Some say that the reason interest groups are so powerful in the US is due to the system of checks and balances (as well as the two party system). So, they claim, in order to reduce the power of interest groups, we need to switch to a parliamentary system (perhaps with proportional representation). Others claim that interest groups would be just as powerful in such a system. You need to answer three questions:
1. Would a shift to a parliamentary system reduce the power of interest groups?
2. Would that only happen if it were accompanied by a shift to proportional representation?
3. In light of that, as well as your view of the current role of interest groups, would such a shift be a good or bad thing? Explain.
You should consider the things we've talked about in class, as well as the readings where relevant, but you should also head out into the vastness of the Internet and consider the wide array of arguments that people have made on these questions. Value academic sources over journalistic sources, but value both over random ramblings of someone with a laptop. Again, feel free to engage in spirited but civil debate with your colleagues.
Blog assignments are due by 7 am on Wednesday, March 26, and they are worth 25 points. Good luck!--NB
I do not believe a shift to a parliamentary system alone would weaken the power of interest groups. I also do not think that a shift to proportional representation in addition to shifting to a parliamentary system would weaken interest groups. Instead, I think that a shift to a parliamentary system would weaken interest groups if the party system in the US were to be strengthened. An example of how a single member district parliamentary system can work at lowering interest group strength can be found in England. In England, the party system is incredibly strong and able to keep members voting with the party in Parliament. If the current system in the US were maintained, allowing interest groups to essentially finance elections while parties are a lesser figure, shifting to a parliamentary system would likely be of little consequence.
ReplyDeleteAs can be seen on a (older) page from the University of Virginia, the American system is also different from most other systems in the world in that we have a high degree of separation of powers. This occurred by design, but also means that there is less ability to enforce party unity throughout the government (i.e. the President and Members of Congress are not members of the same institution and serve different constituencies, unlike the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system).
That being said, I do believe that a shift to a parliamentary system would be a good thing if we were able to strengthen the parties. I think this not only because it would limit the role of interest groups, but also because it would be able to cure up much of the obstructionism that is so common in Congress today. The interest groups would likely have to form their own parties and run for a seat in order to try to influence elections. However, I find that it would be unlikely they would win enough seats to be of any consequence. Even if enough interest groups did win to be able to form a coalition government, they would likely have to compromise so much to be successful that the effects would be muted. In any event, it would be unlikely they would be able to form a viable party due to Duverger’s Law. In sum, I think a shift to a parliamentary system would be a good thing, if it occurred in conjunction with a stronger party system, no matter how unlikely both of those outcomes are.
See: http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma98/pollklas/thesis/systems.html
I do not believe a shift to a parliamentary system would reduce the power of interest groups in the U.S. Interest groups already have such an influence in our government that they would not be as affected as the two major political parties would be. Successful and well established interest groups would simply become their own individual party. Although there would be a lot of parties running for seats in parliament, it wouldn't really change much from what they have to do now. In our current government, interest groups still have to fight for their issues to be represented in congress. Also if we switched to a parliamentary system, successful interest groups have the capital to run effective and competitive campaigns. So either way the Interest groups would be competitive in getting their issues on the agenda. Actually some interest groups might even grow stronger in a parliamentary system because they wouldn't have to allocate their money across the whole republican or democratic parties anymore, they could just solely spend it on getting their individual interests into parliament.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I do believe that if the switch to a parliamentary system was accompanied by a shift to proportional representation then it would cut down the power of interest groups. This is because if interest groups were to become their own parties and were forced to run for office in a proportional representation system then they would only get a portion of their party into seats in parliament. So even if they won a majority vote, they would still only get the same number or seats as they did percentage of votes. So it would be fair, they would only get votes if people really thought their interests were more important than another parties interests. The wealth of that interest group wouldn't be as big of a factor because the voting would be much more split knowing that they will be proportionally represented. So each person will vote for the party that they feel best represents them individually instead of which party best fits the nation. So voting will be much more split causing interest groups to lose their power
Personally I believe the possible shifts to parliamentary system with proportional representation would not be good for the United States. Although I believe interest groups are bad for our current government I don’t believe the shift to a parliamentary system would affect their influence dramatically. So the change would be pointless. Also I believe if we changed government styles at this point people would give up on politics all together. People already have a negative view of politics, they hardly pay attention, and barely know how it our current system works. If we changed to a parliamentary system, people would just ignore politics because they wouldn't take the time to learn the system and how it works. So believe it or not, I think people would pay attention even less than they already do now. which is why we should not switch to a parliamentary system with proportional representation.
I imagine that a shift to a parliamentary system would, overall, reduce the power of interest groups. I think that interest groups would still play a large roll in American politics, but on a smaller level than in a presidential system. It seems to me that interest groups would focus more on influencing the voters on issues rather than using their money to directly affect conflict in legislation. The structure of a parliamentary system being that the head of the government is, often, also the head of legislature, allows for a quicker legislation process and the majority party pushing their agenda forward. Interest groups then, would use their influence leading up to elections and would be forced to align with a particular party rather than just using influence to pass a specific bill on an issue that they support. Considering that the majority party will push their platform through the legislature and usually follow the platform that they ran on, this would force some responsibility onto interest groups to make their alignment pre-election and possibly force certain interest groups to align with one another. Their focus would fall primarily on the American voter and specific party as opposed to specific politicians who could cause stalemate in the legislature on behalf of the interest. I do think that this shift would strongly depend on an equal shift to proportional representation, as this would be a huge factor in forcing interest group/party alignment. I think that both shifts would be a good thing for the US, especially considering that it would almost certainly be accompanied by more responsibility for interest groups as well as the parties that they support. This would also, I imagine, put more pressure on the voters to decide on the agenda that they want in place by both the executive and legislature with the two coming hand in hand. This would alleviate some of the tension that we currently have, with the president and focus of legislation being in competition that is widely influenced by interest groups and their pull with individual leaders.
ReplyDeleteJoshua (JT) Pittman
With interest groups ever growing power in American politics, it’s only fitting to look at our neighbors to see if their government structure would have different effects regarding these groups. Given what we discussed in class, I believe that a Parliamentary system of government with proportional representation could in fact reduce the power which interest groups have in our politics today. I do not see the power of interest groups being completely diminished by changing the structure of our government, however, it will lead to them having less direct influence. What I mean by this is that their power may come in different ways. Instead of their current stranglehold in politics, it would force interest groups to shift their efforts to the voters themselves, as some of my other classmates have stated.
ReplyDeleteThough there are a few possible benefits in this change in government structure to a Parliamentary system, overall, I do not feel the pros outweigh the cons. Interest groups do pose a problem to the current state of politics, but I do not see them to be a big enough problem to be solely responsible for a restructuring of the American government. Further, I feel that the deterrence of interest groups, to whatever degree, does not equate to the drastic change of completely changing the government of the United States.
Brett Custer
A shift to a parliamentary system of government would significantly enhance the powers of interest groups because instead of financing elections for those candidates that fight for their particular ‘interest’ or goal, they can manifest themselves into political parties. Take England for example, their parliamentary system of government possess an over-excessive amount of political parties—Many any of these parties in fact have not seen the inside chambers of the Palace of Westminster in years. In showing how well represented the people are in parliament, political parties such as Animal Count—whose primary focus replicates that of the American interest group, PETA—joined the hunt for election in 2006. Take for example the Monster Raving Loony Party, their main area of concern was to install air conditioning units outside of homes and businesses because they firmly believed it would combat climate change. Political parties like the two mentioned above would have terrible track records in our Congress, but that does not mean their voices went unheard. Although they may only have a few representatives, they are still able to influence policy and spread the message about their own party. Which is only a mere dream to some small interest groups.
ReplyDeleteAccompanying a parliamentary style of government with proportional representation would help satisfy the needs of American interest groups because it open seats up that were held by either Democrats or Republicans for years. Thus, giving these groups an equal opportunity to run and win election. By having even the slightest chance of winning, it allows these groups to grow and expand their message across millions of people.
With that being said, I believe a shift to a parliamentary system of government, in addition to proportional representation will work out for the betterment of the country. Not only does this allow more voices to be heard but it also gives a fighting chance to those organizations/parties to pass legislation that favors their members. Our two party system of government hasn’t been this polarized in decades. So by adding more voices and ideas into the mix, I think we may we see a decrease in partisanship and an increase in efficiency. If more people feel as though their opinion is being heard throughout the new groups, the country could potentially see the total number of people voting on Election Day to skyrocket.
Sources: http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/parties/
http://www.lbc.co.uk/political-parties---what-they-all-stand-for-21202
Michael Quillen
I believe that a shift to a parliamentary system of government would reduce the power of interest groups, but only because that they would simply just turn into a party instead of just an interest. Parties are weaker here in the U.S. than in other countries and that's in part due to interest groups. So parties would have to become stronger. Strong interest groups would then have the money and resources to run strong campaigns and get their issues to the top of the agenda which is really isn't much different from what our system is like now. I think that it could possibly work though if it came along with the proportional representation. It could increase voter turnout because of the vast majority of parties you would have. Votes may be spread out across more than just the Democratic or Republican party. I still don't think switching the style of government would be the right thing to do though.
ReplyDeleteAs one classmate mentioned earlier, so many people in this country already pay zero attention to politics. Many are just completely turned off by them because it is viewed as two sides just arguing back and forth for years and years. Our current system has been in place forever and lots of people still don't understand it, living with it their entire lives. I don't see how introducing and teaching something new to a bunch of people who already show little interest in politics will help our country at all.
I do not believe that a shift to a parliamentary system would reduce the power of interest groups. If there were a scenario where our government switched to a parliamentary system third parties would prop up with the support of interest groups who would be lobbying for a certain agenda. Interest groups would still have some serious power within American politics. These interest groups would still be hiring lobbyists, putting out issue ads, and would still be donating to campaigns. I also believe that a shift to a parliamentary system accompanied by a shift to a proportional system would only increase the power of the interest groups in this country. I believe this because it would open up more opportunities for them and their third parties to take seats away from the Republicans and the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion that interest groups play an important role in American politics. If the United States was to shift to a parliamentary system the role that interest groups plays would only expand, which may not in fact be a good thing. As much as it may be a bad thing, I do believe that a parliamentary system would be beneficial for the country as a whole. More opinions and ideas could be represented. All of the independent voters would be able to find their political niche so to speak. As a result voter turnout would increase I believe as well which is very important.
I do believe a shift to a parliamentary system would reduce the power of interest groups as we see them now. However many powerful interest groups would create their own political party and essentially have just as much power, if not more. With the influx of more parties, it would weaken the others and not strengthen a particular few. Though because many interest groups turned political parties would be single issue parties that gained minimal seats, if a proportional representation system would be implemented along with a parliamentary system. It is possible that multiple parties could form a coalition that would be stronger than the current Democrat or Republican parties, respectively. If the parliamentary system would limit spending in districts, like we discussed in class, it would be a start to curbing the power of interest groups. With that being said I find it hard to believe interest groups that are so deeply embedded into our political environment would go away easily and would find a way to exert their power into the political arena. Aside all of that the US Constitution would have to be amended, which is no easy task.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the reduction of power by interest groups is a good thing. However, I do not believe switching to a parliamentary system would be the best remedy. Altering the Constitution so dramatically is something most people are not comfortable with and those in power do not wish to do so. I believe the most effective way that has been introduced would be the current system but with a proportional representation. This would curb interest group power because the money provided to campaigns would not result in a clean sweep of representation.
Brad Shambaugh
Interest groups have a huge influence in the United States government. They have a lot of pull because of the money they can raise. They can influence specific issues with money. So I don’t see a switch to a parliamentary system effecting interest groups. I don’t believe that interest groups would be affected by a shift in proportional representation either. Since interest groups are so big in the government it would be hard for a parliamentary system to effect them. Since the parties in the US are weaker than others, interest groups will grow stronger and influence the parties even more.
ReplyDeleteBut if there was a parliamentary system to be use it would be good if and only if the parties became stronger. Right now they are too weak and that is why interest groups have so much influence in politics in America. If the parties were to become stronger then it would help reduce the influence that interest groups have in the parties. So therefore I think it would be a good thing if parties were stronger.
Personally, I do not believe that a change in the United States government to a Parliamentary system would have a large effect on the impact of interest groups in politics. Although there are some similarities, a parliamentary system would be quite a bit different than the type of government we see in the United States now. First of all, there would be more parties. Some may say that there is too much party allegiance currently in the United States and citizens and politicians alike are afraid to vote against their party's standard. That is a fair point, but a parliamentary system would just see more parties rise to relevance. In this scenario, it is likely that interest groups would still pump major money into advertising, but the candidates who support their agendas may be strewn across multiple parties who share similar ideology in different areas of politics.
ReplyDeleteA proponent of a parliamentary system in the United States could point to other first world countries with a parliament who do not see as big of an impact from interest groups as the United States, but that does not mean the same would occur here. The United States is currently fueled by big business, that is just the way it is. Interest Groups and Super PACs are just one of them. Although this could certainly be changed, it would take slow, systematic change, and it would not just involve politics.
Realistically, even if someone opposed the involvement that interest groups currently have in American politics, a change to a parliamentary system just isn't realistic at this point in time and it really is not realistic in the foreseeable future either. There are far too many speedbumps in changing to something like that for it to ever happen, never mind the fact that there are bigger issues at hand for government to deal with first, if they could ever work together at all.
Chris Cocuzza
I do not believe that a shift to a parliamentary system would reduce the power of interest groups. Although it’s thought that without the two part system the power of interest groups would be taken I away I believe this to be false. Interest Groups most of the time only act in the interest of the people that are apart of them. However, these groups do this by using money, and where there’s a way to fill the pocket of any person or group there will be interest groups that form. If you were to take away the procedure of having politician’s pockets be filled with money then you would take away the power of interests groups.
ReplyDeleteThe shift to proportional representation would decrease some power of interests because only the groups with sizable money would be able to have an effect. However, by changing to a proportional representation system this would just allow interest group leaders to become part of it and you have a whole new problem. The underlying cause in both systems is money. Politicians seek reelection before anything else, and the way of gaining it is by receiving money from interest groups and doing what they want. As for these interest groups forming, it goes back to the first day of class where we spoke that any group of people with like interests are going to get together and try to make things happen. Obviously they must beat the free rider problem, but most big groups don’t struggle with this problem.
The shift to a parliamentary system may possibly be a good thing, but I doubt we ever find out. We are one of the most stable governments in the world for a reason that being our government system works. Some people might counter argue that by saying in recent years it hasn’t been doing so well, but this means that our government is actually working correctly. When our founding fathers were drafting the constitution James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton critiqued the constitution by writing the federalist papers. Stated in Federalist Paper 51 a known quote from it is “ambition must counteract ambition”, this is exactly the reason why our government has thrived in the free world. Granted these men weren’t thinking about all the interest groups we have today, but in my opinion it has worked this long why should we change it?
If a member of Congress were to ever seriously propose that we shift from a presidential system to a parliamentary system, interest groups would heavily lobby against it. Why? Well, the simple fact is that they would lose power under a parliamentary system. In the Unites States, we have a presidential system that prides itself for its “checks and balances” component. The “checks and balances” component, however, pits branches of government against each other; in essence, it gives the branches “veto” power over each other. On top of that, the United States has a federal system that divides power between the federal, state, and local levels. These two factors have serious consequences for interest groups’ power, in that, they allow interest groups to have vast access to, and lobby to, individuals that have varying levels of policy-making power. In a parliamentary system like in the U.K., power is concentrated in one main branch: the legislative branch (aka Parliament). While there is an executive branch, its power is derived from the majority party/coalition in the Parliament. There are no separate elections for members of the U.K.’s executive branch; therefore, there is not as great of an opportunity for interest groups in the UK to have multitude of individuals with varying levels of policy-making power to influence/lobby.
ReplyDeleteA shift to proportional representation would further lessen the power of interest groups. In the United States, we have a “winner-takes-all” system where majority rules. According to Duverger’s law, the U.S. should (and does) have a two-party system. If we were to switch to proportional representation, a party would’t need a majority of the vote. They would just need to form a coalition that makes up a majority of the government, thus inviting parties to form. In a system with limited number of parties, the parties will have to be broad in appeal; however, in a system with a multitude of parties (which proportional representation encourages), parties can have a narrower appeal. Parties in a system with proportional representation, therefore, take on the roles of interest groups because the parties tend to advocate for only a select number of issues. In short, if the U.S. were to switch to a system of proportional representation, the power of interest groups would lessen because I think we would see some of the interest groups turn into parties themselves.
If the U.S. were to ever shift to a parliamentary system and/or a system that includes proportional representation, it would be monumental (although it will never happen). While, yes, the system we have here in the U.S. does cater to interest groups more so than in the U.K., the U.K. is not free from influence of interest groups. Also, we cannot forget that there are many pros to have a large number of interest groups. As for shifting to proportional representation, I think we would just see interest groups turn themselves in political parties; therefore, i do not believe that shifting to proportional representation would have much of a positive impact on our current system. While we, as Americans, love to criticize the power of interest groups, they are here to stay.
As I am sure it can be reasonably imagined and as has been addressed by my fellow students, the type of system a country operates under is a major factor in how big or small the role of interest groups will be. The power of United States' political parties is relatively weak comparatively due to the separation of powers, because the President and Congress are elected independently of one another and with different platforms and people to serve. This allows for disassociation between Congress and the President, who are often of different party systems (one being Democrat and the other Republican). When this occurs, the road to passed legislation is laden with difficulties because the two branches cannot agree. In contrast, in a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister's election depends primarily upon support in Parliament; the powers are not separated and they are of the same party; there is a much stronger unity. Therefore, interest groups would not have as big of influence when the loyalty of the parties is not weakened by polarity in the executive and legislative branches. However, in doing this, the interest groups would be able to create their own parties to be represented, and since we would only be changing the system and not the amount of money the interest groups have already accrued, they could still spend a lot getting their positions heard and backed, thus giving them more power in a parliamentary system that way. So, I believe the only way to reduce the power of interest groups by implementing a parliamentary system would be to include proportional representation, so that the groups, even if they are a majority, would only get as many seats as they did votes, thus reducing their power drastically.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe this would more than likely reduce the power of interest groups, yet I believe over time, they could possibly find ways to increase their power (using wealth, bribery, etc.) Also, as we mentioned in class and others have mentioned, it would be difficult to get the American people to rally behind this switch when the presidential system has been ingrained into the society since it was founded, so though it may help it may be unrealistic.
India Ross
Personally, I’m not so sure that a shift to a parliamentary system of government would significantly reduce the power of interest groups in the United States. Interest groups and Super PACS have the tremendous influence on political affairs because of the money they are able to raise and contribute to parties and individuals. This influx of money would not change, and I think that their influence could possibly become even more prominent, as interest group leaders could focus their time and money into their own campaigns. This type of political system would at least give them a decent chance at success, unlike the two-party system in place that can essentially determine a democrat or republican winner before they have won.
ReplyDeleteThe United States is a unique case when considering the effect of a parliamentary system, because our system of checks and balances can very well be considered the strongest in the world. It’s hard to imagine how politics would be affected if imperative issues were not always being tossed back and forth around Congress.
I do believe if proportional representation were in place, there would be less impact from interest groups, because biases toward a particular candidate or party affiliation would not have as great of an impact, as voting would be more aligned. Without several sectors of government arguing and opposing on singular issues and topics, many interests can be addressed and handled in a timely manner.
Logistically, I do believe that a parliamentary system would be positive for the American political system. This would likely eliminate a litany of issues that remain unresolved in Congress every year. This isn't to say that our current system of government is not successful. However, it’s hard for me to imagine a transition that would occur smoothly and without resistance from the two-party system and interest groups alike.
I do believe that a parliamentary system with proportional representation would decrease the power of interest groups. However, I believe that proportional representation is key here. I think with this system there is a greater chance of residents being more satisfied with the people 'they elected', and therefore should keep the concept of interest groups at bay. I don't think that they would go away completely because they are needed and obviously not everyone is always satisfied, but I do believe that their intensity would decrease. I think there would be a decrease in the money spent, because of the multiple parties. Instead of supporting two large groups, there are various, therefore the money is more dispersed. I feel like it's unlikely for each group to have so much money that they are completely dominating over others.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I would want such a particular shift in government, though. For all intents and purposes, I do stand by what I said above but that does not necessarily mean I would want to wake up tomorrow with a parliamentary system of government. Though the United States's government has its flaws, overall I have to say that I like the way we do things here. I like the two parties, and I like the power of interest groups. I can't say that they've become a huge, out of control problem and nor has our government. At the end of the day, I'll pick the US government over any other country.
I believe the transfer to a parliamentary system would increase the power of interest groups. Rather than vying for the attention of Republican or Democratic candidates to represent their interests in legislation, these groups would form individual political parties. I admittedly agree with my peer Michael Quillen; while some parties may have more success, may be heard and better received by a larger audience, the increased representation, defending unique and varied stances on a multitude of issues, could only help our current state of affairs.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, while I project that the transfer to a parliamentary system would be effective in and of itself, I do believe that the shift to proportional representation is also a necessity. In class we jokingly discussed the possibility of the NRA manifesting in a proportional parliamentary system as “The Gun Party,” while this group may gain great favor with those in rural areas or of conservative views and capitalist means, it would be equally represented and forced to interact with other parties, for instance, maybe “The PETA Party.” This will decrease and definitely change the power financial contribution has in the electoral system. Switching from a weak bipartisan system to parliamentary system would increase interparty dialogue and compromise, the potential for legislation to be passed on a parties’ behalf, and the political climate of the greater U.S.
My classmate Chris Nelson suggested that a change from our current system to a parliamentary system would be ineffective or detrimental, but he seems to contradict himself. If the reason our current population is ignorant of, disinterested and disappointed in our governmental system, is that we don’t have a voice, why wouldn’t they be intrigued and interested in a system in which the voice of their interest group is proportional represented and considered? I agree with Chris Cocuzza that a shift to a parliamentary system is unrealistic, actually enacting such a great change in our government and culture is unheard of, but that’s the problem in and of itself. My classmate states quite eloquently “there are far too many speedbumps in changing to something like that for it to ever happen, never mind the fact that there are bigger issues at hand for government to deal with first, if they could ever work together at all,” but this statement ironically shows why we need a proportional parliamentary system in and of itself.
I am very certain that a shift to a parliamentary system would increase the power of interest groups if it were done through proportional representation. If anything I think there would be an explosion of interest groups since people would realize that they could actually have a realistic chance to be directly involved in policy making. Parliamentary systems where a party only needs a small percentage to get representation leads to a more pluralistic political environment. In today’s climate a third party will never get representation on the national level. With a parliamentary system, the larger interest groups would steal voters from the democrats and the republicans and especially from the group of people that call themselves independent. I’m not saying that these “third parties” would get a large following necessarily, but since it only takes about 5 percent to get representation in most countries using the parliamentary system, any party getting representation will become a factor and the larger parties would have to listen and cooperate to get their bills passed. A second scenario is that it would be the opposite way around. When searching the web I find pople arguing that it could also be the opposite way around. Interest groups with influence right now, would possibly have to stand on their own in the future and in return lose much of the influence they have right now. Smaller interest groups on the other hand would see their opportunity to find ways to gain influence.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think a shift to a parliamentary system would be good in the way that it would lead to a political climate that takes the overall view of the population into larger account than the current system. At the same time, it can always be argued that the views of a very small part of the population can be overlooked for the sake of democracy.
-Carl Bojesson
I also do not believe that switching to a parliamentary system would drastically change the power of interest groups. I think that they would still have the monetary power that makes them so bad in some people’s eyes. Because they would still be able to lobby groups, a coalition parliamentary government, like the one in Israel, they would retain their power and their influence. In a government like the one in Israel, interest groups could find a party, much smaller than the ones here, and attach themselves to them. For example, the NRA could find a group that has their basis in 2nd amendment rights, and give them exorbitant amounts of money so they could gain power. As they gain power, they would then have a better possibility of joining the majority party, therefore giving the interest groups more influence. To me it seems like a lateral movement if nothing else for interest groups, not a decrease in power.
ReplyDeleteShifting to proportional representation would not affect interest groups, other than possibly in the survival of interest groups that are smaller and have less money. In proportional representation, the interest groups that support issues like oil and guns would continue to get ahead because they represent a huge population in states, like Texas, that would have incredible amounts of representatives. However, in states like Montana and Idaho, where forestry and farming are the big issues that concern most of the residents, the interest groups looking out for them would not succeed as they would have very few representatives to lobby and to bring their interests to the government.
Looking at all of this, and my personal feelings that interest groups should play a smaller role in government, as we have stopped listening as much to the candidates ideas as we do to the interest groups that support them, I think we should keep our system as it is. While it has issues, and we continue to want changes, the United States has a unique system, the Congress being the only one like it in the world. I don’t see any compelling reason to change it, as it has worked for us this far. As long as rules and laws are continually updated with the times and changing roles of interest groups and PACs, I think that keeping the system as-is would be in the best interest of the American people.
I do feel that a shift to the parliamentary system would reduce the power of interests groups. Parliamentary systems do not have issues with campaign finance like we do here in the United States. However now that the current political atmosphere has been solidly established here in America I believe interest groups will always have their seat at the table. Lobbyists and Interest Groups are able to endorse a specific candidate and bankroll challengers. President Obama acknowledged this in a white house news conference stating, “You have some ideological extremist who has a big bankroll, and they can entirely skew our politics.” The relationship between interest groups and American politics is a sticky yet absolutely necessary one in order to create a legit political contender. In a parliamentary system a new political party can be created and evaporated at nearly any point. This allows more freedom for those hoping to get elected. In America a candidate needs to be backed by an entity much larger and influential than his own platform. However an interest group could grow large enough that it reaches a point that they are established into a political party.
ReplyDeleteI think that a shift to proportional representation would only strengthen the importance of interest groups. States that did not have large populations would require the aid of interest groups to help generate concern about specific policy issues they were dealing with. More populated areas would also use interest groups to mold the issues that they wanted to deal with and would likely have more influence and resources due to more representation of their population. Interest groups may end up playing less of a role in elections but that would be because they would most likely focus on the heavily populated areas so that they could generate public concern about specific issues and in turn dominate the direction of political conversations.
I don’t believe that a shift to a parliamentary system would be a good one. I think that the United States is set in its current election system and Washington would never go back to a system that the original colonies didn’t adopt. The founding fathers knew they wanted to have a system different than England’s. Thomas Jefferson begged England for representation in parliament but England wouldn’t give it to us. The United States made the decision a long time ago not to become a Parliamentary style of government and I do not believe that a shift to one would be beneficial. Interest groups will always play their part in American politics. They have become an important tool for politicians and civilians. I believe that there are other changes that could be made to help assist with the polarized political situation we have currently. I believe that election procedures should be changed so that more candidates have a legitimate shot in a political race.
Grant Easterday
If the United States were to switch to a parliamentary system, I do not believe it would reduce the power of interest groups. I feel that regardless of whether or not the US has a parliamentary system or a system of checks and balances, interest groups will continue to be a powerful force. With the amount of money, influence, and members some groups have, there is not much that can be done to reduce their power.
ReplyDeleteI think that regardless of proportional representation, there is not much that can be done to tame the growing power and influence of interest groups. Options like switching to a parliamentary system and using proportional representation will not fix the problem of interest groups and big businesses controlling the political system.
I like the way the current system is, so I believe a shift in the way we do things would be a bad thing. At points, interest groups do have a little too much power, but generally I like their role in politics. Interest groups did not become big and powerful for no reason. They have supports and continue to gain support because people believe in their mission and like what they are doing to better the country.
Christopher Cymny
I do not believe that a shift toward a Parliamentary System would suppose the reduction of the power of the groups of interest. I rather think that the most affected would be the big two parties that there are at the power because this political system would let the access and so the existence of minority political parties, given that the parliamentary system let the coalition between the parties. So this would suppose that the big ones lose power due to they have to cede it although in small proportions to these new minorities. The shift to a Parliamentary system accompanied by a proportional representation would increase the power of the groups of interest in this country.
ReplyDeleteDue to the groups of interest have a great power in US; we could even say that the elections in Washington are controlled by these groups. The power of these groups of interest is hardly calculable; Ronald Reagan was the last President who faced to these groups, or rather, some of them. Wall Street did not accept Reagan's attempt to lower interest rates; because they considered that the result would be higher inflation, higher interest rates and the ruin of the stock market.
Given this power, I think that this shift toward a Parliamentary System would not reduce its power and they would keep the great power in the politic. In the U.S. system the separation of legislature and executive is reinforced by their separate elections and by the system of checks and balances that provides constitutional support for routine disagreements between the branches. The shift to a Parliamentary System would suppose general elections that revolve around the choice of Parliament, ie, the political representatives of the people. No direct election of the chief executive of the country once. Parliament is, it proceeds to designate, by vote of its members, the leader of the Executive Branch and its ministers.
In my opinion I am in favor of the Parliamentary System maybe because I am Spanish and I have it, and I understand the political diversity as something positive, I understand that everything has not to be black or white. From my humble opinion and my knowledge of the group of interest in US I think that they have a negative influence due they have too much power. By other hand the citizen who votes in US is not conscious of how his own political system works and is not worry about it. Concluding, due to the great power of the group of interest I understand that the shift would be insignificant about the power of the groups of interest and so his realization would be absurdity.
Pablo Visedo
I believe that a shift to a parliamentary system from our current system would not necessarily weaken the power and influence of interest groups. I also don't believe a proportional system would not do much to hinder interest groups either. There are numerous factors that must be looked at before deciding what best counters the power of interest groups. One of those factors, as some of my fellow classmates have listed, is the strength of political parties relative to interest groups. In the United States, we have relatively weak political parties compared to other countries, and especially compared to our interest groups. My fellow classmates also cite that separation of powers and separate elections for our executive and legislative branches is partly responsible for this. I think this is partially true because it is very much true that the party members in Congress can separate themselves from the President if he or she is unpopular. However, I don't think that is the only reason why parties here are weaker then other countries. Another reason why we have weak parties might be because in most states the a small, very ideologically driven amount of voters pick their parties' nominees. A lot of voters may support Interest groups or may be influenced by them and this might lead to interest group supported candidates winning primaries. These party primaries are why I don't think proportional representation would put a dent in interest group's power. It would do almost nothing to actually curb their power, all it does is divide the country and create really odd election results. What I do think would put a massive dent in interest groups is strong party discipline and a party primary that is decided by party leaders (ex. Israel's party list system). The Party leader's pick who runs on their ticket and can kick off anyone who wants to stray away ideologically or wants to flirt around with interest groups. An example of this would also be Israeli related. However, I do no think killing or curbing the power of the interest groups is a healthy or good idea. Interest groups give a voice to the people, especially through freedom of speech. Now, if we are talking about a shift to a parliamentary system from our current system, I would have say I am also opposed to that. I think we have a unique system that separates us from the world. Also, parliamentary systems have a habit of forcing major parties to form coalitions with minor parties that are almost exactly opposite of them in political views, this makes an odd pairing and in a way harms democracy. Odd pairings make it hard for the coalition's largest party to get it's agenda passed or enacted. Bipartisanship can be good, but if it's forced it may have unexpected consequences. I say that parliamentary systems may "steal democracy" because the party or candidate that gets the most votes on election night in, say the UK or Israel, does not always form a coalition government. Israel's Likud did not win the most votes or seats in 2009, yet they took office due to forming a coalition. Our current electoral college system may have problems, but I believe that it is more Democratic then some parliamentary systems.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that a shift to a parliamentary system would necessarily lessen the power of interest groups, but it would spread the wealth between groups more. Instead of having to choose between the two parties that we have here in the US (third parties are unlikely to win and so receive little to no funding from interest groups) interest groups would be able to create their own parties in a parliamentary system. So, interest groups have power now because they can fund their party, but they would also have power in a parliamentary system because they could just create their own group, but that would also mean that there would be more competition.
ReplyDeleteA shift to proportional representation would strengthen interest groups because it would allow for more representation of the population of a given area or state. By using proportional representation, interest groups would be able to use the backing of the majority of the population in their favor. The downside would be that the minority in a state would be less represented even if the cause is no less important. Though the majority may think one way, the thoughts of others are just as important and their voices should be just as loud.
I believe that interest groups play a very important role in American politics, but I wish the ones with more money didn’t have the amount of power in elections that they do. I think that all interest groups should be able to play a part in the elections, not just the ones with money, because even though I do not like to hear some of the interests that some groups represent, it is their right to voice them. I do not think that bipartisanism is a good thing and so a shift to a parliamentary system would allow for more groups to be represented. I am not sure which system would better, both have their pros and cons.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible to deny that our government moves slowly and is often delayed when it comes to getting things done due to our system of checks and balances. I believe that this may be one of the reasons that our American government is so notorious for having interest groups play such a large role in government. I feel that with such a slow moving government, those with a common interest become desperate to get their point across and have changes made, as they feel like nothing is being done. I also believe that the reason we have so many interest groups is because our party system is so polarized. Like my fellow classmate Trent Anderson, I feel it important to mention Duverger's Law. In a single member district, two major parties will always prevail. With a system so polarized, people feel as if they have to form all these groups to get their own interests into view that may not be on the agendas of either of the two major parties. This brings me to belief that a parliamentary system in addition to proportional representation would decrease power of interests groups. With an unpolarized system and a lack of checks and balances, more interests can receive the attention they deserve and the system will move faster in making changes. In this case, interest groups will not have to fight for so much power.
ReplyDeleteA shift into a parliamentary system could quite possibly be a good thing. More voices could be heard, and I personally believe that a polarized system is never really a good thing. Even in class, we talked about how voters physically move to abide with others within their party. I believe that politics is never black and white, but rather a grey area with a lot to consider.
I think a shift to a parliamentary system would not make a huge difference in interest groups. I do however believe that if it would shift to a proportional representation system there would be a larger difference. There would be less for the groups to lobby about, so that would definitely reduce their influence. It would strengthen our parties and the parties would be less likely to influence or sway them. Party lines are followed strictly and lobbying would change from swaying individual representatives to an entire group of people. Overall, however, the interest groups are deeply embedded in our political system and they could not just simply eliminated. Interest groups funnel too many funds into campaigns and their platforms for the change of a system to change their function.
ReplyDeleteInterest groups today, I believe, can have too much influence and can be rather pushy. I think a change in interest groups would be good, but the change in the system would not be good for the United States. Even though, proportional representation may get more voters out I think the change would be to large of a shock to the system. We are already accustomed to a system that works for us, and the changes would not be worth the negative effects it could have.
-Carly Stover
I don't think that a shift to a parliamentary system of government would reduce the power that interest groups possess. Right now, interest groups usually advocate for an issue that is connected to one of the two major parties. If we branched out and offered the chance for more parties to become more popular and successful within the government, interest groups that would form that would align themselves with one of the new parties would follow along. Plus, just because an interest group doesn't attach itself to Republicans or Democrats doesn't mean that it automatically won't be successful. It could very well raise funds and gain enough traction to have influence in a parliamentary system. Furthermore, proportional representation may have a positive effect on interest groups within this new system; however, I don't think that interest groups would have to depend on this kind of representation to find success. Finally, I don't think that a parliamentary system would really work at the current time. Too many people are invested in Republican and Democratic ideas, especially older people, so I doubt that any new parties that would form would be able to have any major influence. However, I do think that the current generation of young people would possibly be able to make a parliamentary system work in the future due to more radical beliefs finding its way into society, but for now, I cannot see it working.
ReplyDeleteI personally disagree with the accusation that the two party system makes interest groups more powerful. It is not the two party system itself but rather a weak two party system. I agree with Kyle when he discusses the party system in England. I also believe that the growing number of independent voters, as we discussed in class, is directly related to the growth of interest groups. According to the USA Today, out of the approximate 72 million voters in America 24 million are registered as independents. The amount of independents increases the support for interest groups rather then a particular party. By strengthening the individual parties more people would affiliate themselves with a party and that particular parties set of values. At this point in time independents do not necessarily have that core set of party values to cling to so they instead focus on their interests, therefore strengthening interest groups in America.
ReplyDeleteThe parliamentary system is not the answer. Instead of weakening, interest groups would be just as strong but influence in different ways. For example some European countries have a multiple party parliamentary system. If anything this system strengthens interest groups by allowing them to form entire small parties. These large interest groups would still rely on their massive amount of money to gain power. With their money they will not support a different parties candidate but instead financially back their own hand picked candidate on a smaller parties ticket. This is also true for proportional representation. A proportional representation system would weaken the two party system we have in America now and that would not weaken interest groups it would simply change how they effect politics. In our book “Interest Groups Unleashed,” Wilcox breaks down and examines the large amounts of money that is given to advertising, specific candidates, and the trends that they follow. This exchange of money would not decrease with a change to a parliamentary system or proportional representation; it would just alter the way it was utilized.
I believe it is important to realize that us Americans are rooted in our strong opinions and beliefs. Interest groups are a way for us to express how we feel on particular issues. They also help citizens feel as if they have a hand in policy making and getting their individual beliefs heard. The generation of new voters is often called the me generation because of their focus on themselves. This is being shown through the increase of independent voters. The current young generation is much more focused on getting their personal interests heard. With this knowledge it is fair to assume that the strength of interests groups is not going anywhere.
A switch to a parliamentary system or proportional representation would not weaken interest groups instead it would just change how they use their money and power in politics. The best way to weaken interest groups is through strengthening the two party system. However, with the growing number of independents that task is harder then it sounds.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1
Audra Phibbs
I like many aspects of parliamentary systems and think our government could benefit by some parliamentary features, but I do not think that the U.S. shifting to such a system would do much to affect the power of interest groups in our politics. A shift like this would certainly make them use their power in different ways, but I doubt it would weaken them. Even if proportional representation was used, it would do little to curb their influence.
ReplyDeleteA big reason for this is that the discrepancy of power between parties and interest groups is currently so vast, and the major interest groups have so much more money to play with, that they could do whatever necessary to compete in any system more easily than parties. For example, currently the ones that pick a party's nominees for a state are the minority that have the biggest contributions and agendas. These people often represent an interest group or contribute through one. If elections were restructured to exclude interest group involvements, end the two-party system, or in any way give full authority to parties, then interest groups would simply form their own parties.
I am not one that thinks our system of government is broken, but some parts of it can surely do a better job of evolving with the times. It would be damaging to our democracy if interest groups were taken out of the equation or drastically weakened, however I believe more regulation of their activity is necessary. They currently are far more powerful than parties which is detrimental. In some way, the gap between power between the two must close. Like said in this presentation by a Boston University observation of the topic, if interest groups are in charge they would create an inefficient bureaucracy that isolates them from democratic control. (www.bu.edu/.../Are-Parliamentary-Systems-Better.pdf)
I do not think that the United States government switching to a parliamentary system would reduce the influence of interest groups. The parties in the US are weak compared to parties in other countries, and that allows groups with the resources at their disposal to dictate a lot of moves that are made. Because of the capital some of these groups have, it would be hard to reduce their power even slightly; regardless of whether or not there would be a shift to proportional representation. Increasing the power of the parties so that they could work independently of interest groups (or at least more so than they are now) would be the only way to at least somewhat decrease their influence. Personally, I do not like the way that things currently are. I do not think that money alone should make certain people eligible to manipulate the government into furthering their own interests. While I do not think that it will completely eradicate the problem, a shift to proportional representation would, in my opinion, be a positive change, as it would give a chance to the parties that do not often get an equal chance to have their voices heard.
ReplyDeleteThe parliamentary system of government wouldn’t reduce the power of interest groups. Strong interest groups will always find a way to get their issues to the top of agendas and their people in office. Like Chris Cocuzza said, with more than two parties, they will have more candidates to get into office and an easier time keeping their issues relevant among a broader range of politicians and constituents. Interest group leaders may also have more opportunities to serve. If the United States made the switch to a Parliament, interest groups would support a spread number of executives/parties/ideologies and coalitions would form that would run the government. Interest groups would also be fast to steal third party seats away from democratic and republican ex-candidates.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed in class, if the parliamentary system would curb spending in districts, of course it would hurt stronger interest group powers and keep it more fair (Also, maybe not. Maybe richer interest groups reflect a larger number of people’s cares and deserve more attention than smaller groups). Proportional representation would also decrease interest group spending but those coalitions would most likely still rule.
The United States has a strong system of checks and balances. As much as everyone hates Congross (but loves their own members of Congress!), our founders designed the Constitution to be hard to change and laws hard to pass – for good reason. There’s a reason most bills sit and don’t get passed. Everything has to be inspected and reinspected by both chambers. Passing a law takes a long time. I’d prefer laws taking a really long time if it meant two parties were fighting to keep it perfect.
I agree with Jacob Bojesson than interest groups would blow up as soon as citizens realized they would be directly involved in policy making, if we lived in a parliamentary system – not that interest groups are a bad thing as long as they stay in line. ☺ And I also take the view that most of America still won’t care to learn politics even with more of a say.
A shift to a parliamentary system would decrease the power of interest groups, thus benefit the American government. Parliamentary systems would decrease campaign’s dependency on interest groups for funding. Should a particularly strong interest arise, that interest would either form a political party or seek to align with one that supported their cause. Political parties do not have strength in the United States because they are financially dependent on interest groups to fund their money intensive campaigns. Interest groups largely fun the very tiresome mudslinging, something almost every American is tired of. Interest groups create a connection or louder voice in the government that overshadows the voice of the average citizen. A parliamentary system would free political parties from the clutches of interest groups. Arguably, presidential systems are “decentralized” in their decision making. They allow for legislators to pursue their individual agendas rather than the party’s agenda. Additionally, a parliamentary system working under proportional representation would further benefit the United States government. Proportional representation would allow for just that. Groups and their interests would be recognized based on their numbers. Surely some issues would be forced to take a back seat as the more notable issues took the forefront. However, this is a sacrifice I would be willing to make for a more efficient and representative government. As a personal note, I disagree with the electoral college, thus another reason for me to support a parliamentary system. Certainly a shift to a parliamentary system with proportional representation would require some reworking. As we discussed in class, the financial system would have to be redesigned because the money allotted to electors constituencies would change. However, in 2012 the Canadian Finance Minister stated that Canada had an advantage over the United States in solving debt and other issues related to the economy. This advantage is largely due to the efficiency of the parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems are more efficient because the head of state and the elected legislature are of the same party. Too often, the executive branch and the legislative branch are in a deadlock and nothing is accomplished. Overall, I think the switch would be beneficial, but is unlikely to happen.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/andrew-samwick/2353/real-advantage-parliamentary-system
http://money.howstuffworks.com/special-interest-group1.htm
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/5c.asp
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/stm103%20articles/Cheibub_Pres_Parlt.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/10/jim-flaherty-us-tax-parliament_n_1416155.html
I highly doubt that the power of interest groups would decrease if the US switched over to a parliamentary system of government. The interest groups, and their current strength would not really be all that impacted from the switch. No matter what the interest groups would still have the money to make their views heard in government. The only real change would be that instead of the interest group taking its views and talking to Congress, as it is in our current government. Instead the interest groups would be able to develop into their own parties, and they’d use their money and resources themselves to attempt to gain their own seats in parliament. Sure this would weaken the overall strength of the already established parties, but the strength of the interest groups themselves would not be weakened.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting though that if that same switch over to a parliamentary system would also include a shift over to proportional representation, I feel that the power of the interest groups would wane. Instead of being able to run for seats, they would have to live with only getting a say in government equal to the amount of votes they received during the election. The amount of money and power that the interest groups could wield would be much lower since they are directly limited by the amount of votes they received. The proportional representation system would lead toward people following their own ideals and voting for a particular party/ interest group, and its particular issue rather than for an all encompassing party which we have today. According to an American Studies course at the University of Virginia, the political parties would be limited to become very similar to the interest groups themselves, however the interest groups’ own power would not really fluctuate. Instead they would have the same power as the political parties, and be forced to both share the total votes, and share the power. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma98/pollklas/thesis/systems.html
In total I simply feel that a switch over to a parliamentary system would be pointless in terms of the power of interest groups. Sure they may be limited in a proportional representation system, but they still have the same resources, and they can still make the same deals with other parties, because no matter what politicians need the money for their campaigns. Sure I feel that interest groups have become way to powerful in our current system, but I don’t feel that such a drastic switch would reform the system enough to actually limit their power.
Schuyler Harvath
In theory a shift to a parliamentary system would reduce the power of interest groups, but it would not work nor be successful in the United States. If there was a shift to a parliamentary system interest groups would form powerful parties, and then coalitions of larger interest groups would be formed. In an ideal world, a shift to a parliamentary system the power and pull of interest groups would not be a problem. There would be a mix of different interests and because of the mix, there would not be one interest that would outweigh priority over others. To switch to a parliamentary system would be counterproductive. If the idea is to reduce the power of interest groups, why would you allow interest groups to join together to be a conglomerate interest group, where only a few large and powerful interests would be represented? Like many of my classmates have pointed out larger interest groups tend to have more money to use to “buy” their candidates and projects. If two or three larger interest groups pulled their resources they would essential be able to create one large entity of an interest group that could do more to push their agenda through then smaller interest groups. Interest groups play such a crucial role in how the United States works. They are deeply planted in American custom and tradition. If you want to be elected you find an interest group that appeals to a lot of people in order to push your agenda through. Shifting to a parliamentary system would not work here to curb the power of interest groups.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe if there was a shift to a parliamentary system it would be a good thing, if it was done in the correct manner. If it was a proportional system, all people would be represented and not just one particular interest’s agenda would win over others. There would be a balance of all interests being served. The only way a parliamentary system could reduce the power of interest groups would be if it was also done with a shift to proportional representation, this way everyone is represented regardless of what interest group you belong to. The likelihood of that ever happening in the U.S. is slim. There will always be some interest group that is more powerful, rich, and willing to buyout to achieve their prize, no matter the cost of another interest. It is how our government functions and how the entities within it function as well. The interest groups that push agendas through are the ones that have a great deal of money, so whether or not that interest is actually the interest of the majority of people does not matter; having a parliamentary system focused on proportional representation would alleviate this problem. The government would then be a fair place for all people and their interests.
I believe a shift to a parliamentary system with a proportional representation would dramatically diminish interest group's power. With a parliamentary comes a multi party system. With this multi party system, interest groups will compete with the party it has alined itself with, during the election.
ReplyDeleteSo instead of interest groups ambiguously influencing bills, interest groups will have to identify with a political platform.With many political platforms that forms from a parliamentary system, this creates more competition for political influence. Consequentially allowing the people to vote on which interest group represents them best.
Proportional representation is a requirement. The more elections the United States has the less power the interest groups will have. This is because of the amount of times the interest groups will have to compete. The more times interest groups compete the more resources they use.
I believe we should adopt this system.Our current system allow too much polarization without any reproduction for the constant threat or use of gridlock. Due to Interest groups and other such agendas.
Transitioning to a parliamentary system, I feel, will do little to curb the actual influence that interest groups have. Addressing the degree, to which interest groups have already woven themselves into American politics, is crucial to analyzing any alternative. With the way that the U.S. economy is structured, capitalism has allowed political-based groups to thrive. By many standards, the interest groups, seen within the United States, can be classified as legitimate corporations. At a point like this, allowing an interest group to lose its footing in the legislative branch would be comparable to allowing a major corporation to go under. Without a doubt, the United States’ two-party presidential system plays a major role in explaining why our interest groups are so strong. Essentially, voters and politicians, alike, are forced to choose a side, automatically requiring the other party to resort to the opposing view. Moreover, the lack of middle ground further exacerbates divisive issues, strengthening interest groups and their roles, in the process.
ReplyDeleteSuddenly replacing a presidential system, with a parliamentary system, would have little direct impact on the interest groups, themselves. For the most part, these groups would still be heavily funded and their presence would still be made known. Unlike the presidential system of the United States, parliamentary systems have the ability to downplay the role that political parties actually play in politics. With this being the case, interest groups would have to revise their methods of acquiring support. The scenario would be no different, referring to the inclusion of proportional representation. Just as a company is forced to revise their business model during change, an interest group would merely transform its methods into entirely new practices. I saw a few people make a statement along the paraphrased lines of: with a parliamentary system, there would be more cohesion between interest groups and that they would start to band together, thus creating even more massive groups. I think that this would be far from the case. If anything, this would be a tactic seen in a government that moves away from a parliamentary system, in favor of a presidential system. However, in our scenario, it would be wiser if these large groups started to diversify. These massive interest groups, appealing to millions, would become nothing more than an umbrella. They would create smaller groups, designed to better target potential voters, based on characteristics outside of party lines. Voters would be harder to read, and their decisions on key issues will be significantly less influenced by party stance. Without voters basing their views on party affiliation, interest groups would have to work harder to secure support. However, in doing this, they’ll be able to get to know their supporters better. In turn, this will allow them to influence their decisions more heavily. Initially, there may be a slight weakness among interest groups, due to financial fluctuations. It wouldn’t be cheap to completely overhaul any group of such a magnitude. Notably, it’s not likely that these imbalances will be anything more than temporary.
In theory, a parliamentary system is a great thing. However, in the United States, it would be catastrophic. Not only would interest groups be able to more accurately target prospective members, they would be able to do so without worrying about impeding party ideals. Furthermore, a large interest group, with many smaller branches, would bring about an astonishing amount of support, if done properly. This is especially the case with the amount of data collection, due to advents in technology. Then, there’s the elephant in the room; American voters wouldn't know what to do with themselves. They live by the choice “Democrat or Republican.” These sheeple would look to anyone for advice. Hypothetically speaking, pooled pocket-sized interest groups would be guiding more voters to vote in certain directions, than any single interest group, today, could ever hope to do.
I do not believe that a shift to a parliamentary system of government would curb the influencing power of interest groups as much as some people think it would. While there would be more than two parties interest groups would simply adjust in order to get what they want. Interest groups have a great deal of resources at their disposal that they can use to influence people and policy makers. If a shift to a parliamentary system would occur I believe interest groups would either spend more money and time on a candidate for their own party and still have a great deal of influence on the others as well just in a slightly different fashion. Even in a proportional representation system I believe interest groups would find a way to get who they want represented and will still be able to lobby other parties. While the lobbying may be done on a smaller scale I'm sure they would find a way to get the things that they want done.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that a shift to a parliamentary system would reduce the power of interest groups in the United States. I think that this is mostly due to the fact that interest groups are typically very powerful entities, and that even if we were to shift to a parliamentary system, they could find a way to circumvent this, utilizing their power in other ways. As others have stated, interest groups in a parliamentary system can always just back a third party to represent their interests or create their own party. This would result in many more parties overall, which while weakening their power slightly, would still allow for the groups with the most money and influence to have their agenda pushed through and passed by the federal government.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a switch to proportional representation would help to curb the power of interest groups by dividing up seats in parliament and only allowing these many parties to have as many seats as they are proportionally allotted. This still favors groups with more funding, but it would also favor groups that have the most backing by the people, which would be something I would believe we would want here in the US. I agree that this would also result in a decrease in interest group spending, and create a more even distribution of funding for any number of issues they may have a stake in.
For me, as I would like to one day work for an interest group and do some work lobbying, I would prefer to see the system stay as it is. I do not think there is anything wrong with interest groups having the power that they do. Obviously there is a reason that they have made it as long as they have, and if they are effective in convincing party leaders to follow their agenda, who are we to deny them? They worked hard to do that, and while those who are cynical may say that those with the most money will always win, I still have faith in gold old fashioned rhetoric when it comes to such things. Implementing a parliamentary system would just be like when the little kid sweeps the broken vase under the rug even though it’s very obviously there. You can’t avoid what powerful bodies interest groups have become and we might as well just deal with them with the system we already have, and find a way to limit their monetary influence.
Eric Johnston
Anthony Cicconi
ReplyDeleteIn the current state of American politics, I do not believe that a shift to a parliamentary system would significantly reduce the power held by interest groups. As noted by my colleague Chris Cocuzza, a change to a parliamentary system would inherently bring more parties (especially relevant ones) than are currently present today in our two-party system. If there were more parties, logic dictates that there would be more places for a specific interest group to find it's niche and seriously push for legislation. As the current situation is, the money and power held by interest groups and corporations would not just vanish into thin air if we were to change our governmental structure, it's way too intertwined.
In terms of proportional representation, I am of the opinion that this would solely help weed out (fairly and unfairly) the interest groups not able to hold their weight, per se. For instance, groups that are mainly based in a large state (e.g. oil in Texas, immigration reform in California, etc.) would automatically receive a large boost in influence. The money gained by these interest groups (which most likely are already wealthy and powerful) would effectively eliminate the potential for influence by smaller groups, such as Bison herders in Montana.
In my opinion, a change to a parliamentary system of government does not make sense given the current situation. The United States has a very unique form of government, and although we all may complain from time to time, it was designed to help avoid issues such as this. I truly believe that if we were to switch over to a parliamentary system, we would be facing different issues but complaining about them just the same. I personally have faith in the separation of powers and the checks and balances we have put in place to help combat tyranny, and also the continuous legislation that is adapted to help keep PACs and interest groups in check (not to mention the fact that nobody would understand what would be going on, as if people do now). So, no, a change to a parliamentary system is not feasible, and if it were, I do not believe it would be a good idea.