Heterogeneous countries have a more complex democratic representation, requiring greater autonomy in state divisions (or cantons, as in Switzerland). Hence, a Upper House with equal representation of these divisions is necessary. It makes no sense for a bicameral parliament if the Upper House simply replicates the population representation of the Lower House. The points the professor suggests reforms are: a) Senate with population representation, b) Direct and majority presidential election, c) Terms for Supreme Court members. These suggestions perfectly coincide in areas where the Democratic Party has suffered major defeats, seeming like a partisan analysis. I'm from Brazil, and it's interesting to note that the "Tropical Trump" (the politician the professor criticizes heavily and rightly so) would completely agree with you on points a) and c). In summary, there's nothing wrong with the Upper House representing states equally (as in the USA or Brazil) or cantons (as in Switzerland). The foundational mistake of the USA lies in the choice of presidentialism. As a Latin American, I implore American politicians to reconsider this. In your research for the book "How Democracies Die," it was surprising to observe the historical episodes demonstrating the fragility of American democracy. Unfortunately, all of Latin America sought inspiration from the US model and adopted presidentialism. The reality is that we have the most fragile democracies, teetering on the edge, facing an uphill battle, jumping from one populist leader to another. How beneficial it would be if the United States and Brazil were to emulate the Swiss political model, wherein: a) the National Council truly adheres to population representation in the Lower House (in Brazil, for example, 1 voter from Roraima is equivalent to 10 voters from São Paulo); b) the Council of States respects autonomy and equally represents the internal divisions of the country; c) the Federal Council is designed for harmony among parties, fostering democratic cooperation; d) there are terms for members of the highest federal judiciary body, which also respects the autonomy of the internal divisions of the country.
Great talk!
Heterogeneous countries have a more complex democratic representation, requiring greater autonomy in state divisions (or cantons, as in Switzerland). Hence, a Upper House with equal representation of these divisions is necessary. It makes no sense for a bicameral parliament if the Upper House simply replicates the population representation of the Lower House. The points the professor suggests reforms are: a) Senate with population representation, b) Direct and majority presidential election, c) Terms for Supreme Court members.
These suggestions perfectly coincide in areas where the Democratic Party has suffered major defeats, seeming like a partisan analysis. I'm from Brazil, and it's interesting to note that the "Tropical Trump" (the politician the professor criticizes heavily and rightly so) would completely agree with you on points a) and c).
In summary, there's nothing wrong with the Upper House representing states equally (as in the USA or Brazil) or cantons (as in Switzerland). The foundational mistake of the USA lies in the choice of presidentialism. As a Latin American, I implore American politicians to reconsider this. In your research for the book "How Democracies Die," it was surprising to observe the historical episodes demonstrating the fragility of American democracy.
Unfortunately, all of Latin America sought inspiration from the US model and adopted presidentialism. The reality is that we have the most fragile democracies, teetering on the edge, facing an uphill battle, jumping from one populist leader to another.
How beneficial it would be if the United States and Brazil were to emulate the Swiss political model, wherein: a) the National Council truly adheres to population representation in the Lower House (in Brazil, for example, 1 voter from Roraima is equivalent to 10 voters from São Paulo); b) the Council of States respects autonomy and equally represents the internal divisions of the country; c) the Federal Council is designed for harmony among parties, fostering democratic cooperation; d) there are terms for members of the highest federal judiciary body, which also respects the autonomy of the internal divisions of the country.