Could a state establish a Parliamentary system?

[Idioteque]

I've been wondering something for quite a while now. The United States constitution says that individual states must have a "repubican form of government". Because "republican form of government" isn't explicitly defined, could the voters of a state amend their constitution to create a parliamentary government with a legislative cabinet and a prime minister-like governor?

Also, would a state be allowed to hold non rigid elections, such as in the UK and Canada?

[phantom power]

1. A parliamentary democracy fits the definition of "republic"

At least, according to Meriam Webster. What do you mean by "non rigid" elections?

[Idioteque]

4. Elections would be held when the legislature is dissolved by the governor

...or when a motion of no confidence is passed.

[ISUGRADIA]

2. I don't see why not. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature

it would be possible to amend state constitutions to do such.

what do you mean by "non rigid elections"? as in not every two year, but when the governor calls them or when there is a vote of no confidence?

[Loonman]

3. ???

:yoiks:

You took civics in High School, right?

[Idioteque]

5. I still am in high school ...

...and my American government class didn't really go that deep. :P

[Loonman]

7. Well that's a shame

Teachers should be covering this stuff. Yeah, some of it can be boring and confusing but it's important.

[Tamyrlin79]

6. Why go that far?

Have a parliamentary-style legislature, sure, but why change the Governor? Just make it so that the "prime minister" person becomes speaker of that house. Change to a parliamentary electoral system would be much more effective (and easier to accomplish) than a re-jiggering of the whole existing system.

But to answer your question, yes, a state could implement a parliamentary system if it wanted.

[izzie]

8. I think it just can not do any thing that is not in the Constitutions

I think La. laws come from Fr. and it is OK. Yar I took classes in this but so long ago I have for got. It has always been a battle--- state rights vs. feds.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

10. Probably not.

A republican form of government means that the representatives of that government have to be elected by the people. This conflicts with parliamentary systems where the prime minister (who would act as governor in your supposition) is selected by the dominant party, or by a coalition of parties, rather than by the citizens themselves. I think it would be very easy for someone to argue that the system goes against the promise of the republic, in that the head of government is no longer democratically elected "by the people".

It would undoubtably go before the supreme court before getting resolved one way or the other.

[phantom power]

11. On the other hand, we have the electoral college.

So it's not as if our president is directly elected, either.

[Xithras]

12. But we're talking about constitutional limitations here.

The same document that gurantees a republican government for the states graces us with the electoral college, so nothing short of a new amendment is going to change either one.

As for the parliamentary thing, the easy fix is just to have the governor/prime minister remain a directly elected position. As long as the people are actually voting for their leadership, anything goes in the US.

[Odin2005]

13. A parlimentary system is a republican system as well.

Republics are a representitive democracies without a monarch. I would like both state and federal governments be parlimentary, since they weaken the executive (the PM is a member of the legislature and is appointed and replaced by it, no "Imperial Presidency" BS to worry about. The US system as it is now is quite undemocratic, the founders were mostly elitists who feared the power of the people because it was beleived back in thier day that a truely democratic system would fall to a tyrannical demogouge, hence seperation of powers. We know know that most of the fears of "mob rule" were unfounded, the great success of parlkimentary systems show that the only things needed to prevent too much "bad populism" are strong political parties, a good code of civil rights and libeties and a strong high court that can overturn unconstitutional laws. US style seperation of powers only leads to gridlock in the modern world, legislatures have a hell of a lot more legislation than ones in 1800 did.