Well plenty of bugs still persist in the later, updated models.
The problem being the US model is “preserved in aspic”. due to veneration of the Founding Fathers.
And the generally hateful nature of the public.
The US President has vastly more power than the 18th century British monarch.
The U.S. “no confidence” vote is 2/3 of the House followed by 2/3 of the Senate.
There are certain advantages to not having the leader of the government fired every time a bill doesn’t pass.
Are we not counting vacating the Speaker’s Chair in the House as the US equivalent of a no-confidence vote?
The Speaker of the House controls one-half of one branch of a tripartite government, and it’s not even the executive branch.
Given how infrequently this occurs, patently it wonderfully concentrates the mind of the leader on the practicalities of legislation to ensure this doesn’t happen.
Conversely, there are certain disadvantages of not being able to remove the leader of the government for egregious “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
It’s not every bill, only matters of confidence (at least in Westminster systems, I don’t know the details of the French system). So, budgets and explicit non-confidence motions, basically although a government can decide to treat a major bill outside of those categories as a matter of confidence if it wants to. Doesn’t have to, though. If your government can’t pass a budget or defeat a non-confidence motion, it has no business still being the government.
No. For the reasons already mentioned, plus in the Westminster system the Speaker can be defeated, and it’s not considered a confidence vote, so why should it be treated that way in the US system?
Vacating the chair doesn’t trigger elections or a re/org of cabinet or affect the executive branch in any way in the US. It’s purely within one house of the legislative branch.
In the Westminster system, a confidence matter is a vote by the legislative branch on the fitness of the executive to continue in office. If passed, it normally triggers a nation-wide election of the legislative branch.
Vacating the chair is simply not analogous.
Back to the topic: if Lecornu can persuade other parties to join in a compromise budget, it would be a miracle, I suspect. Each has its own red lines of things not to do that one or another of the other parties regard as non-negotiable must-dos - and all with the background calculation as to what makes for their best electoral chances.
All reminiscent of the end of the IVth Republic - extreme left and right inadmissible to coalition government but not quite strong enough to make it on their own. But this time, no De Gaulle waiting in the wings with a Vth Republic constitution ready in his pocket.
At least budget disputes aren’t quite as high-stakes poisonous as the Algerian question was then, but the obvious ways out (new elections, referendum on budget proposals) don’t look likely to change much in the balance of forces.
Right. In the US system, the concept of “a government” in the parliamentary sense doesn’t really exist. Our “governments” in that sense are basically defined by the biennial Congressional elections more or less, which are in a certain sense, confidence referendums, in that who gets elected to Congress reflects the public’s confidence in the way the country’s governed.
Otherwise we’re not structured in a way that allows for confidence votes. The President is elected for fixed four year terms, senators for six years, and reps for two. The only thing that’s remotely close is the internal election of the Speaker of the House by the House of Representatives. But that’s for one body, and has no effect on the Cabinet secretaries, President, etc… unlike parliamentary democracies, where their equivalents all shift around with the formation of a new government.
That, to me, looks like a recipe for trouble. They’ve barely got their feet under the table before they need to start campaigning for re-election, surely?
I don’t know… it’s worked like that for 238 years, so it would seem to be ok. Most end up reelected anyway, except for very contentious districts, redistricting, or scandals.
I think the main differentiator is the fixed terms. Unlike in parliamentary systems where the PM and various other ministers serve as part of that particular government, the Cabinet secretaries in the US serve at the pleasure of the President, albeit confirmed by the Senate. So it’s not just a simple appointment, but barring the change of a President or their mind, the Cabinet secretaries and other Federal appointees are there to stay. No amount of Congressional shenanigans can change that.
Of course, the confirmation process can be politically loaded, but that’s a one-time thing per appointee.
Moderating:
Let’s try to stick to discussing the French political situation, not that in the USA. Quite a few posts have veered off topic. Start a new thread if you want. Thanks.
For better or worse a snap election is the only way out of this. Or a coup.
I don’t agree that an election will solve anything. The battle lines are drawn and the respective forces are too well entrenched. I agree with this:
I would expect a new election to just further cement the logjam in place. It’s possible the French public might discover the appetite to sufficiently shuffle the balance of power to enable movement one direction or another, but from my position just across the border, I simply don’t see it.
I just got back from spending three weeks in France (right before the latest failure), and there is a lot of casual political chatter that suggests people are acutely aware of the mounting crisis. (The guy who rented us our airbnb for the week we were in la Drôme Provençale wanted to how the French situation was being perceived by the Luxembourgeoises.) But I didn’t hear anything that makes me think anyone will be giving ground any time soon.
Well, the new prime minister is not getting a honeymoon:
Have they started building barricades? Once the French start building barricades, all bets are off.
Especially if they start singing.
Then we all end up miserable