Parliament is ALWAYS better

The Parliamentary system, as used in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, is INFINITELY SUPERIOR to our oligarch-designed dictatorship.

In this clip CBC completely misses their own superiority. They’re mocking Canada’s ever-increasing number of seats in Parliament, implying that the US system of constant 435 is better.

Canada tries to maintain about 100k people for each member. US simply keeps 435 seats, so each rep handles about 800k now. Because the ‘pixel count’ is so coarse, some members have much less and some have much more.

MODULARITY IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN CENTRALITY.

When each rep handles a manageable number, each rep can stay ACQUAINTED with his people. When there are more members overall, and each member has less influence, the job of a briber is more expensive and laborious. The corruptor can’t buy truckloads of influence at Costco; he has to deal with Jim’s Corner Grocery and Miriam’s Boutique and Emma’s Flower Shop individually.

Parliament also has more responsivity in its temporal divisions as well as its spatial divisions. The majority party can name a new PM whenever the current one isn’t doing the job, and Parliament can call a new election to switch parties in some circumstances, though not simply any time it’s needed. Both of those events are underway this year. US is stuck with each bad leader for four years. Absolutely no mechanism for feedback anywhere in the dictatorial system. We even limited the temporal flexibility in the opposite direction when FDR showed how feedback could maintain a GOOD leader for much longer than two terms. Now we have no chance to discard a bad leader and no chance to keep a good leader.

Unsurprisingly, Ike was our last half-decent president. The 22nd amendment was passed in ’51 but didn’t take force until after the ’52 election. Also unsurprisingly, Oklahoma was one of the two states that rejected the 22nd.