The question you are asking is about the location where the true political power lies. I hope you allow me a somewhat longer answer. In the US we have Congress and the Presidency. If Congress were capable of discussing political matters well and finding common grounds among the many political positions, then they would represent specific voter empowerment via this path.
Next, the Presidency can also express much voter power through the President taking certain actions. Depending on the guy (!) that will either be a little or a lot of power expression. That is the other path for voter empowerment.
To complete this picture and to show that voter empowerment is a real issue in more than one way, the political powers may not be the strongest powers in a nation. Other societal powers can potentially be as strong or stronger.
Businesses, for instance, can benefit when governments argue a lot with themselves and make few decisions. I just want to have mentioned that ineffective political leadership may -or can- be good for businesses, for the economy as a whole even, especially if political transitions are smooth.
Naturally, this power next to political power may not be good, for example, for the environment, or for those employed by these businesses. When a weaker political center exists next to other strong(er) societal forces, then the real center of society is not necessarily the same as the political center. I just wanted to have that above the waterline of our little discourse.
Having just two parties and a good amount of bickering establishes a weaker government in a larger setting with more empowered interests such as businesses.
— -
In a parliamentary society, the power lies with the House of Representatives. Depending on the voting format, this can be winner-take-all (UK, with winners at the table only) or full representation (Scandinavian countries, for instance, with full representation at the table). In the UK, the two-party bickering can lead to a less empowered government and stronger interest groups outside the political realm.
— -
In Scandinavia, there is just one House and that's it. In other nations, there is a Second House (Senate) and they tend to have veto power only (meaning, they can send back a bill to the First House — for it to produce a better bill).
If there is a president in this system, this tends to be a paper person, with administrative powers, perhaps guiding the parliament in one or two functions. In this system, the power lies with the representatives.
When there are more parties, then the government will be smarter, more proactive in various fields, and they may find better balances for businesses, the environment and the population at large.
— -
In the United States, it would already be more of a parliamentary system if the Senate took over the veto power of the President, and the Senate then being limited to do a thumbs up or thumbs down about the bills proposed in the House of Representatives. The Senators would then have veto power but that would be it for them as well — no bill writing for them anymore.
My suggestion would be to give the President veto power only if that goes together with his (!) stepping down, and that bill then needing to wait for next Congress to come into session (i.e. the Presidential veto postpones the bill, while the vice becomes the new President). Most presidents would not take this route, so it is basically removing veto power from the Presidency.
That said, I am afraid that focusing on the Federal level too much is like trying to find a solution to our political crisis the hardest way possible because the US Constitution is extremely difficult to change.
The local level does provide an easy path forward and it does not require anything special to make change happen today. Equal voter empowerment for our cities and counties is already possible and a safe way to learn how that other form of democracy works.
But… it is good to discuss these matters from all governmental levels, so we know what we are talking about.
---
I am all for single platforms of power. When voting for the House, the people express their political will. Done!
For cities, I am all for a City Manager, hired and fired by the council or board. The manager is then still based on all voters who voted for the board. A mayor can get elected if so desired, but would then be less of a political figure and be more the person to represent the city in public affairs.
By having the political head come forth from the political body, the exact same voters are still recognized as the single source of power for that leadership. That empowers the voters.
Contrast that with our system in place today where we vote for the body and we vote separately for the head. This means our own votes can start fighting each other. The logical connection between body and head does not automatically exist; there are two separate platforms of voter empowerment. In our Federal situation (as is the case in France), there are actually three separate platforms empowered by the voters: House, Senate, Presidency.
A good French saying is: The more things change, the more they stay the same. Having three institutions of political power based on the same voters, and voters then automatically end up with less effective leadership.
Again, there are “third parties” that end up benefiting from a weak or discombobulated government.
— -
Let’s move back to the scenario with the political head being based on the political body.
When a cabinet (the head) falls, the power of the people is still embodied in the single House of Representatives (the body).
With new elections and for the duration of the formation of a new cabinet, the House of Representatives can still make decisions (together with the outgoing cabinet in place).
The day after the votes are counted, the old representatives are replaced by the new selection of representatives. So, there is never a gap in voter power. The old cabinet (the old head) can only make decisions in as far as the new representatives (the new body) agree to it in majority. That’s a good way to cover the time until a new cabinet (the new head) is formed.
— -
I want to quickly mention Italy, because while I love the Italians, their example is kind of insightful how systems can become less effective.
Italy has Two Houses, and each House can make the cabinet fall. It means that the cabinet is automatically less effective because it has to please two separate Houses. The one political head comes forth from two political bodies. No place in the world has more cabinets falling than the Italian.
The economic reality is that Italy is quite the powerhouse. So, they have something similar going on as the US where the political center can be much divided among itself, and the strong societal entities (businesses) can then do more as they please.
— -
As soon as we have voter equality (with the votes directly translated into the results and no voting game going on like we have here), then we will have multiple parties.
San Francisco has 11 seats and all Supervisors are registered Democrats. The system of winner-take-all keeps everyone else out the door. The system provides effective political censorship. Group think is not challenged, cannot be challenged because there is no other party present at the table of decision making.
I found a proportional election outcome of a municipality (I found it because it has the same name as my last name) that also had 11 seats. In the two elections that the image shows (see below), one can read that there were four parties (which is far more logical as the political outcome than to have one party occupy all 11 seats), and in 2010 the biggest of the four parties was a pure local party.
Have 10 seats, and we end up with three or four parties. Have 25 seats, and there will be far more parties/political groups.
Again, for a large nation, four, five or six parties is probably plenty, so some kind of limitation needs to be put in place. Having ten parties is quite out of bounds and not necessarily beneficial for all. Just like having two parties is not beneficial for all because the game is warped to only support them.
Political freedom and political stability is best achieved with a number of parties about the same number as fingers on one hand.
Local results in a town with 11 seats, voted in proportionally.
