State governments should switch to a parliamentary system because it's superior

This sounds a lot like making government work by not making it work.

Encouraging multiple parties by replacing the first-past-the-post method of electing representatives wouldn't be my choice for reform.

I doubt your ideas will be popular with people who rely on government services like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education and welfare.

 

Germany's parliament sucks so bad that even though the US taxpayer carries their defense costs, they still are in danger of not providing enough heat this winter to keep their folks from starving. They should dump their failing system and adopt US constitutionalism.

 

American hubris.

 

The initial claim that the German system was vastly superior wasn't hubris?

 

Totally unconstitutional, thank goodness.

 

It's superior notice how they aren't stuck in partisan bickering?

 

The constitution only requires a "Republican form of government" aka no royalty.

 

Here in America, we value the right to disagree. If you want to live under the German system, you are free to move.

 

The Constitution requires three, co-equal branches of government.

 

They disagree but work together to improve or maintain the quality of life of their citizens. Unlike in the US where one party appeases the wealthy

 

No it doesn't, in the early days of the constitution states had legislatures elect the governor's. The supreme court was also extremely weak until after the civil war.

Please quote where the constitution says states must maintain 3 co-equal branches of government.

 

If you prefer Germany, why are you still here?

 

A good analysis of what I said. I see federal government as a problem because of its size, cost and constantly getting out of its lane. The less it does the better.

For sure. Getting rid of political parties altogether would be my choice.

One of the consequences of government getting out of its lane. The reason gridlock is so important is that it kills partisan bills. When you have people wanting the government to give them things and a government wanting to give it to them, we end up where we are today. There isn't really any way to reform it. All hail gridlock.

 

Because it's not easy to move to another country, you have to pass a fluency test (I tried to learn German) plus Maryland is great been blue for 102 years the problem is the Federalist Society courts interfering in our laws.

 

AFAIK everything in your post is 100% accurate. However, it does not refute, or even try to refute, what I said in my post about authority to go to the Capitol.​

 

AFAIK this is completely accurate (it's how non separation of powers works), but so what?

 

If Maryland wants to adopt a parliamentary system, aren't they free to? Go ahead, we'll see how it works.

 

I am talking about the challenges Democrats made at the congressional count of the elecoral college vote in January 2001, not at all anything associated with the Florida brouhaha and court battle.

 

Articles 1, 2 and 3.

 

Whataboutism. You made some assertions about their system and country that are hardly fact. I wouldn't recommend our system because it has shortcomings we haven't been able to remedy.

 

"Hanging Chad" sounds like an Incel newsletter.

 

Does that hold true if adjusted for economic standing?

 

True. It is harder to get things done, but there is also a better protection from extremist ideology. Executive orders of the president is a terrifying thought to me.

 

And also free to change the system in the USA.

 

I think it's obvious any roadblock the DC Mayor might present to the President using the DC Metro Police, or the Secretary of Defense to the President using the DC National Guard would at best be temporary. Trump could have (did? did not?) let the DC Mayor and/or Secretary of Defense know they should be ready to implement a Presidential request.

Did or didn't Trump do his duty to protect the Capitol? So far, it looks as he came up woefully short.