• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Somewhat true, but there’s lots of parliamentary systems that were never under British rule. Nobody has followed the US’s weird system. Not even ones where the US had a direct hand in setting up the democratic government, like Iraq.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      The weird system of… predictable elections? Because that’s what we’re talking about. You can have predictable elections with a parliamentary system.

      And any government is only as good as the people in it, as we can see from Brexit. They threw away their future because of a non-binding vote, which was very close and done only once.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 months ago

        Weird in having a whole bunch of compromises between big and small states, and separating the power of the executive and legislature. Countries looked at both of those and picked the one that’s more chaotic, but less clumsy.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 months ago

          There’s no reason why the current government should be able to pick the date of the election. What’s the reason behind that besides “The Prime Minister wants it that way”?

          • Albbi@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            6 months ago

            I dunno, with the American system you have like 2 year long campaigning cycle for president. There’s almost no break and it’s exhausting. In Canada when an election is called the campaign is only about 6 weeks give or take a week.

            Also, if the government becomes dysfunctional, it can be dissolved and a new government elected. The US system doesn’t allow for that flexibility.

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              6 months ago

              If your campaign is only 6 weeks, you have to be campaigning all the time too. Do you think people just say “oh there’s an election in 6 weeks? Maybe I’ll run for office!”? They have to have everything ready to go immediately. All politicians are campaigning all the time.

              • Albbi@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                6 months ago

                It’s really different though. The politicians are expected to be working at the national capitol during normal sessions. While they are ‘campaigning’ in that they’ll be trying to score sound bites and such for the media, they’re not allowed to spend money on regular campaigning until the election season starts.

                How many rallies for president haver been held already with the election still 166 days away? How much money spent? It’s utterly exhausting.

          • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s a consequence of parliamentary sovereignty.

            Parliament can always dissolve itself and call an election, and it’s an important mechanism for getting rid of the government.

            The problem is that the prime minister also has a majority in parliament, and that means he can make parliament dissolve itself when he likes.

            This was actually a problem for Johnson. Initially, he didn’t have enough of a majority and it wasn’t clear he could call an election without Corbyn’s support.