Parliamentary system in the US?

[Stravo]

Do you sometimes look in disgust at the horrible president in place and then find out that the opposition has only put forth a safe candidate who is essentially a weak carbon copy of the guy already in office giving you only a choice between the lesser of two evils and wished there was more?

Perhaps the Parliamentray system has it right and everyone gets a voice, from the Green party to whatever party can garner enough votes. When the opposition party of a 2 party system is no better or too afraid to BE an opposition what other option do we have?

[SirNitram]

If the people's voice says that the problem is you only get two choices, yes, a Parliment would work alot better. However, given the large amount of changes required, I doubt it will ever come to pass.

[Jalinth]

If the people's voice says that the problem is you only get two choices, yes, a Parliment would work alot better. However, given the large amount of changes required, I doubt it will ever come to pass.

Also, what type of parliamentary system are you looking at?
First past the post - style of Canada, UK - old Commonwealth.
Proportional representation - basically, take the # of votes and give that number of seats to the party. Most good systems have a threshold before you get anything (2% to 5% seem to be common).
Most Rep by Pop have coalition governments - these can be effective or notoriously ineffective (Italy is a prime example). Also subject to "blackmail" by small parties (Israel's ultra-Orthodox parties are good examples) that give them way too much clout.

Head of state vs head of government and power split. Commonwealth has Governor-General as head of state (little real power barring emergencies) - other countries have a President or other title (power depends on the system). The US (and many other Republics - rather than Parliamentary countries) combines the two roles into the Presidency.

In large countries (US/Canada), a simple party list system - you get X number from your list as MPs (which many European countries use in simple fashion), doesn't work. The countries are so large geographically that you almost need some geographic representation. This might be senators, or some other system - but you need to ensure that North Dakota and other small states feel they are represented in some fashion. Otherwise, separatism becomes a major concern.

Also, as SirN pointed out, trying to get a change through would be extremely difficult due to the constitutional requirements unless the system virtually collapses and people have no other choice - they elect a "Constitutional Change" Party with enough votes, seats and clout to make the necessary changes.

[Aeolus]

Do you sometimes look in disgust at the horrible president in place and then find out that the opposition has only put forth a safe candidate who is essentially a weak carbon copy of the guy already in office giving you only a choice between the lesser of two evils and wished there was more?

Perhaps the Parliamentray system has it right and everyone gets a voice, from the Green party to whatever party can garner enough votes. When the opposition party of a 2 party system is no better or too afraid to BE an opposition what other option do we have?

Can you even imagine the power the christian coalition would have in a coalition goverment? You think they are bad now.......

[Joe]

No, too many fringe extremists in America. The two-party system has its flaws but usually it promotes moderation.