Why don't we have the right to vote "no confidence" on the government...

[FormerRepublican]

...like other countries do? Other countries can throw the bums out when they're as bad and incompetent as Bush - they just vote "no confidence". We're stuck for the duration. What the heck were the founders of this nation thinking?

[Catchawave]

1. Good Question !

Probably for the same reason we can't have a Recall Election, which was explained to me awhile back on DU. :hi:

[politicaholic]

2. Well, sometimes "no confidence" or "recall" can result horribly...

Take for example when the nazi party took over the Kremlin or now in Germany when they have split government leadership to force a compromise...and one of the parties is basically a religious party...go figure.

Christian parties...*pfft*...no booze and no putting out. What's the fun in that?!

[FormerRepublican]

4. You think Germany would be better off with Bush?

I'd be willing to sell him to them - cheap!

:evilgrin:

[politicaholic]

6. Woops...there goes Austria again! n/t

[pat_k]

3. Many ways to toss them out: 1) Demand an Impeachment inquiry

Everyone seems to think Impeachment is impossible with a Republican House.

A majority of Americans now believe he lied us into war.

A majority of Americans believe he should be Impeached if he lied us into war.

The time is now.

Even if the House doesn't respond to the demands of the people before 2006, it would be a reason for people to "throw them out" in favor of representatives that will carry out the will of the people.

[NorCalDem]

5. What gives you any indication that they would

listen to our demands? Afterall, we are just the PEOPLE :grr:

[pat_k]

9. We're their worst nightmare: pissed off electorate calling for Bush's head

"They" really go for punishment.

If people start calling for his head, you would be surprised by the numbers of people you had written off as hopelessly deluded would add their voices.

If anything, our greatest barrier is "our side" believing "it can't happen" and therefore, effort would be futile (an immobilizing and self-fulfilling prophecy of course).

There is no downside to calling for Bush's head at this point.

[Neil Lisst]

7. Because we don't have a parliamentary form with a PM and ....

... and multiple parties.

[VPStoltz]

11. Did that form of government develop AFTER the government

of the U.S. was created? It would seem that those on the outside found our rules of getting rid of the bastards to much of a hurdle to jump. However, we have bred such a pack of assholes that we wouldn't have a government that lasted 6 months without a change were we to have a parliament.

[Burning Water]

16. Nope,

the English Parliament has been around for a lot longer than the United States. Although it has evolved some.

[tocqueville]

14. there are other systems but none is perfect

France has actually a semi-presidential system where the advantages of both systems are tried to be preserved. It worked "very well" the last 50 years (Fifth Republic), but the actual imbalance between the presidential power and the parliamentary part in favor of the president is widely discussed.

Probably will the next President initiate a reform where the parliamentary part will be reinforced. We are talking already about a 6th constitution.

Anyway a "Bush situation" could have happened in France too and it happened in the UK too - to some extent - with Blair, despite the parliamentary system.

I think that the main difference in a country like France (and I wouldn't "misunderestimate" the UK on that account either") would have been the popular pressure. The country would have exploded in strikes and mass demonstrations if a Bush-type had for example been exposed to conduct an illegal war. In a case like this, if the President has some sense of dignity (and survival), he dissolves the assembly, resigns and an interim government organizes new elections. Or else there is risk for severe and lasting unrest.

I wonder what Bush would do if confronted to a general national strike and an "Ukraine situation" that is to say millions occupying the surroundings of the WH and asking for his immediate departure. He could always declare martial law and call in the National Guard. Or go.

But then there is the fundamental question : which side the National Guard would choose ? It's not sure they'll obey the government. Many historical parallells can be shown.

There is the risk for an Army coup too, fueled by extremists. But it's not sure it would work either because the risk would be an overall insurgency...

I hope you'll never get there...

[enlightenment]

8. Because we do not have a parliamentary form of democracy

that relies on coalitions to maintain political stability.

on edit: can't spell!

[tocqueville]

10. coalitions and multiple parties are not a prerequisite

the main problem in the US is that the legislative power is too weak compared to the executive. Besides the judiciary is too strong too and a lot of issues are decided by the judiciary when in other countries it's settled by the legislative.

it's obvious that the US needs new institutions and a new constitution. I tried to initiate this debate here, but have met very little understanding.

probably an historical crisis will solve the problem one way or the other

[enlightenment]

17. I wasn't getting that deep

;-)

Mostly just pointing out that the American system does not allow (check the constitution) for "no confidence" votes in the fashion that the OP was referring.

You bring up an interesting debate -- one that I am way too tired to start tonight; still lecture to prepare for tomorrow (1820s history).
But I'll keep you in mind!
night.

on edit: to, too, two . . . that is the question.

[Robert Cooper]

20. that's not correct

The only way a no-confidence vote can work is if there are more votes for it than against it. I've never heard of members of the majority voting to throw themselves out of office, and I doubt it would ever occur: negotiations within the majority party would see to it.

Since your majorities hold the most votes, and because of this becomes the governing party, there is no chance for the opposition to get even more votes to defeat the governing party.

Only when the representation is split between three parties (or more) do you create the conditions where you might have a party that holds the most seats, but not enough to have a clear majority over all other parties. Those are the conditions needed for a no-confidence vote to win.

[bowens43]

12. They were thinking

that 4 years for president, 2 for representatives, 6 for Senators and life time appointments for supreme court justices is about right. I agree with them.

[FormerRepublican]

13. They were thinking we'd never have a President like Bush.

England's King George was really bad, but the American King George is a lot worse. England's King George grew up thinking he was supposed to be a despot. King George Bush is trying to turn a democracy into a dictatorship.

I think the one who got it right was Jefferson - he figured we'd need a revolution now and then to keep the tyrants out of power.

[tocqueville]

15. life time is a big mistake

The Europeans had a natural mistrust for judges (tend to be conservative and to form clans) and even if they agreed of an independent judiciary following Montesquieu principles of teh separation of powers, they separated the constitutional power of the judges from the interference on other legislation.

I don't know of a supreme court appointed for life in Europe. In France the maximal period is 10 years. Besides the parliament has a a much bigger role in apponting than in the US. And those judges can ONLY in pure constitutional matters. The appeals in normal civil or criminal cases go to an other, independent court.

[moondust]

18. And that's not all...

I think if we simply had a "President's Questions" period every week like they have in Britain it would weed out a lot of non-statesmen (e.g. crony/legacy/fanaticism-based Republicans) from ever seriously dreaming of living in the WH.

Time for some changes.

[Robert Cooper]

19. It's not that simple.

For a non-confidence vote to work, the govering party has to have too few representatives to defeat such a vote on its own. Furthermore, the government must discover that it cannot find supporting votes amongst any of the opposition parties.

Neither of these conditions exist in your federal government. With republicans holding majorities in house and senate, they'd defeat the motion much as we do in Canada when we have a majority government (which is usually the case).

However, you do have a right of recall which we lack. I'm not sure just how extensive or easy it is to invoke, but whenever we have a majority government we might as well be a dictatorship for all the attention the government spends on listening to people.

With only two parties in your system, there is zero chance you'll ever have a minority situation where the ruling party can be defeated.