Mediaboss Marketing

In this hyper-partisan environment, parties are voting more in lockstep (major legislation like the Affordable Health Care Act passes on party-line votes), Congress faces greater turnover in big wave elections (as in 1994, 2006, and 2010), and local elections (like the recent spate of special elections) are increasingly contested on national rather than local issues. This is pattern is self-reinforcing, making for even more extreme partisanship and even deeper deadlock. The American political system seems to be caught in a straightjacket that gets tighter the more the public struggles.

Richard Hasen, alaw professor at theUniversity of California,wonderedin a 2013 article whether this called for drastic measures:The partisanship of our political branches and the mismatch with our structure of government raise the fundamental question: Is the United States political system so broken that we should change the Constitution to adopt a parliamentary systemeither a Westminster system, as in the United Kingdom, or a different form of parliamentary democracy?His formulation of the question, though, was too blunt. As he noted, any such constitutional change would be nearly impossible, especially given the gridlock that already exists. Thus, a Catch-22: The system is so broken that it needs to be changed, but there is no way to change it because the system is so broken.

One way to out of this paradox might to move toward something closer to a de facto parliamentary system, one that wouldnt require constitutional change. The Senate could remove barriers like the filibuster, which prevents a simple majority from effecting change. Democrats might want to hold on to the filibuster now because its a guardrail against Republican policy, but in the long run, the political system would be more effective and accountable.

Congress could also restore now disused procedures like regular order, which McCain drew attention to in Tuesdays speech.Lets trust each other. Lets return to regular order, he said. Weve been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle.As Peter C. Hanson of the Brookings Institution explains, regular order is the budget procedure for debating and passing individual appropriations bills in each chamber. Today this procedure has been replaced by the passage of huge omnibus packages at the end of the session, with little scrutiny and opportunity for amendment. A few procedural changes (including, as it happens, limiting the filibuster) could bring regular order back to life, making budgeting decisions much more orderly and rule-bound.

Another important restoration would be in congressional staffing, which was gutted by thenHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. Prior to Gingrichs slashing, members of Congress had large staffs that helped them navigate the choppy waters of policy. Now, much of that work has been outsourced to think tanks, which are beholden to special interests. For Congress to act as an effective parliamentary body, it needs to more policy advisors on congressional staffs.

Congresscould also limit the power of the presidency, curtailing his ability to issue executive orders and to wage war without congressional approval. This would make the president more of a figurehead, with the real power residing in the House speaker and the Senate majority leader. In such a system, voters would, as in a parliamentary system, have a clearer idea of what policies theyre approving when they cast their vote in the booth.

A weak president and strong Congress is not incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. It existed in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century, until Theodore Roosevelt came to power. During that period, presidents had sharply curtailed roles, mainly tasked with making appointments and administering the state while important policies were under the control of strong congressional leaders. Theres no reason why such a restoration of congressional power couldnt happen right now.

Much of governance inthe currentAmericansystemis opaqueespecially in periods of divided government, but not exclusively. For instance, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnells elaborate shell game with health care was designed to conceal the Obamacare repeal plan not only from public view, but from Democrats and even many Republican colleagues.If the existing system operated in a more parliamentary fashion, it would bring clarity to politics. As in the United Kingdom, political platforms would take on a much more meaningful role than a simple wishlist. They would be elaborate policy documents, with parties in power judged by their ability to fulfill their specific promises.

To be sure, a full parliamentary system would still be out of reach, because there would still be a bicameral legislaturethe House and Senate might not be controlled by the same partiesand the president would still have some power (although there could be constitutional amendments to limit even those, including the right of veto). Still, it would be more like a parliamentary system than what exists today.

It could be argued that these reforms are unnecessary given that the main problem with American democracy is Republican extremism. After all, the system worked fine in the brief period of Democratic unitary government from 2009-2011. But that was a two-year window that has only existed once in the last two decades. The greater norm is division or Republican unitary government.

Another objection might be that this reformed system would be less democratic than what exists now, a problem given that the current system already has many undemocratic featuressuch as the existence of the electoral college, and the Senates unequal representation. But surely the most undemocratic feature is the lack of public engagement, far lower in the United States than other comparable democracies (58 percent turnout in the last national election). A move towards a more parliamentary system might well increase political participation.

A governmental reform movement is perhaps the only way out of the current chaos. As American political parties act more like parliamentary ones, its time for the system to change accordingly.

See the rest here:
Why American Democracy Is Broken, and How to Fix It - New Republic