Pwnallthethings: Right. No confidence votes are reasonably common, and can be pretty quick, in parliamentary systems for very rapid no-election changes in leadership

folks gonna miss this from just the headline, but someone should point it out: the lack of live fact-checking by the moderators *was part of the agreement* by the campaigns. It's not just that CNN /didn't/ live fact check it. It's that they /weren't allowed to/.

Earlier this week, CNN's political director David Chalian said a debate “is not the ideal venue for a live fact-checking exercise." Moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash stuck to that model Thursday night, despite multiple falsehoods claimed during the debate.

CNN debate moderators didn’t fact-check. Not everyone is happy about it.www.washingtonpost.com CNN’s political director said earlier a presidential debate “is not the ideal venue for a live fact-checking exercise.” Jake Tapper and Dana Bash stuck to that.

I think the whole idea is overblown. The moderators shouldn’t “fact check” and argue back with the candidates. It’s not an interview. It’s not their role and they wouldn’t do a good job of it anyway. They did mostly fine. People just want somebody other than Biden to blame for how poorly it went.

FWIW I think the debate format /in general/ is pretty weak, and frankly voters would be far better served by the candidates doing long-form interviews by (ideally quite aggressive) interviewers

Been a while since I paid attention there, but the UK used to be really, really good at those type of "hostile interviews"

We should invent a version of Prime Minister’s questions

Yeah, hard to do without a parliamentary system

If we had a parliamentary system, worries about age would not be so bad, right? If the PM becomes too old, either everyone covers for her, or someone else becomes PM without waiting for 4 years.

Right. No confidence votes are reasonably common, and can be pretty quick, in parliamentary systems for very rapid no-election changes in leadership

Many systems have pretty established and speedy deputy PMs systems for indisposed, unreachable, or unavailable heads of government too so cabinet can continue to govern. People miss that cabinet government is key, The UK one seemed less than robust though... news.sky.com/story/domini...

Dominic Raab 'given five minutes' notice' to run country when Boris Johnson had COVID, inquiry hearsnews.sky.com Professor Dame Jenny Harries, who was deputy chief medical officer, also gave evidence - with messages showing her saying COVID patients would need to be discharged into care homes to stop the NHS get...

Honestly, the US system for this is probably one of the more robust

Like, tho VPs tend to do stuff to pass the time, and occasionally act on behalf of the US at foreign events or funerals etc, or to break ties in the Senate, essentially their only job is to be the person running the executive branch falls to if the President is incapacitated or dies

I like how John Adams attended the Senate every day. I’m not sure what he did, other than sit there in the presiding officer’s chair.

A jillion different reasons why it'd never be for me, but frankly that's what I'd do. Considerably more interesting than sitting around waiting for your friend and ticket-mate to drop dead

also it's actually useful for the President to have a very close colleague who really gets to live at the intersection of the legislature and the executive branch, and can carry real weight in both

Honestly, a somewhat minor change that I think would improve US political structures in multiple ways would be to interpret the VP's Senate position as actual procedural authority. i.e. say the Garner precedent was wrong, all the powers customarily granted the Majority Leader are really the VP's.

“Are you sad? Are you cross? Are you gathering moss? While you wait for the boss To sneeze?"

Tbf he very much expected his role to be larger and was just stubbornly bitter that was taken from him lol

According to David McCullough's biography of Adams, he acted as a liaison/chief-of-staff to the Executive Branch in the Senate. That role is now held by the legislative contacts within the individual agencies these days.

Although, it made him no friends; the Senators pretty much all really wanted him to go somewhere else. Some were not shy about saying so.

Interesting. But that obviously says more about John Adams than about the constitutional role. But probably both then and now senators would feel the VP was spying on them.

This is why recent VPs are often focused on special projects - make use of this experienced and capable person.

Yes but you can often appoint a caretaker / technocrat / agreed PM in a parliamentary system in a big crisis without bothering with a line of succession.

I think the point is that while in theory that is true, it hasn't worked out smoothly at all lately in the UK. In that case a more explicit line of succession seems like a better case.

The UK is not the only parliamentary system, worth remembering. See the Monti government in Italy for example.

Head of Lettuce!! Head of Lettuce!! Can't muck it up worse than the last guy!!

And if you had someone like Biden, who appears to be able to do the work, but maybe not so good at campaigning, or at least campaigning in the evening, there might be no reason to change.

A vote of no confidence, moved in the HoR chamber, can change a government. A spill motion, moved in the party room, can change a Prime Minister. Australia is good at this.

Post