Why don't USA have a parliament?

No they're not, your parties are small and precise on the political spectrum and ours are huge, The democratic party spans from literal communists to pseudo-right wingers, and the republican party has nationalist extremists in it too.

why is joe manchin in the democratic party if he always votes with republicans

Yes but to my knowledge in order to become a member of congress you have to become the biggest in your congressional district which is pretty much a presidential election on a small basis. Though people within both parties can vary a lot, I don't think you can name them coalitions since they still effectively are one party and most of the time in all districts it's a red vs blue fight, not issue vs issue vs issue.

Because politicians are free to vote for the other side if they want. Most don't because that would threaten their chance for reelection, but Joe is a centrist and has good people skills so he keeps getting elected
This wasn't always the case, Bipartisanship hasn't been this bad since the years before the civil war.

I was watching a documentary about the USA in the late 60s and 70s and it seemed like society was a complete and total mess back then as well. Maybe things will turn out fine.

>it seemed like society was a complete and total mess back then as well.
It's always been bad user. And it always will be.

No I meant to say that it was much worse than the decades before or after. Somehow it all stopped just when it seemed like the situation could only get worse. I think some people got killed on campus.

Democrats are actually very different from the left, but no one wants to fragment into different parties because the republicans already suppress the shit out of democracy here.

Majority of mutts can't count past 2

Two party systems prevent commies from taking over. Europe is now cucked due to this.

The better question is why is the executive the head of state and why do they even have parties when every body is elected separately?

>the US only has two parties

The two party system is only prevalent at the federal level, and even then there's roughy a dozen third party people.

But local level there's tons of independents, but at the federal level these independents ally with the two main parties.

It's idiotic to say we have two parties, because within said parties there is dozens of factions which could easily constitute an entire other political party if it was absolutely necessary.

>The better question is why is the executive the head of state
You realize head of state is the one that does diplomatic missions and such?

I believe you're thinking of head of government, and the only action that the president has in this regard is by signing bills into law. But if necessary Congress can, and has done before, get around this.

Attached: 1508522297084.jpg (250x211, 8K)

>and it's impossible to change it now
why

The only people who shill for “change” in the system (I.e. throwing up the constitution entirely) are commies so their party can gain a foothold in Congress. Our system is fine as it is

>The only people who shill for “change” in the system (I.e. throwing up the constitution entirely) are commies so their party can gain a foothold in Congress
you mean like 'drain the swamp'.

That’s different. Drain the swamp means throwing out corrupt forces in congress, commies want to overflow the swamp. Communism is corruption.

drain the swamp isn't the same thing lad

I get what he's saying, though saying it's only commies is silly. Fascists, hard-core socialists, and a few other "radicals" also shill for it. Though none of these groups have any real following.

It'd be nice if lobbyism was prohibited desu

Are Danish children particularly ignorant of the world?

Attached: senate chamber.jpg (2500x1875, 1.44M)

This. The US needs to switch to proportional representation instead of a district system

It is proportional, not all districts are the same size

>He says while posting the picture of a parliament that de facto has a two party system
The only reason DUP even matters is because the Conservatives lost so many seats to Labor, the only other party that matters.

If you weren't an idiot, you'd realize that it isn't an issue of presidential-parliamentary but FPTP-proportionate voting. Then again, a lot of Europeans get so butthurt about America they can't even get their facts straight.

Do you mean the Kent State shootings?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Also yeah,the US has collectively forgotten how dysfunctional the country was in the 60s - 70s. Literal race riots and hundreds of bombings. Both attempted as successful

>In a single eighteen-month period during 1971 and 1972 the FBI counted an amazing 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost five a day. Because they were typically detonated late at night, few caused serious injury, leading to a kind of grudging public acceptance.

time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/

Real truth: Because the USA had democracy first, and did a shitty job of it. All the European posers came afterward and improved upon the American system.

Your system is based on the Dutch system though.
And we changed it.

Is this what they teach in Europe?
No it abso-fucking-lutely wasn't.

More importantly, why is France a presidential republic and not parliamentary like all good european countries?

this. our system in the UK should be changed to proportional representation. It is by far the best system but it will not happen, because the two biggest parties are also the two parties who will lose the most if it happens

>they do

Attached: 1539630807622.png (1066x558, 63K)

To correct that guy, it took some inspiration from it. Because America took inspiration from everything, cherrypicking bits and pieces to create a system they liked. Federalism was in part inspired by the way the Dutch Republic's provinces worked, the trias politica was inspired by Montesquieu (whose own analysis of England was actually absolutely wrong, as he projected a lot of the way things worked in France unto Britain (like judges being in place for life rather than being appointed and dismissed by parliament)), there was obviously a lot of inspiration from the Roman Republic and surprisingly even bits and pieces from the Iroquois.

However, saying that the American system was based on the Dutch system would be a misrepresentation of the facts at best.

They are absolutely not. Have you ever noticed how they even hold internal elections? They started off as regular parties, sure enough, but they have become so deeply entrenched that democrats are basically just the vaguely left leaning coalition and republicans are vaguely right leaning coalition.

regards,

knows nothing about our system of government

France is semi-presidential/semi-parliamentarian though. Though personally I would prefer to say that France maintains pure parliamentarism rather than a collapsed version of it.

Parliaments existed to counterbalance the power of the king. In countries like England and the Netherlands, the king retreated and all power fell into the hands of parliament, de facto unifying the legislative and executive powers. In France, the king has been replaced by the president (which is why the 1958 constitution suspiciously resembles the 1791 constitution), meaning there's an actual power struggle between president and parliament.

It even maintains the system where the president-king is untarnishable (unless impeached) and the ministers are responsible. Parliament cannot dismiss the president, but they can dismiss the prime minister (who is a middle man through whom the president enacts his internal policies).

We were a republic 300 years before you. The first modern republic to overthrow a monarchy and question the divine right of kings. And started the enlightenment.

>The framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces. They took from the Dutch Republic the idea of a "sovereign union of sovereign states". They also took from the Dutch example the need for political and administrative power to be exercised and interlocked at different levels: local, regional and national.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_government_of_the_Dutch_Republic#Influence
So your states model is based after ours.

We also have two houses. One elected by the people and the other represent the states.

Does Britain have more than two parties in practice though? When was the last time you had a coalition not led by Torries or Labor? The various other junior parties in coalition are like the various internal factions of the Republicans and Democrats who wax and wane depending on which candidates win the primaries.

In the Netherlands each province is also free to make their own laws.
Each province also used to form their own militias.

Although in modern day Netherlands only universities are allowed to form their own militias.

Attached: Pro_Patria_op_het_Binnenhof.jpg (1024x683, 193K)

>We were a republic 300 years before you.
and look where we are now: licking the boots of an English puppet

Didn't think about it that way, interesting

>all these fucking faggots
The US has two houses of congress. We are not a democracy and only recently wanted to become one because democracy is fucking idiotic. See: Greece, Spain, Weimar Republic

And yes, we are superior to the UK. Every single US state is richer than the UK.

not to mention you have a KANG

>american talks
>"muh money xD"

Man USA is second world at best (in some areas). Money doesn't mean anything if you are a violent shithole with daily mass shootings.

Make it stop you idiots. None of this is true.
Provinces are completely powerless and will be gone by 2050.
America is not build upon any Dutch law system. They just took some inspiration from the Dutch republic.

s e e t h i n g

your view of like in the united states is tremendously skewed

At least in your countries you do not have High Chief of Country who forbids register any serious opposition force lmao

Our republic was dysfunctional.
>politicians come together in The Hague to discuss an issue
>afterwards politicians go back to their own province on horse to discuss it with their voters
>come back a week later in The Hague to do a counter proposal
>everyone goes back to their own province again on horse to discuss the implications with their voters again
Then Napoleon invaded us. And we realized this "emperor" was pretty good at making snap decisions. Which we could use with enemies such as the UK, France and Germany. So we kept Napoleon's monarchy.

In our current constitution it's forbidden for politicians to discuss things with their voters and party before voting. Of course our politicians ignore that law, but it's something that's remnicant from our republican times.

>Provinces are powerless
They are actually free to make any law, as long as it doesn't contradict a higher law.
Just like cities are free to make any law and is in full control of the local police. Which is why Amsterdam openly defies policies from our government.

sounds they neglected to include an elected executive branch

The writers of the American constitution also used us as an example on how not to do things.

Amsterdam is full of BLACK and MOROCCAN MEN who DONT need to be told what to do by white SISSIES.

Amsterdam doesn't openly defy anything they couldn't even get a ban on scooters on the bike lane.
And there isn't anything out there that hasn't been regulated over here. Seriously can't think of some type of law a province can draft that isn't in conflict with national law.

You are aware over half the budget of provinces is spend on maintaining provincial roads? The other half is maintaining their own buildings and paying their people. They don't do anything besides that anymore these days.

>elected
By electors who are appointed by state parties

See

Not him, but that's the problem with modern parliamentarism. With the exception of "semi"-parliamentarian countries, it generally is a collapsed version of parliamentarism. The independent head of the executive branch, the king who ruled for life, fell away. His power therefore fell on the prime minister, who (without an interventionist king to whom he's responsible) more and more became a direct extension of parliament.

they very nearly always 99.99% vote as their district compels them

>Amsterdam doesn't openly deny anything

>doesn't enforce traffic laws for bikers
>doesn't enforce squatting laws
>doesn't enforce drug laws
>doesn't enforce laws that forbid supporting illegals

>parties
Our constitution says nothing about parties. We're actually supposed to vote for individuals.
But some lefties cheated the system by forming parties, so the rest started doing it as well.

>Our constitution says nothing about parties. We're actually supposed to vote for individuals.
To be fair, that became impossible when district based voting was abolished in 1917.

You do know we have a national police force? All laws are enforced equally throughout the country with the exception of some bigger cities having their own little police force for parking tickets.

All laws are enforced equally throughout the country*

*except in Amsterdam where laws don't apply

Where did you read this? De Telegraaf? Amsterdam even had preventieve fouillering for a while meaning at train stations in the black neighborhoods police would randomly search you for weapons and drugs.

Remember when the government wanted to introduce the weed pass. So only Dutch nationals would be able to buy weed.

Amsterdam already announced they wouldn't enforce it.
So not to look like a fool our government decided to introduce it only in the south of the country.

Rightfully so it was the stupidest idea ever. They also didn't say they weren't going to do it, just that they would do everything they could to prevent it from happening.

off to the gulag for you

Based and redpilled

Who?

He doesn't.
West Virginia democrats are fiscally lean left while socially conservative, he is simply one of them

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system

huh really i always thought of the 60s and 70s of being the golden age of single income being able to run a white picket fence household without the autism of the 50s