In the most extreme case, the second-from-top tier would have between eleven and twenty members, with ten members appointing the one and only member of the top tier. There would usually be a ruling super-majority in the next-to-top tier, consisting of those who could agree on delegates to the top tier. The minority in the next-to-top tier would have an incentive to cut deals, in order to overturn the past decisions of the second-from-top tier.

In the lower tiers, there wouldn't be any legislating going on. Getting unanimity in the third-from-top tier would be rare, on a par with passing a constitutional amendment. Unanimity in larger tiers would be essentially impossible, so people wouldn't even try. They would consist mostly of partisans just filling the seats to make the numbers work. But any ten citizens could form their own bloc to join or leave any party organization at the second-tier level, any hundred citizens could do so at the third-tier level, and any thousand citizens could do so at the fourth-tier level. There would be lots of minor-party activity, with the major parties leading coalitions of minor parties. Disgruntled members of a major party could leave the major party itself, and join one of the minor parties in its coalition. That would be just as effective in maintaining the major party's representation in the top two tiers, but it would change the dynamics in the coalition-building activities of the intermediate tiers.

I could go on, both about this one and the big-House-of-Representatives idea, but I'm getting long-winded already.

Two interesting suggestions. I must admit, your first one sounds pretty close to pure democracy, where everyone votes on everything.

The second idea might prove to be unworkable, for the very reason they started limiting the House. If we went with the constitutional standard (30,000:1, I believe), we'd have over 10,000 House members. We'd have to build a new House just to get them all into one room! But, practical problems aside, it would indeed make for a very interesting (and much more representative) House, that's for sure. The problem might be, though, that it'd be impossible to get enough of them to agree on anything. But it is an interesting idea, that's for sure.

-CW

I have two favorite ideas. (1) Instead of having geographical districts, let people choose what seat in the legislature to vote for. This would result in a multi-party system, favoring whoever is organized enough to get enough of their supporters registered for the same seat. (2) Don't have any voting at all. Laws can be passed only by absolute unanimity. However, everyone gets to vouch for one person as their delegate. Anyone who's so designated by ten people becomes a member of a second tier (the whole population being the first tier). Anyone who's so designated by ten people in the second tier becomes a member of a third tier, and so on. Any tier is empowered to make law, provided that it represents a majority of the tier below it (and so do all the lower tiers). Laws passed by a lower tier trump those passed by a higher tier, just as the Constitution trumps statute which trumps regulation.

Those don't address the relationship between the legislative and executive branches, but I have an idea about that too (although this one's more of a thought experiment than a serious proposal). Put the legislative function back into the legislative branch. Specifically, put the ratio of representatives to constituents back where it was when the country was founded. Then have the constitutional amendment say, "Congress shall make no law granting to any entity the power to make any rule, other than to committees of the House of Representatives, or to the legislatures of the several States. But any such grant of power to the legislature of any State shall grant power uniformly to the legislature of every State." There would still be hired experts, but they would be congressional staff instead of executive-branch staff.

If I can come up with these, there must be many more possibilities out there. Yet all other democracies, as far as I know, follow the basic parliamentary model, with maybe a few extra offices tacked on.

NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, just COULDN'T resist..... :D

Michale.....

When the lady is right, she is DEFINITELY right... :D

Michale.....

Unfortunately, what they see most is how the American system doesn't work. If the US media is good at anything, it is their ability to accentuate all of the problems with the system to the virtual exclusion of what has made this system relatively exceptional.

This might have some ingrained influence over the decisions that are made in nascent democracies.

In the parliamentary system, with our without monarchical influences, our election campaigns are mercifully short. And, that is about the best that can be said for it.

If we had election campaigns in Canada that lasted for more than six weeks, at the most, then someone would have to shoot us to put us out of our collective misery. Without a doubt.

As far as I know, in the case of parliamentary general elections in Britain, as in Canada, the party leaders are in place well before an election is called, even in the most unusual circumstances where a party chooses to change its leader in the lead up to an election call.

In order to change a party leader, the party needs to hold a leadership convention to choose a new leader or confirm the old one. While this process can occur at any time, it is never left to the immediate aftermath of an election. That is not to say, of course, that a losing party leader would not have to fight for his job.

We all know, once the hand-marked paper ballots (on which we must make one choice between a handful of names at most who our next member of parliament will be - end of story) are manually counted (oh, yeah) who will be the next Prime Minister!

Oh, yes ... parliamentary elections are much friendlier to third ...and fourth, and fifth and any number of other parties.

And, that is why, in Canada, we are now locked in a situation where we will have weak minority government from now until we all become so cynical and complacent that we just don’t care anymore. Wait a second ... most of us are there now. This also doesn’t bode well for the talent pool in the House of Commons (see below).

I can’t imagine how they manage in Italy ... or Iraq, for that matter, where the political landscape is so completely fragmented that they’ll probably end up mired in inertia or in a downward spiral toward civil war.

If I had to name one overarching reason why I would prefer the system that gave us American exceptionalism it would be how the cabinet is selected ... or, should I say, from what pool of talent can the country's leader select individuals to help him effectively govern?

In Canada, as in Britain, cabinet members must be chosen from the members of parliament. Right.
Let me put it this way ...

How do you think we would have fared in the midst of the greatest global financial crisis since the Great Depression, two very hot wars and a host of other international crises if President Obama had to chose his cabinet from the 435 souls in the House of Representatives?

I rest my case for American exceptionalism!