by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:
I’m not sure whether the two-party legislature (bicameral legislature plus a separate Executive) system we have here in the United States or the parliamentary (many parties, Parliament chooses the “Prime Minster” so effectively there is no separate Executive) system is more or less immune from the dynamics involved here.
The founders had plenty of experience with the Parliamentary style of government as it, and Monarchy, were both common before the United States. They eschewed both, and described why in their writings. Whether they picked the frying pan to escape the fire I’m not so sure.
The basic problem with changing the government’s position and action by voting is that in order for it to succeed you must be able to vote for representation in at least one branch that is opposed to, and will stick to being opposed, the policy you insist be changed.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
If you can’t do that because all the candidates you can vote for will do the thing that is causing the problem your only answer to effecting actual change is the same as theirs: either believable threats of or actual violence.
It would be nice if there was some unicorn style way around the problem but it is true, and in many areas of policy you cannot find two inches of difference between Democrats and Republicans (for example.) I’m not talking about words: I’m talking about actual, articulated and “stick to guns” policy which either becomes law or the body in question refuses to act on anything else until it is.
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly in the United States the House can do this and that design by the Founders is intentional. Since the House must initiate all spending and revenue bills, and there is no Constitutional method available to go around that requirement it is always possible for a simple majority of the House to enforce any policy they hold sufficiently important, no matter what it is.
We destroyed the similar capacity in the Senate which was supposed to be the States’ check and balance at the federal level when we passed the 17th Amendment. Prior to that a state legislature that found the activity of its Senators unacceptable could forcibly recall them. This again was intentional by the Founders and destroying that was both stupid and has directly led to where we are today.
Today, I ask, what option do you have if neither party, both of which have complete control over who they seat in committees and can torpedo a run for office under either of their banners through policy changes, primary support which can include ridiculous sums from outside of the district or even the state in question and similar, will actually stand up particularly when some group other than their alleged “constituents” is running around with a wheelbarrow full of money effectively bribing (or threatening to blackball) all of them, whether its technically a bribe or not?
There is nothing left in that instance available to you through the political process, is there?
