WI U.S. politically more extreme.

By this, I mean what if the U.S. was more extreme when it came to endorsing things like Communism and Fascism more, instead of the majority that is more or less centrist. What would political parties look like? How would anything get done in Congress? How could this come about?
 
By this, I mean what if the U.S. was more extreme when it came to endorsing things like Communism and Fascism more, instead of the majority that is more or less centrist. What would political parties look like? How would anything get done in Congress? How could this come about?

Do you mean like Weimar Germany with sharp divisions between right and left and groups such as the fascists and communists battling out in the streets and in the parliament?
 

Caspian

Banned
What if the Constitution was drafted to have a parliamentary system in place, and proportional representation was introduced at some point? Maybe we'd see a situation where many smaller parties have legislative representation that can afford to be more extreme?
 
What if the Constitution was drafted to have a parliamentary system in place, and proportional representation was introduced at some point? Maybe we'd see a situation where many smaller parties have legislative representation that can afford to be more extreme?

It wouldn't even take that. If the number of reps is never capped at 435 and some of the larger states use at-large proportional representation with extremely low thresholds to gain seats, you might well have nutball parties gaining seats in Texas and California.
 
To have extreme politics you have to have extreme events. Perhaps the US invades North Vietnam which ends up bloody killing tens of thousands of more soldiers and sparks mass riots throughout the country. This results in a left-wing man such as Eugene McCarthy or even George McGovern being elected into the White House. This leads to widespread backlash due to liberal policies and Wallace's party polls a lot better in elections. By 2009 America has several major parties including moderate Rockfeller Republicans, populist Roosevelt Democrats, hard right Wallace's American Independent Party, and far-leftists.
 
You keep the whole, one district represents 15,000 people rule?

...

Oh lord.

Very easy for one to to back up a parliamentary system with more reps for people when they solely look at the prime example for a parliamentary system. The issue with the Parliamentary system v. senate system is that in the United Kingdom, there are roughly only 61 million Britons whereas the United States roughly 306 million AND the country has an area of only 94.5k miles and the United States has the area of 9.8 million miles.

I see that there are 646 MPs, which is the equivalent of our reps. Doing the math, 61 million divided by 646 is roughly 1 MP for roughly 94,500 Britons. Are you sure about your sarcastic statement with 1 = 15,000???

Sorry guys, the United States will not be looking bright eyed at a parliamentary system anytime soon. Personally, I prefer a senate system, it seems more civil anyway. I can't recall the last time D.C. police had to break up a fist fight in the House or the Senate or when a politician arrived to a Senate or House meeting obviously, and I say obviously, drunk.
 
Very easy for one to to back up a parliamentary system with more reps for people when they solely look at the prime example for a parliamentary system. The issue with the Parliamentary system v. senate system is that in the United Kingdom, there are roughly only 61 million Britons whereas the United States roughly 306 million AND the country has an area of only 94.5k miles and the United States has the area of 9.8 million miles.

I see that there are 646 MPs, which is the equivalent of our reps. Doing the math, 61 million divided by 646 is roughly 1 MP for roughly 94,500 Britons. Are you sure about your sarcastic statement with 1 = 15,000???

Sorry guys, the United States will not be looking bright eyed at a parliamentary system anytime soon. Personally, I prefer a senate system, it seems more civil anyway. I can't recall the last time D.C. police had to break up a fist fight in the House or the Senate or when a politician arrived to a Senate or House meeting obviously, and I say obviously, drunk.

up until 1912, when the size of the House was capped at 435, the size of the house was always roughly the cube root of the population, which today would be about 674, only slightly bigger than the British parliament, and quite manageable if you ask me.
 
Very easy for one to to back up a parliamentary system with more reps for people when they solely look at the prime example for a parliamentary system. The issue with the Parliamentary system v. senate system is that in the United Kingdom, there are roughly only 61 million Britons whereas the United States roughly 306 million AND the country has an area of only 94.5k miles and the United States has the area of 9.8 million miles.

I see that there are 646 MPs, which is the equivalent of our reps. Doing the math, 61 million divided by 646 is roughly 1 MP for roughly 94,500 Britons. Are you sure about your sarcastic statement with 1 = 15,000???

Sorry guys, the United States will not be looking bright eyed at a parliamentary system anytime soon. Personally, I prefer a senate system, it seems more civil anyway. I can't recall the last time D.C. police had to break up a fist fight in the House or the Senate or when a politician arrived to a Senate or House meeting obviously, and I say obviously, drunk.

This has not happened in Living Memory in Britain. Wasn't it the US that through the 20s had fist fights on the floor of the Democratic Convention? And even had a brawl in the 70s?

Discussing a Parliamentary system is pointless, it doesn't make politics more extreme, British Politics is probably the most dour and colourless you can find. And the reason a Parliament doesn't work in the US is simply because the US is Federal.
 
Well, parliamentary systems lead to much stronger parties, which are nearly always bound by ideology. In the US, historically our parties have been bound together as a loose coalition of local political machines seeking patronage, graft and pork: basically organized corruption. They're only beginning to have an ideological component to them.

There has been historically little appreciable difference between Democrats and Republicans. In the UK, Labour and Conservative represent the clash between left-wing social democracy and right-wing corporatism. Such a divide is only beginning to grow between Democrats and Republicans in the US.

But, in essence, their are two factors that have a greater impact than a parliamentary system. The first is a system of proportional representation. This alone would split the major American parties up along ideological lines, resulting in the left-wing factions of the Democratic Party to form their own organization rather than be dependant on centrist Democratic leadership.

The second factor is a militant trade union movement. It was the combine of organized labour and social democratic parties that created the Europe we know today, with it's relatively broad political spectrum.
 
Top