I already mentioned the dangerous 'mana' in our system, but yeah, I think the presidential elections thing makes things personal to an unhealthy degree. "But we need to be able to scrutinize someone who'll have so much power for 4 years." "Maybe we shouldn't give someone so much power for 4 guaranteed years, then." Vs. a parliament with PR where you seem to vote for a party and its policies to a much higher degree, though I'm sure awareness of the party leaders plays a role. Of course, with multiple partiies and stronger party discipline, you can actually talk about a party having policies...
And, taking potshots at American assumptions: we tend to talk proudly about "checks and balances" as a good thing. But who and what is being checked and balanced? The populace vs. state governments thing made sense at the time, even if it's obsolete now, but that gives us the House and Senate. Why *does* the President, who needn't even have a majority of the popular vote, have veto power over a bill that's managed to pass the House and Senate, and why is such veto power a good thing?
Of course, if we look at what the Founders said, and the the Roman model they looked to, much of what is being checked is democracy. Give "the people" a voice (not that 1787 suffrage was universal even among white males), but check and encumber it with wealth and power. Which a radical might say is giving the people the illusion of power, but making it as difficult as possible to use it. We have a blend of monarch, aristocracy, and democracy, but why is that good, vs. democracy? Well, the Founders didn't trust democracy, that's why. Which is odd if you look at it straight on.
But Athens had a good run until the Macedonians conquered it, while it's Rome that fell into civil war and dictatorship...
no subject
I already mentioned the dangerous 'mana' in our system, but yeah, I think the presidential elections thing makes things personal to an unhealthy degree. "But we need to be able to scrutinize someone who'll have so much power for 4 years." "Maybe we shouldn't give someone so much power for 4 guaranteed years, then." Vs. a parliament with PR where you seem to vote for a party and its policies to a much higher degree, though I'm sure awareness of the party leaders plays a role. Of course, with multiple partiies and stronger party discipline, you can actually talk about a party having policies...
And, taking potshots at American assumptions: we tend to talk proudly about "checks and balances" as a good thing. But who and what is being checked and balanced? The populace vs. state governments thing made sense at the time, even if it's obsolete now, but that gives us the House and Senate. Why *does* the President, who needn't even have a majority of the popular vote, have veto power over a bill that's managed to pass the House and Senate, and why is such veto power a good thing?
Of course, if we look at what the Founders said, and the the Roman model they looked to, much of what is being checked is democracy. Give "the people" a voice (not that 1787 suffrage was universal even among white males), but check and encumber it with wealth and power. Which a radical might say is giving the people the illusion of power, but making it as difficult as possible to use it. We have a blend of monarch, aristocracy, and democracy, but why is that good, vs. democracy? Well, the Founders didn't trust democracy, that's why. Which is odd if you look at it straight on.
But Athens had a good run until the Macedonians conquered it, while it's Rome that fell into civil war and dictatorship...