-

 Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer

I simply believe that the framework of our Constitution has been far more successful than others, and especially the parliamentary systems you appear so fond of. They are close kin, but I think a system of regularized period elections is more effective than one where the government can be toppled on a whim of the electorate.



I may be misunderstanding you, but you seem to have some strange notions about parliamentary systems.

I know of no parliamentary system that can "be toppled on a whim of the electorate." All parliamentary systems are indirect democracies --- just as is the system of government of the USA. Governments can only fall by a majority vote of the representatives in the legislature, or by the resignation of the government, which usually leads to a general election.

Wikipedia: PARLIAMENT

The conservative part of me strongly supports indirect democracy. Just as much as the John Birchers and the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution, I distrust the "mob" and its fickle, empty-headedness.

In this respect I agree with the instigators of the American Rebellion, though I like to point out the Founding Fathers' anti-democratic statements, in order to provide a much-needed antidote to the semi-religious veneration which so many Americans feel toward that pack of scoundrels and traitors.


P.S. I am not so sure that the direct election of Senators, nor the holding of referenda, as they presently are conducted, constitute an improvement in the American system of government.


Edited by numan (05/15/09 09:11 PM)
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools -- Herbert Spencer