Parliamentary Democracy - is the grass greener?

[Grinkle]

A German co-worker of mine, circa 2015, told me that he considers a parliamentary system fundamentally more robust than the US system because one cannot be Prime Minister without first having achieved a working majority of support in Parliament. By construction, the PM starts with the support of the legislative branch and is in a position to govern.

That argument made a great deal of sense to me then, and it still does today.

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on pros and cons of a Parliamentary system (take the German system if a specific one helps the discussion) vs the US system.

( @fresh_42 As you are German, hoping you will weigh in. )

 

[fresh_42]

The two systems are hard to compare and fundamentally different. E.g., our troops go nowhere without a majority in the parliament. And our chancellor could never reign by decrees. Unthinkable. Many laws also have to pass both chambers, the parliament and the German counterpart to the US senate.

I'm perplexed by the observation that Trump can almost do whatever he wants and they even applaud him for his reckless narcissism.

 

[Grinkle]

The two systems are hard to compare and fundamentally different.

Do you think the German government governs domestically more effectively than the US government? If so, is that because of culture / political climate, or is it because of the differences in the governmental systems?

To give you some context for what I mean by governing more effectively (than the US Federal government is able to do) -

From here -

Congress has long struggled to pass spending bills on time

If Congress passes the Oct. 1 deadline without either a new set of spending bills or a continuing resolution, nonessential operations would be forced to shut down.

www.pewresearch.org

"in the nearly five decades that the current system for budgeting and spending tax dollars has been in place, Congress has passed all its required appropriations measures on time only four times: fiscal 1977 (the first full fiscal year under the current system), 1989, 1995 and 1997. And even those last three times, Congress was late in passing the budget blueprint that, in theory at least, precedes the actual spending bills."

 

[fresh_42]

Even this is hard to tell. Our parliaments - will say the governing majority on every level (community, state, country) - passes yearly budgets based on estimations of expected taxes. It is probably the most important debate in the year. That budget breaks down to sub-budgets for each resort and so on. We also have a general upper bound for new debts in place. They are currently considering opening two posts outside the regular budget for extraordinary purposes: infrastructure and military. That's a way to bypass the general upper bound.

All in all, the various resorts have a yearly budget and that's it.

I don't know enough about how it works in the USA. I only observe the various shut-down threats every couple of months.

 

[Grinkle]

passes yearly budgets based on estimations of expected taxes.

If I understand what you are saying, then its not hard to compare. At the Federal level in the US, this is not happening, full stop.

 

[Grinkle]

@fresh_42 To clarify - as one may wonder 'how then do things proceed at all?'

Congress ends up using a two-step workaround to the gridlock.

Step 1 is to pass what is called a "continuing resolution" instead of a budget. This makes it legal to continue spending at current levels.

Step 2, which doesn't happen every year, is to pass a budget for the current year very late in the year, which is basically a tally of what has been spent so far and money for most or all or more of would have been spent for the rest of the year given a continuing resolution. In the years when this second step doesn't happen, its continuing resolutions all the way to the next calendar year.

IMO, its that way because the only way to survive politically is to pass a bill when everyone agrees that any bill is better than a shutdown, and of course this only happens when a shutdown is imminent and the only thing that can pass even in these conditions is basically "status quo".

Reference for my next statement -

The Competitive Districts that Will Decide Control of the House

Only a small number of congressional races are considered toss-ups going into November. Most are in districts drawn by independent commissions or courts.

www.brennancenter.org

In 2024, out of 435 House of Representative seat elections, 27 were considered "in play". The rest were not going to flip. That means almost all congresspeople are running against others in their own party in what is called the 'primary' election - this is an election before the main election where each party selects the candidate that will be on the ballot. This is the only meaningful election for almost all members of the House. Senate races are statewide, and are as competitive as the state in which they are held, so not as polarized, but definitely getting more so as American states become more single party dominated. So there dis-incentive to work across the aisle and seek compromise. If you do so, its likely that more extreme members of your party will run against you in the next election (this is called "being primaried") and you will lose your seat to a more extreme member of your own party.

Our system is really in an unhealthy equilibrium point (extreme polarization). I wonder if European parliamentary systems are more self-correcting against this kind of bad sticking point than our US system is.

 

[fresh_42]

Our system is really in an unhealthy equilibrium point (extreme polarization). I wonder if European parliamentary systems are more self-correcting against this kind of bad sticking point than our US system is.

We vote for our parliaments every four years. (Some lower levels have a legislature period of five years.) All seats are at stake. We usually have two votes: one for a local candidate and one for a party, i.e. a list of candidates the parties nominated. The vote for the parties determines their relative share in the entire parliament, candidates who won their local seat will (usually) automatically be elected. The downside is that parliaments get bigger and bigger because directly elected candidates have a guaranteed seat, and the relative voting of parties determines their overall share. The details are a bit trickier and the math is horrible, but that's the principle. Our senate is staffed by the presidents of the single states and their voting depends on what they determined in their coalition treaties on state level. The congress, so to say, the normal parliament also has a 5% hurdle. Parties below the 5% level can only have directly elected seats. (Our Danish minority has a special status.) This is meant to avoid dozens of small parties and has historical reasons. Not in the sense of tradition, in the sense of "once bitten".

This means that - normally - the parliament is elected for 4 years and only the "senate" changes. It is in general less direct than in the US or the UK. But we have various parties and they - normally - have to build coalitions in order to govern. That makes compromises an automatism.

 

[EricDMMiller]

I think that a properly functioning parliamentary democracy can be quite functional. But the parliamentary structure itself is not sufficient to ensure functional governance. Depending on voting method and party systems, a parliamentary system can devolve in a number of different ways.

As an example that I am immediately familiar with, Canada uses a Westminster style parliamentary system. We have an elected parliament with a Prime Minister selected from the party leader of the governing party with the most seats acting on confidence of the Parliament. We also have a senate, with lifetime appointments made by the government of the day as senate seats are vacated or become available.

Our head of state is nominally the Crown in Right of Canada. This is the British King or Queen of the day, who is functionally represented in government business by the Governor General ("GG"). The GG is appointed by the monarch upon the "advice" of the current Prime Minister. It would be a constitutional crisis if the "advised" selection were not appointed in fact.

Our judges are appointed by federal and provincial governments. These appointments are permanent, but there is a mandatory retirement at 75.

With all of that in mind, federally, the fulcrum where democracy avails itself is in the parliamentary elections. Canada uses a first-past-the-post single-member plurality system, which just means that votes are cast for individual members of parliament within a riding, and the candidate with the greatest plurality of votes in that riding is elected. Majorities are not required and no form of proportional representation. Each riding is essentially all or nothing.

In Canada, this results in what is primarily a 2-party system with occasional spoilers and support from minor parties. Since Confederation in 1867, Canada's government has passed between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party of its day, as you can see in the following image.

I believe that this was seen as a strength initially, to avoid the sort of weaker coalition governance that proportional systems encounter. I suspect that it may ultimately be a flaw, as it appears prone to the sort of liberal "death wobble" that we are seeing in the United States. The vacillations between the two ruling parties encourages positional extremism and factional loyalty at the expense of policy.

Currently, the Liberal Party, which is a minority government supported by the very minor NDP, is ahead in the polls narrowly over the Conservatives - I believe for the first time since 2021 - because Canadians are able to reflect how similar the Conservative platform and rhetoric has become to Trump-adjacent populism.

So at least when paired with a first-past-the-post simple plurality voting system, I suspect that a parliamentary system is no more resilient to the liberal democratic backsliding that we see elsewhere.

The current Liberal government was voted in with a heavy mandate for electoral reform dating back to 2015. They did not proceed with this electoral platform promise because it would have lessened the likelihood of future Liberal majority governments.

 

[dlu]

In Canada, this results in what is primarily a 2-party system with occasional spoilers and support from minor parties. Since Confederation in 1867, Canada's government has passed between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party of its day, as you can see in the following image.

What is also intriguing is that for the provincial legislature as to who becomes elected to office does not mimic the 2-party Tory/Liberal federal party choice, as they do in the Democratic/Republican USA.

As the extreme example where no party provincial follows along with the federal types is in the province of Quebec where there is the Parti-Quebecois, Liberal( very little affiliation with the federal Liberals ), Quebec Solidaire, Coalition Avenir Quebec(G), plus some minor ones. Other provinces are not quite as diverse.
It should be noted that the NDP. having never formed a government of Canada but always a bridesmaid, have been elected as such provincially, particularly in the western regions.

Cities/town representatives can have party affiliation if allowed by provincial law, but these parties are in no shape way or form aligned with that at the provincial or federal level.

 

[dlu]

Currently, the Liberal Party, which is a minority government supported by the very minor NDP, is ahead in the polls narrowly over the Conservatives - I believe for the first time since 2021 - because Canadians are able to reflect how similar the Conservative platform and rhetoric has become to Trump-adjacent populism.

https://338canada.com/polls.htm

Who would have thought - definitely not the conservative internet talking sites. They seem to have a bit of sweat on their foreheads witnessing the giant lead in the polls vanish so quickly.

Poilievre has not been as much in the news recently with the Liberal leadership race taking up more space. Also honeymoon factor does play into the new guy on the block replacing the previous Liberal leader and becoming PM.
Polievre is able to attract much large crowds at his rallies. The conservatives do not have a Maga base but rather grass root support from Canadians of like mind. Conservatives are more toward centre politics, taking up the space as the Liberals shifted from their normally centralist position to more left leaning under the previous management.

 

[EricDMMiller]

I don't want to get too in the weeds about Canada's current politics. I was using Canada as an example for how the electoral system can matter as much as the parliamentary model.

You are right that provincial politics has not universally devolved into strict 2-party systems in every province. But many of them have, even if the parties don't align along the federal party lines.

It seems to me that only Ontario, Quebec, and maybe Nova Scotia have shown more than a nominal historical interest in a third party since the early 1900s.

BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick have all mostly switched between some local conservative and progressive. In some cases, they have been doing exactly that since Confederation.

 

[MindlessPieces]

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on pros and cons of a Parliamentary system (take the German system if a specific one helps the discussion) vs the US system.

A benefit of the Parliamentary system over what the USA has is that the people vote for a party and it's policies and not a single President.

In this way if the Prime Minister goes rogue, it is a relatively simple process for the party to have a vote of no confidence and to remove their leader/Prime Minister and replace them with someone who better represents the party.

With the USA system the President has way too much power, when they go rogue, they can only be replaced by the VP and only through the Impeachment process, which is long and arduous. Plus, if both the President and the VP had gone rogue e.g. went through with an illegal alternative electors scheme to circumvent the vote of the people and to replace it with a vote of members of the House. If in that case both President and VP were to be impeached and removed from office, then the Speaker of the House becomes President and that could be a person from the opposition party.


Also the midterm elections thing is nuts, it almost guarantees that for 2 years of the 4 year term, absolutely nothing will be acheived.

 

[Grinkle]

Also the midterm elections thing is nuts

If I had a magic wand I'd make a house term 4 years, a senate term 8 years or 4 years (just to match the following) and both houses have a 16 year term limit.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Apparently there is better accountability as there have been resignations over Epstein in UK but not US. https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/08/uk/morgan-mcsweeney-resigns-mandelson-epstein-intl

 

[sbrothy]

If I understand what you are saying, then its not hard to compare. At the Federal level in the US, this is not happening, full stop.

I'm also flabbergasted by this remark. So the US doesn't make any effort to balance income and expenditure. Somehow I don't think that's exactly what you mean..?

EDIT: Ah, you mean this happens on state level?!

Also, when you take into account the EU it actually does get complicated and difficult to compare. The EU decision process is a meandering nightmare with several paths possible for lawmaking etc.

 

[Grinkle]

So the US doesn't make any effort to balance income and expenditure.

When I say no budgeting is done at the Federal level, you can read how I view the process in post #6 and I hope you can see why calling it balancing income and expenditure would be very generous. Its more like 'keeping some track of income vs expenditure' at best. If post #6 makes no sense when you read it, I can try to clarify how I view things.

 

[sbrothy]

When I say no budgeting is done at the Federal level, you can read how I view the process in post #6 and I hope you can see why calling it balancing income and expenditure would be very generous. Its more like 'keeping some track of income vs expenditure' at best. If post #6 makes no sense when you read it, I can try to clarify how I view things.

Nah, you're right. I've been lazy. I need to read up proper.

 

[sbrothy]

Luckily it seems Trump hasn't been awarded with the Danish Order of the Elephant.

The highest order Denmark can bestow on someone. Also, it's absurdly expensive.

Ironically, Nicolae Ceaușescu was awarded one (makes you think, eh? ) but The queen demanded it back. That only happened after he was executed.

Nicolae Ceaușescu, President of the Socialist Republic of Romania (Note: Awarded on the November 1980 state visit to Denmark, but revoked by the Queen on 23 December 1989. The insignia have been returned to Denmark and Ceaușescu's name has been deleted from the official rolls.)

--- Wiki

 

[sbrothy]

@fresh_42 To clarify - as one may wonder 'how then do things proceed at all?'

Congress ends up using a two-step workaround to the gridlock.

Step 1 is to pass what is called a "continuing resolution" instead of a budget. This makes it legal to continue spending at current levels.

Step 2, which doesn't happen every year, is to pass a budget for the current year very late in the year, which is basically a tally of what has been spent so far and money for most or all or more of would have been spent for the rest of the year given a continuing resolution. In the years when this second step doesn't happen, its continuing resolutions all the way to the next calendar year.

IMO, its that way because the only way to survive politically is to pass a bill when everyone agrees that any bill is better than a shutdown, and of course this only happens when a shutdown is imminent and the only thing that can pass even in these conditions is basically "status quo".

Reference for my next statement -

The Competitive Districts that Will Decide Control of the House

Only a small number of congressional races are considered toss-ups going into November. Most are in districts drawn by independent commissions or courts.

www.brennancenter.org

In 2024, out of 435 House of Representative seat elections, 27 were considered "in play". The rest were not going to flip. That means almost all congresspeople are running against others in their own party in what is called the 'primary' election - this is an election before the main election where each party selects the candidate that will be on the ballot. This is the only meaningful election for almost all members of the House. Senate races are statewide, and are as competitive as the state in which they are held, so not as polarized, but definitely getting more so as American states become more single party dominated. So there dis-incentive to work across the aisle and seek compromise. If you do so, its likely that more extreme members of your party will run against you in the next election (this is called "being primaried") and you will lose your seat to a more extreme member of your own party.

Our system is really in an unhealthy equilibrium point (extreme polarization). I wonder if European parliamentary systems are more self-correcting against this kind of bad sticking point than our US system is.

We have elections every fourth year, sometimes more often if the statsminister looses the trust of the government he/she put together (Like right now I think. I think technically we haven't got a head of government at the moment.)

But it's (somewhat) like @fresh_42 says below (your post): the discussion about the finance act is one of the most important discussions every year. Without agreement, no government. Every krone is accounted for. Every year.

EDIT: Also we often tease the US with it's two-party system, but truth be told, all Danish governments for a long long time has been made and agreed across the middle. So there's really not much difference here.

 

[Grinkle]

made and agreed across the middle.

The US has become much more of a polarized winner-take-all reality especially since the Obama years. We now have a tyranny of the majority (as opposed to compromise) if things actually get done, simple gridlock otherwise.

 

[sbrothy]

The US has become much more of a polarized winner-take-all reality especially since the Obama years. We now have a tyranny of the majority (as opposed to compromise) if things actually get done, simple gridlock otherwise.

Oh yeah you I forgot you have this "fillibuster" thingy. That would never fly here. Someone (most probably the "folketings-ordstyrer" - the person who controls who's turn it is to speak) would tell them to sit down and shut up!

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folketing#Speaker

EDIT2: So as you can see that's pretty much under control. That we have 4 of them suprised even me!


Now I come to think about it, I think our government works better across the middle as opposed to the polarizing thing you've got going on.

Then again, I'm no expert on US politics.

 

[sbrothy]

Which reminds me that I've never understood how the British Parliament gets anything done what with them all yelling at each other!

 

[Patxitxi]

I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on pros and cons of a Parliamentary system

I may be going off the trail here, but it seems to me that the nuances of individual parliamentary systems don’t make that much of a difference. What truly matters is having an educated voter.

Socrates viewed democracy as a "charming" but chaotic form of government that empowers the ignorant, leading to a situation where charismatic leaders (demagogues) manipulate public opinion.

Remind you of someone? Strange—this was predicted as early as 400 BC.

Of course, I am not advocating the fascist notion that autocratic power should be placed in the hands of the "informed"—quite the opposite. Nowadays (almost) all of us will agree that every person should have a vote.

But to me one of the first functions of any government should be to educate people enough that they can make informed decisions about which vote best serves their interests.

And it seems to me that many governments insist in cutting budgets in education or in making education available only to the accommodated institute in private over education. Sounds familiar? Is it on purpose?

Public universities in Germany are generally tuition-free for all students, including international students, for most bachelor's and master's programs.

 

[jack action]

Socrates viewed democracy as a "charming" but chaotic form of government that empowers the ignorant, leading to a situation where charismatic leaders (demagogues) manipulate public opinion.

I really hate it when someone refers to part of the group they belong to as "ignorant".

Why would you want to belong to a society with "ignorant" people? I mean, a group large or powerful enough for them to control the society.

But to me one of the first functions of any government should be to educate people enough that they can make informed decisions about which vote best serves their interests.

"Educating" the "ignorants" is another way of saying you want to manipulate everyone who doesn't think and act as you do, no matter how much you think "your way" is better than someone else's. Everyone thinks they are "well-informed" and know the "truth".

If you think this is a fair way of participating in a society, then you will forever fight against others who also want to "educate" you.

It's like wanting to join the KKK, call them ignorant, and then say I will "educate" them. Why would anyone want to waste their time doing this? Live your own life, and if you happen to meet people who share your ways, join forces then. If your way is good, the group should increase in size and survive.

A healthy democracy is more about freedom of choosing your group, rather than "educating" others.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

A healthy democracy is more about freedom of choosing your group, rather than "educating" others.

The form of "education" which is needed, regardless of politics, is simply to teach people to use critical thinking for themselves and avoid being fooled. This is part of the same education needed nowadays to spot fake or dodgy news, phishing emails, scam advertisements, and indeed lies in general. Finland includes this type of education as a core part of their national education curriculum.

I've been horrified at some of the reasons people give for why they vote the way they do, showing no sign whatsoever of that sort of awareness. And I'm even more horrified at the post-truth era - I still remember when a politician's career could be ended if they were caught telling a lie, but now I hear voters quoting statements already known to be false as their rationale for their political choices.

 

[jack action]

The form of "education" which is needed, regardless of politics, is simply to teach people to use critical thinking for themselves and avoid being fooled.

Sadly, I never witnessed that. Teaching critical thinking always ends with: "If you did your research correctly, then you should arrive at this conclusion."

I always find it funny that we create laws to make sure that "bad" decisions will never be made - again - in the future. This is a sign that we do not trust the education we give to the new generation to do the right thing.

Critical thinking is all about trusting others to make the right decisions, no matter what.

 

[fresh_42]

In my view, this constitutes the systemic problem inherent in every form of democracy. On the one hand, it expects its voters to make an informed decision in favor of those who best represent their interests; on the other hand, however, it elevates precisely those individuals into positions of political and thus also educational responsibility who prefer an uneducated electorate, as such a population is easier to manipulate.

Naturally, one could at this juncture debate proportional representation versus majoritarian electoral systems, the severely limited range of choices inherent in a two-party system, the role of educational authorities, or even precisely what "critical thinking" actually entails. Yet, regardless of the answers to these specific questions, the fundamental conflict persists: the tension between voters guided by reason and those susceptible to demagogic influences. It is precisely this conflict that every individual democracy must resolve for itself. If one frames this conflict in terms of "the educated" versus "the ignorant," this, in my opinion, does not constitute constructive rhetoric but merely creates space for polemics and serves as a distraction from the actual problem.

 

[jack action]

If one frames this conflict in terms of "the educated" versus "the ignorant," this, in my opinion, does not constitute constructive rhetoric

But you just said:

the fundamental conflict persists: the tension between voters guided by reason and those susceptible to demagogic influences.

which essentially means the same thing.

Let me guess: You think you are guided by reason (or educated), and people who disagree with you are susceptible to demagogic influences (or ignorant) ... This is how everybody else feels about their opinions and opponents' opinions, too.

Nobody who has an opinion thinks they are in the wrong. If that were true, they would change their opinion, and then they would still be in the right from their new point of view.

Thinking we will all agree on anything at some point is delusional. So the fundamental conflict is about what we should do when we disagree. Is it better to:

• split the group and let everyone do their own thing - maybe reuniting sometimes in the future;
• or force some people to go against their will. Then what is the advantage for them to be in the group? It is basically treating them like children; borderline slavery in some cases.

 

[fresh_42]

which essentially means the same thing.

You may consider it its polemical equivalent, but "ignorant" and "educated" only heat the discussion. Acting in one's best interests does not mean the same thing. Voters could vote in their best interests, which does not imply these were the same as mine. This has nothing to do with being educated or ignorant. America currently wages war based only on insider trading. Voting for Trump is certainly in the interest of those insiders, as long as they are rich enough. I won't call them ignorant. Whether the members of the cult are is another question. I read yesterday that a father shot his daughter over an argument about Trump. Not sure if this was a correct report, but it is imaginable, and I do call such a crime ignorant.

Let me guess: You think you are guided by reason (or educated), and people who disagree with you are susceptible to demagogic influences (or ignorant) ... This is how everybody else feels about their opinions and opponents' opinions, too.

No. See above. I try to judge by rational arguments. An example: Our Nazis are in one state currently at 41% according to the polls. And in this case, I would call these 41% right away morons and idiots. And I can justify this opinion. These are indeed ignorant people, but not measured by their educational level, but rather by their own interests. We say here: "They are sawing off the branch they are sitting on." And this is objectively true, so they act against their own interests, and this is what I call ignorant, not because I am of a different political opinion, but because their calculations will not match up. This is based on macroeconomic considerations and is therefore educated. The task is to inform them about the consequences of their opinions. The same happened already in the USA. I read today, again, not sure whether it is right, that the Trump administration lifted five regulations about forever chemicals in drinking water. This is clearly against most people's interests and, as such, ignorant. This has nothing to do with personal opinions. It is obviously only in the interest of the related companies.

Nobody who has an opinion thinks they are in the wrong. If that were true, they would change their opinion, and then they would still be in the right from their new point of view.

See above. Some people are factually wrong! And they avoid thinking about it. That makes them ignorant, not the opinion itself. My point is that there is a conflict of interest in what you addressed as critical thinking. Those responsible for providing it are simultaneously those who prefer having the possibility of demagogy.

Trump voters or AfD voters here are dumb as bread, so they aren't wealthy insiders. This is a fact and has nothing to do with opinions. It has to do with drinking water.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Being informed is not the same as being coerced, and having different opinions is healthy, provided that they are based on reality.

When I first became old enough to vote in the UK (over 50 years ago) it seemed that there was fairly universal agreement about the current facts and even to some extent about the predicted effects of various policies, and voting was based on personal opinions about the relative priorities of different positive and negative policies. We didn't even vote the same way within our family, but we understood the reasons. I guess that part of that was due to the dominance of the BBC as a consistent news source, but even the newspapers seemed to be more responsible back then.

Now everything seems to be wildly polarized and dumbed down to black and white, with policies going to one extreme or another instead of a sensible balanced approach. I guess that first-past-the-post voting systems and amplification out of all proportion of the slightest issue mentioned on social media are part of the problem. It's scary, but I hope (somewhat desperately) that if enough people can be taught not to be fooled quite so often then some sort of sense will prevail. In the modern internet age, avoiding being fooled is increasingly becoming an important life skill, so the benefits go far beyond supporting viable democracy.