just a note kevyn, cabinet members have to be approved by senate, not solely by the president.
while here in nz even if the government resigns, the governor general can try to find some other mp capable of forming a government, they don’t have to call elections. i suppose if enough MPs resigned from parliament the gg would pretty much have to call an election, but then those who resigned would likely be punished by the electorate for going to that extent to lock in a temporary majority

> c) almost every country that has minor parties has constant resignations.

Germany doesn’t, and they seem to cope fine with fixed terms, despite having a party system relatively similar to ours. I think they have different rules around confidence and supply motions which make the difference, but I couldn’t tell you what those different rules are.

Or two, if you count the Vice-President.

I currently not sure whether the VP should be counted or not - thing have become very murky in that regard during Cheney’s tenure.

Cheney changes his mind as it suits him re which branch of Government he considers himself to be part of, in order to avoid any accountability either to the legisalture (the VP chairs the Senate), or to the judiciary as a member of the Executive.

There’s nothing wrong with your understanding.

All forms of democracy suffer from the power of the incumbency. It is a significant issue in EVERY form of representative democracy practiced on the planet and limiting it is one of the duties of any society that wishes to retain a representative democracy.

Which is why I regard randomization as a good idea. The US with its different election cycles for each branch of government, has the opportunity to have at least one branch of government change hands every two years.

The downside to that is that there is a lot more electioneering, expense and resulting temptation to corruption in that system.

Note that by randomizing the entire election cycle is 3 months and it is pretty well impossible to “gear-up” for an election. The need for a year of restricted spending goes out the window. The ability to ignore the wishes of the electorate carries much bigger risks because one can’t rely on their forgetting. The defining issues are whatever had the attention of the electorate on the day and campaign spending itself is limited by the practical consideration of there being only 3 months to do it in, aside from whatever legislated limits exist.

———-
The rest of this is not really relevant to the argument for randomizing
———-

The thing is that the President can be elected without his party obtaining a majority in either the House or the Senate and can spend his entire term of office with his Executive branch being in some form of conflict with one or both of the Legislative branches… which can be in conflict with each other,,, with all the inefficiencies that implies. There’s a flip side to that of course.

The case of the President and the Legislatures all being from the same party has marked the WORST governments in US history, and is actually pretty uncommon. One result of this is that most legislation is passed with the opposition having a hand in its formation. It is compromise out of conflict. This marks most of the good results of the system.

It used to work that way anyhow. Now the “wealth” party governs, controlling all branches of government. The opposition parties are actually the Greens and the Libertarians and this phenomenon is at work in other countries as well. The results are what we see and predictably bad.

I like MMP and regard that as more important than the differences between Westminster and the US form of democracy. FPP gives the wealth party much greater control than it gets in countries that use a more responsible method of balloting.

We had Eisenhower who warned us of the danger of the some of the people with money (he missed warning us of the bankers) and Carter the forgotten. I regard both as passably honest folks.

respectfully
BJ

One obvious improvement would indeed be a less spineless GG. Clark should not have been able to get away with calling the 2002 election early : since the GG has discretion to refuse a dissolution, they clearly should have done so in this case, as it was easy to determine that the government still had an effective majority on that occasion.

Perhaps it’s better to remove the discretion on all sides : Parliament shall only be dissolved early if it is demonstrated by a vote that it no longer has confidence in the government. Otherwise, the date of the following election is determined rigorously and immovably by the date of the previous.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it -

a) the President, Senate and Congress are elected at different times. Which means a republican President can be elected with a republic majority in one or both of the houses and finish his term with democrat majorities.

b) the majority party in congress elects a majority leader which is the way our Prime Ministers are chosen. Whereas our Cabinet is appointed by the PM from elected members of the house the US cabinet is appointed solely at the discretion of the President. Thus the legislative branch of US government is elected but only one member of the executive branch is elected. Most other western republics have a president whose role is closer to that of our governor general than to the of the US president, and a Prime Minister and Cabinet essentially the same as we have.

c) almost every country that has minor parties has constant resignations.

d) resignation is probably not the best term to use. When a party leader feels that they no longer have an effective majority or “the confidence of the house” and thus a mandate from the masses, they are honour bound to step aside and let someone else have a go at forming a majority. Politicians being politicians, they are never so honourable as to step aside when their is any real chance of that happening. Thus the inevitable result of a government surrendering it’s ministerial warrant is that the GG has to call an election. In theory National could do a deal with minor parties to support a no-confidence vote, then advise the GG that National can form a government which does have the confidence of Parliament. The GG can then take the initiative to recall the ministerial warrants and issue new ones. However under Westminster conventions only a government’s failure to pass it’s budget would be considered serious enough to warrant such a drastic step. Which is what happened to Whitlam’s government.

The above just being a comment on your response to moz. As for your suggestion of randomization. The random draw could be done as the first order of business in Parliament every sitting day. Unfortunately decorum would probably prevent randomly chosen voters from having the opportunity to “spin the Wheel of Fortune” on live TV just like Lotto. Personally I think it would be more decorus than what happens in the debating chamber most days.

http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm

It is different, but it is not “superior”, and that is irrelevant in any case as I am not proposing an “American” system here. I am proposing changes that allow the date of the election to be randomized and utterly out of the control of the incumbent.

The American system is more modular and succession is immediate and automatic at the Federal level with the opposition often represented in the chain of succession as defined. Nobody bails out except for being pushed. It isn’t even sensible to talk about “the government” resigning. The damned thing isn’t singular. Individuals may come and go, but the government continues and the election dates are fixed.

The presence of someone who can summarily determine that the current administration has totally fncked up and has the power to remove them is better than requiring a bill-of–impeachment and all the rest. The ability of that person to appoint caretakers and call a new election poses no problem to me in the sense of the change I proposed.

The voting dates are fixed in the US system and the “government” cannot resign to force a new election when it seems an advantage to do so, The idea that parliament must be dissolved to form a new government causes the country to suffer a complete new election whenever the executive here fncks up or chooses to have it… and the executive is tied to the legislative far more tightly… so it is almost impossible not to do it that way.

If I were to propose a government form here it would be a unique one and it would borrow from many places… it would not reflect “American” usage at all. For example co-leadership in the Prime Minister’s position and a two house parliament with one being Maori and one being the rest of us.

That gives us something a little like a “House of Lords” but the responsibilities would be different. More a co-government than a separate house. AFAIK, no government has ever been formed in this manner… no other country has to cope with having a treaty like ours either. But that isn’t what I am arguing to do.

No… my argument here is solely that the election date should be randomized so that the government can never be complacent about its current popularity and its need to convince the people to let it remain in power. Some small changes to the arrangements around that are all I am pointing to. If the executive here resigns I think the members resigning should forfeit their seats in parliament and the GG should have the authority to appoint new members to fill the seats made vacant in this manner. The opposition may then be given the opportunity to form government based on the new numbers… WITHOUT a new election.

The point to all that is that people might resign for personal reasons, as individuals. In that case the next list member takes their place, per current practice. The resignation of government however, is either an admission that they’ve fncked up or an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the election through timing of the election date. Neither of those situations should lead to the same fools being returned to power for another term.

Designing a system of government of humans by humans is not Rocket Science… it is WAY more difficult.

respectfully
BJ