Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott_w | Hacker News Reader

Compared to historic USA, perhaps, but compared to OTHER COUNTRIES, the US system has insane gridlock and, right now, a very unhappy public. What I’m pointing to is not that more power should shift to the executive but that it should be given to the legislature, and could happen in a way that reduces this gridlock.

Compare to the UK’s Parliament Act, which allows the Commons to override the Lords if it passes the same legislation in two sessions. It means that overriding isn’t free (it takes 1-2 years of focused effort) but critical legislation can’t be blocked. Combined with strict timetables that force rejection of legislation that isn’t passed in its allotted time, you bypass the pocket veto, too. Compromise is preferred but, if the upper house refuses to play ball, the threat of ramming it through anyway always exists to keep it in check.

View on HN

Honest question (including that since its sometimes hard to tell when written) -

What additional authority doss the US legislative branch need? They have pretty wide authority to create any laws that don't violate our constitutional rights, I don't know how we could really expand that further (but my view is definitely biased since I grew up here).

I think congress would be well within its rights to change their own rules to add time limits on legislation or required expiration on proposed bills, for example.

You’re thinking too high level and not looking at the mechanics. Congress has no power to, say, give the House of Representatives override the Senate and President. In the UK, this is not only possible but happened in 1918. The USA would require a constitutional amendment which falls into the same deadlock problem.

Some things do sit within Congress such as the Senate adopting the insane role allowing filibuster. However, this is also encouraged by the fact the Senate can kill legislation like this. Filibusters rarely happen in the UK Parliament because the majority party can force through legislation they feel is important enough.

You say that deadlock is built in as though this is desirable. However the public just became so frustrated by the system that they just elected a madman to smash it to pieces.

Encouraging compromise and working across the aisle is an excellent property in the US system. But that has broken down and I think part of the reason is there’s no mechanism to break the deadlock that can force parties back to the table.

We definitely agree on needing to better encourage compromise and collaboration. I'd much prefer that to be done by changing incentives rather than expanding powers though.

The US political system is completely broken with regards to lobbying and campaign finance. All the money floating around makes it nearly impossible for representatives to work across the aisle, or to ignore the aisle and vote for what their own state wants regardless of party.

I’m not talking about “expanding” power, merely proposing that the USA learn from other systems that have deadlock breaking systems, with limitations to mitigate abuse. I’m not sure taking money out the system will have the same effect, as we’ve seen Republicans gain a lot of political capital by just being obstructive since 2008.

Here is a example of an alternative system, that I would prefer: the legislative branch is the one that people vote for, (with proportional representation), and the legislative branch then elects the executive branch.

If there is ever a conflict between legislative and executive, then the legislative branch can remove the executive branch.

In other words: the president shouldn't be head of government (only head of state, sort of a figurehead).

Which other major countries have happier publics? The UK public seems at least as unhappy as the USA. UK citizens certainly aren't happy with low economic growth (everywhere outside London), high immigration, tiny houses, and decaying healthcare. Similar issues in Germany, etc.

I would argue that the much higher incidence rate of suicide and mass murder in the US compared to the UK or Germany suggests otherwise. Citizens in other developed countries seem much less prone to irrational, life changing outbreaks, that to me seems consistent with the idea that there is a deep current of unhappiness running through the American population that is causing people to “break”

Suicide rates are more a cultural artifact than a sign of national happiness level. The rates in an number of Arab countries are particularly low, even though people there seem to be deeply unhappy to the extent of trying to escape to Europe.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-r...

The US and Europe are culturally quite close, unlike to Arabia, so I think the comparison actually holds.

There is a compelling argument that the US is culturally much more like a highly developed version of a Latin American country than a European country. Over time I find myself coming around to this idea.

To the extent it's similar to any other culture I agree, the closest feels like brazil (to me) - but it's also very distinct, it's very much it's own thing in a way that few other cultures are (I would probably count the UK as one of those few by the way).

Latin America is all quite similar.

Mainland Europe is quite similar, bar the obvious exception.

Canada?

But the Donald is doing everything he can to stop that.

Canada and the US are very different places, I'm fairly astonished to hear that to be honest.

Canada may as well be British, except Quebec who are somehow more french than the french themselves.

if he is he’s doing a piss poor job of it (which of course is not surprising..) :)

I’d argue a lot of the unhappiness in the UK is a consequence of 5 years of a Tory government choosing not to govern. The public still have a hard time believing this fact because it sounds too insane to be true, no matter how much evidence we have for it!

Also, it doesn’t help that Labour are shit at comms. They’re actually doing what they were elected to do but don’t want to tell the public about it, much like the Biden administration!

But in the UK this effectively gives power to the executive. Our exec are drawn from the legislature, and most ruling party MPs will Have a government position - especially if the majority is slight.

It’s not a perfect system but it’s one that allows a party to push through the change they were voted to bring!

Should a minority of parliament, or the government in general, be able to force through what they think is best?

That seems like the kind of setup that works great until it goes very, very wrong.

It’s not a minority of Parliament though. It requires a majority vote, in two separate sessions, to be forced through (in essence, it takes up to 2 years). It’s not an easy system to abuse at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com