Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrleinad | Hacker News Reader

King Charles should just leave the American continent.

It's ironic that the US might currently do better with a (constitutional monarchy) king, to serve as an ethical example of living and governance, and change the role of the president to more of a serving bureaucrat

Have you read John Steinbeck's "The Short Reign of Pippin IV?" [0] All political sides in France frustrated decide to create a constitutional monarchy. The Communists supported the idea because it would give everyone something to revolt against.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Short_Reign_of_Pippin_IV

In the UK we've been lucky with our royalty recently, but with a different roll of the genetic dice we'd have Randy Andy as king instead of Charles.

Anyway, you have kings, you just elect them and call the presidents, but they have basically the same political role and powers as George III did in the 1790s cut-and-pasted across. The USA needs to get itself a decent parliamentary system.

> decent parliamentary system.

Isn't that an oxymoron? Parliaments have their democratic shortcomings compared to powerful presidents. And vice-versa. Nations with parliamentary rule are plagued by having heads of state and ministers which weren't in any way, shape, or form elected by the population. A president is at least a democratically elected ruler to represent the people.

Parliamentary democracy has a far better track record than presidential systems. Basically all presidential democracies are shit have had had huge problems, except maybe the USA, which is of course no longer even really a western country any more.

> Parliamentary democracy has a far better track record than presidential systems.

Yes, if you make an exception for Germany.

Even if you don't make an exception for Germany. Nobody is claiming parliamentary systems are completely immune to instability or overthrow, or moral hazard, and the holocaust didn't occur under a parliamentary system. Presidential systems invest too much power in one person, and that's a severe risk of overconcentration.

Parliaments are democratically elected to represent the people, and every member of parliament is equal before it. The UK prime minister is answerable to the people via parliament at all times, must face questions from MPs regularly, and can lose power from a majority vote at any time. We can all see that the impeachment process in the USA is fatally flawed, it just can’t function as intended.

The kind of powers Kinge George III had and exercised in the 1780s and 90s were a quirky historical accident of a constitutional system in flux. Freezing that structure in place in the US, even with a democratic mandate and other admitted improvement, is another historical accident.

Who today would look to Britain in 1790 as a template for constructing a modern constitution?

Yes, I think everybody here knows how a parliamentary system works.

But the head of state selected by parliament is not elected by the people. A president is.

I'd argue almost the opposite: America's governing system (and the political culture of rejecting hereditary rule) is a big part of why it became so successful.

There's arguably a straight line from the Commonwealth's greater deference to inherited authority to today's tolerance of weak borders, stagnant growth, and declining economic mobility. A king seems like more of the thing that caused the problem, not the solution.

Look at all the presidential systems in the rest of the Americas, they're all mega fucked and third world. Of course the USA Empire is also currently collapsing.

Parliamentary democracy has a better track record, for sure.

Bad analogy if you're Canadian

Reply on news.ycombinator.com