incorrectly for a long, long time, and I think it needs to be said...

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, GODDAMMIT!

We are, by definition, a Federal Constitutional REPUBLIC. We do not vote directly on issues; rather, we elect people to do it for us, to represent us.

Sorry, it just drives me nuts when people mistake our government with democracy.

The word democracy is now understood to mean a system where the general public votes, GODDAMMIT. The concept of us being a democracy we discuss now (at least, in America) is synonymous with 'republic.'

But you already know this, GODDAMMIT.

burger

03-01-2011, 09:11 AM

Contrast, opposition, either way the semantic cookie crumbles, it's still suggesting that France and the Scandinavian countries are less than democratic.

Using a word with a different meaning is just semantics? Implying that I was making a qualitative assessment when in fact I was merely commenting on how OTHERS have used the word. Less than? Why not more than? Anything else you want to distort or makeup?

Oh and France and the scandinavian countries are mixed economies just like the good old USA.

If you're gonna talk out of your ass and be your usual presumptuous, stubborn self please respond to others and not me. Literally 99% of the arguments I've been in here have been with you and I now know why. No matter how wrong you are (see state of the PC thread) you will just keep arguing to the bitter end.

BigJonno

03-01-2011, 09:23 AM

It was a clear internet sarcasm fail. Burger needs more plum and/or winking smilies.

ElektroDragon

03-01-2011, 10:02 AM

I think if the founding fathers imagined that half of our elected officials would just RUN AWAY when they saw they'd lose a vote they didn't like, thus shutting down the legislative branch, they would have said screw it, and opted for a full democracy, history be damned. But how could they have foreseen such cowardice, stupidity, and special interest? Much better to have mob rule, than that.

ShivaX

03-01-2011, 05:42 PM

ElektroDragon

03-01-2011, 05:48 PM

Funny thing about your comment is that if it was a Full Democracy this vote wouldn't remotely fucking happen. Opposition to this bill is well over 60% in Wisconsin.

So you think.... different polls, different results. I don't have collective bargaining "rights" on my job, can't get them even if I wanted, and neither do federal workers, so those protesters are spoiled children.

VerseD

03-01-2011, 07:09 PM

Gallup, the New York Times, and CBS all have 60% opposing the elimination of collective bargaining in national polls. Public Polling Policy did one for Wisconsin alone and got 57%. They also found that Walker would lose an election if it were repeated today. Feel free to ignore the polls, though -- Governor Walker does, apparently possessing some more direct connection with the opinions of his citizens. (This is sarcasm.)

To link this to a greater issue: it seems to me like what's happening in Wisconsin is the same as what happened with the bank bailouts or the invasion of Iraq -- a politician with his party trying to ram through legislation with sly tactics and a weighty media campaign. Except this time Democrats aren't playing ball. Frankly, I would not consider either side in the Wisconsin struggle to be acting democratically, but I also doubt that politicians were fulfilling the mandate of the people in these cases. When your enemy fights dirty, you can't keep up with Marquis of Queensbury rules. (And I really wish that Congressional Democrats had this kind of cajones when faced with Bush's two ploys.)

I don't imagine that the Founding Fathers would approve of Walker's tactics. They crafted a republic that would protect the people from the whims of the mob, but they did not intend for or anticipate the takeover of that system of checks and balances by the campaign donor, the lobbyist, the international corporation, and the media moghul. Call me conspiratorial, but I see those players behind Walker's union-busting campaign and recently proposed budget, and behind Bush's bank bailouts and grand campaigns -- them with their millions for non-stop proselytizing on Fox News, and not the will of the democratic body. (I am prepared to draw the connections on a chalkboard.)

03-01-2011, 10:41 PM

I doubt the Founders would have approved of unions, private or public, in the first place. A bunch of aristocratic slaveowners is not a group I'd assume to be big fans of Eugene V. Debs.

Incidentally, you're entirely wrong about the Founders not anticipating lobbyists and campaign donors. Check out Federalist No. 10, written by James Madison.

VerseD

03-02-2011, 09:59 AM

Madison's essay would oppose unions as well as the special interest groups of the wealthy, but I suppose if you have one you need the other to oppose it, and then perhaps find a consensus after all the blood is spilled. In truth, democracy never works out as well as it does in its ideal form.

I looked up that essay and found this quote by that French realist Montesquieu.

In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country.

And here are the Koch brothers, dumping pollutants into the Mississippi, and protecting that profitable ruin by dumping funds into Walker's campaign -- the only men from whom he would receive a call.

03-02-2011, 10:48 PM

Which apparently happens so infrequently that Walker didn't realize the person to whom he was speaking sounds nothing like either Koch brother. "Governor takes phone call from rich person he has never spoken to before, makes non-committal comments to flatter him: shocking footage at 11."

I certainly think Madison would agree that workers in various industries constitute factions and ought to be encouraged to form lobbying groups, but that's a bit different from the core concept of a union: a labor cartel. Ironically, No. 51 probably is a better endorsement of an guild organization like the American Bar Association, which I hate with a fire that will never die.

Generation ABXY

03-03-2011, 04:27 PM

Which apparently happens so infrequently that Walker didn't realize the person to whom he was speaking sounds nothing like either Koch brother.

Well, I assume the Koch brothers sound more like Emperor Palpatine, when they're giving their evil dictates.

diablopath

08-17-2011, 06:24 PM

I read an article (http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/17/does-america-need-a-prime-minister/?hpt=hp_t2) today which brought this question back to my mind. That, and earlier this summer, I wrote a paper arguing for a parliamentary system along with a strong judicial branch, mixing two very good ideas from the two different ideas I presented in my original post.

I am not entirely sure there would ever be any good way to actually going about reorganizing our government into such a system, though, so I'm not sure that's what I want to talk about it. I mean, if we did it, would we keep the Senate? Would we expand the number of members in the House? Would we even keep the capital in D.C.? The concept of governmental reorganization is quite interesting to me, and it's a "what if?" I like to ponder in my free time. Not that I'm a borderline revolutionary, it's the same "what if?" kinds of questions that make me enjoy alternate history.

But the concept that I was not able to articulate effectively until the paper I wrote - and the concept that the article gets at - is that divided government like we're experiencing now is due to a few reasons. One, Obama won by not a landslide, but still a fairly sizable 10 million votes. Bush, who won the 2004 election with a much closer 3 million, took that as a "mandate" and set about to "privatize" Social Security, an idea he never did convince Congress of. So, even 10 million votes can be quite compelling to President, and he's likely to want to stick to the guns which got him those votes. I am not claiming that Obama sticks to his guns a lot, but he put up a decent enough of a fight with the debt ceiling.

Now, it seems to me that the Republicans are acting with the same kind of mandate attitude. Perhaps rightfully so, judging by the amount of seats they took back in 2010. As many an election analysis stated, this could largely be seen as a strike back against Obama. With that said, Congress has an all time low approval rating of something like 13%, compared to Obama's hovering somewhere around 40%.

So, who is actually representative of the thoughts and wishes of the American people?

I think a lot of the annoyance with Congress (13% for Christ's sake!) comes from the institutional fact of our government: it's based on inefficiency. Legislation tends to move very slow and it tends to be very incremental. While this may have worked for 18th and 19th century America, is it really working for us now? Our system is supposed to encourage compromise, so that all involved parties have their fair say. However, our political system has become so vitriolic in recent years, it almost seems to me that this desire to compromise has been significantly weakened. I'm not entirely sure how valid of an opinion that is, as it's awfully hard for me to gauge the attitudes of the past just by talking to older generations and reading about it in textbooks. Regardless, I'm not necessarily happy with the way our system functions.

So what do you guys think? Do you believe that ultimately, the design of our government can actually hurtful to the good of our nation? Do you think anything would calm down if the system were organized in a different way?

08-17-2011, 06:45 PM

So, who is actually representative of the thoughts and wishes of the American people?
Why is that the issue? I mean, you endorse a strong judicial branch, which ostensibly exists to impose the view of a certain elite caste upon the will of the majority. And there are plenty of historical examples to choose from in which elected officials rammed through a policy against popular opinion for which history thanks them; the book "Profiles in Courage" is grounded in that concept.
Our system is supposed to encourage compromise, so that all involved parties have their fair say.
I'm not sure where you get that notion. Our system does encourage compromise on many issues, but I'm not certain that is the overriding purpose of our constitutional structure. The concept of "checks and balances" isn't to encourage compromise, but to encourage gridlock: there are many ways in which various political actors can call a halt to public policy, leaving us with the status quo. This has obvious disadvantages, as it always has (slavery being the most obvious example).
So what do you guys think? Do you believe that ultimately, the design of our government can actually hurtful to the good of our nation? Do you think anything would calm down if the system were organized in a different way?
The reason for the vitriol is much simpler than our constitutional structure: there are many different groups in our society which have passionate, and in some cases mutually incompatible, goals for public policy. Republicans want to cut certain forms of government spending and expand others; Democrats want to cut the forms that Republicans want to expand and expand the forms that Republicans want to cut. You're not going to trick people into saying, "Oh, this new political structure makes me have a totally different view on how high taxes should be." Or at least, I really really hope people are not so easily duped.

diablopath

08-17-2011, 07:34 PM

Why is that the issue? I mean, you endorse a strong judicial branch, which ostensibly exists to impose the view of a certain elite caste upon the will of the majority. And there are plenty of historical examples to choose from in which elected officials rammed through a policy against popular opinion for which history thanks them; the book "Profiles in Courage" is grounded in that concept.

I don't see why my endorsement of a strong judicial branch is incompatible with giving recognition to which branch can claim legitimacy or a mandate from the people. Its very nature of life tenure serves to remove itself from that type of discussion.

That's not to say that I believe the judicial branch is ENTIRELY removed from public opinion, as I firmly believe that strong public opinion can affect their decisions. I believe that was the case in Korematsu, for instance. Overall, I think the Supreme Court has done a good job of balancing the Constitution with the tone of the public.

I don't believe that all checks and balances are bad, but the point of the post was whether the checks and balances between the legislature and executive branches can do unnecessary damage to the country.

I'm not sure where you get that notion. Our system does encourage compromise on many issues, but I'm not certain that is the overriding purpose of our constitutional structure. The concept of "checks and balances" isn't to encourage compromise, but to encourage gridlock: there are many ways in which various political actors can call a halt to public policy, leaving us with the status quo. This has obvious disadvantages, as it always has (slavery being the most obvious example).

I suppose I played up compromise too much; it's obviously something I see a lot of value in. The entire question that I wanted to present was whether or not you fellas see the gridlock that comes in the absence of compromise as a bad thing. Moving on from that, whether or not people think that policy created in a parliamentary system is better than policy created in our system.

EDIT: I think a good way to put this is that compromise and gridlock are two sides of the same coin. Correct me if I'm entirely wrong, but I don't believe it's entirely common for one side to not have any input on legislation at all.

The reason for the vitriol is much simpler than our constitutional structure: there are many different groups in our society which have passionate, and in some cases mutually incompatible, goals for public policy. Republicans want to cut certain forms of government spending and expand others; Democrats want to cut the forms that Republicans want to expand and expand the forms that Republicans want to cut. You're not going to trick people into saying, "Oh, this new political structure makes me have a totally different view on how high taxes should be." Or at least, I really really hope people are not so easily duped.

These are the reasons that I tend to defend Republicans when they are called obstructionist by many of my classmates. I understand that I have views and I understand that many of them are entirely different than another person's. Fighting tooth and nail for your views does not make you obstructionist, and that's not what I meant as vitriolic. I don't immediately believe that the Republican party blocking policy that I wholeheartedly support is a bad thing.

When I talk about vitriol as a political danger, it's when it comes into play in issues like the debt ceiling discussion, which is what inspired the article that led me to post this. The structure of our government offered a risky bargaining pawn to the House, and that's something I view as potentially harmful to our country. It seems much more immediate to me than discussions of policy that typically happen.

08-17-2011, 08:01 PM

I suppose I played up compromise too much; it's obviously something I see a lot of value in. The entire question that I wanted to present was whether or not you fellas see the gridlock that comes in the absence of compromise as a bad thing.
Of course not; what ought to happen is that all of my policy preferences are enacted, while none of your policy preferences are enacted. If our preferences are sufficiently compatible that we can compromise and each be happier than we would with the status quo, then our current system facilitates that very well. Right now, however, the majority of American political actors don't appear to be able to think of a mutually satisfactory compromise on many policy issues; much as they all dislike the status quo, they prefer the status quo to any compromise that would be accepted by the other side. So gridlock isn't anyone's first choice, but most people prefer it to compromise.

When I talk about vitriol as a political danger, it's when it comes into play in issues like the debt ceiling discussion, which is what inspired the article that led me to post this. The structure of our government offered a risky bargaining pawn to the House, and that's something I view as potentially harmful to our country. It seems much more immediate to me than discussions of policy that typically happen.
You could certainly make it so that things like the debt ceiling are not bargaining pawns, but there's only one way to do that: you give one institutional actor control over it, so nobody else gets a say. We've done that with a variety of issues in our Republic. Federal reserve rates, for example, are the sole province of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, who operate by pure majority vote -- neither President Obama, John Boehner, or anyone else can override their decisions. The Presidency also has a variety of powers he can use without going to Congress. Indeed, this is a chief weakness of parliamentary systems: if no one party or coalition can muster a majority to survive a vote of no confidence, no one has any authority to act. That's pretty much what's been happening in Belgium for the past year or so. It's a little ironic that your proposal of a parliamentary system would remove the political actor (President Obama) with the greatest power to force through policy regardless of opposition.

I absolutely agree gridlock can be, and often is, harmful. But the only way to foster compromise is to give each actor the ability to stop everything. Without the power to say, "I forbid" (the Latin word for which is veto), why would anyone listen to me?

diablopath

08-17-2011, 08:16 PM

Of course not; what ought to happen is that all of my policy preferences are enacted, while none of your policy preferences are enacted. If our preferences are sufficiently compatible that we can compromise and each be happier than we would with the status quo, then our current system facilitates that very well. Right now, however, the majority of American political actors don't appear to be able to think of a mutually satisfactory compromise on many policy issues; much as they all dislike the status quo, they prefer the status quo to any compromise that would be accepted by the other side. So gridlock isn't anyone's first choice, but most people prefer it to compromise.

You could certainly make it so that things like the debt ceiling are not bargaining pawns, but there's only one way to do that: you give one institutional actor control over it, so nobody else gets a say. We've done that with a variety of issues in our Republic. Federal reserve rates, for example, are the sole province of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, who operate by pure majority vote -- neither President Obama, John Boehner, or anyone else can override their decisions. The Presidency also has a variety of powers he can use without going to Congress. Indeed, this is a chief weakness of parliamentary systems: if no one party or coalition can muster a majority to survive a vote of no confidence, no one has any authority to act. That's pretty much what's been happening in Belgium for the past year or so. It's a little ironic that your proposal of a parliamentary system would remove the political actor (President Obama) with the greatest power to force through policy regardless of opposition.

I absolutely agree gridlock can be, and often is, harmful. But the only way to foster compromise is to give each actor the ability to stop everything. Without the power to say, "I forbid" (the Latin word for which is veto), why would anyone listen to me?

A lot of your post is a huge part of why I posted this, because my "proposal" is more of an idea that I want to understand better. A large part of this comes from my overall lack of experience with comparative politics. I have entirely tried to avoid speaking specifics on how governments function in the United Kingdom and France because I don't understand the nuances of those systems. Especially France, which you mentioned earlier. One criticism you drew of my posts was that the parliamentary system removes the "decision maker" that our presidential system guarantees, but how do these two concepts mix in a system like France's?

08-17-2011, 08:54 PM

Like in the US, the French President has some powers that the National Assembly cannot override. For example, he can dissolve the Assembly. On the other hand, the National Assembly does not need the President's consent to pass a law: at most, the President can delay a new law by demanding that it be read again or referring it to the courts. In practice, during periods of cohabitation (when the Assembly and the Presidency are controlled by opposed factions) the President largely concentrates on foreign affairs (his area of exclusive control) and the Assembly dominates domestic affairs. Unlike in our system, which gives both the President and the Congress influence on domestic policy and forces either compromise or gridlock, France divides authority more cleanly and allows each to force through more stuff against the other's will. France has a much younger constitutional system than ours (the Fourth Republic, which fell in 1958, was pretty close to full parliamentary), so they're still figuring out the parameters of how it all works.