The News Guy did not go to the Vermont Democratic Party fundraiser in Burlington last night despite suggestions – if not taunts – from some folks that he was obligated to do so, having shamed the Dems into opening the event to reporters.

The shamer/taunter set had a point, but 140 miles of round-trip driving just to show the flag seemed excessive from an energy-efficiency standpoint.

Two of them actually: excessive petroleum use by the automobile, excessive use of already-depleted energy reserves in the body. Word is that at least one other reporter did attend the event to hear what Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts had to say, and that said reporter’s account will appear on the VT Digger web site.

Last Wednesday’s post (What Are They Hiding? Just scroll down) calling attention to the (subsequently reversed) Democratic decision to keep reporters out of the fundraiser noted that even from the party’s selfish perspective, that original decision was “really, really dumb.”

Let it not be thought, however, that in Vermont these days one has to be a Democrat to take actions falling into the “really, really dumb” category. Just take a look at what the movers and shakers of the Northeast Kingdom city of Newport did last week.

(And, no, don’t think that just because you might live far from Newport, this particular really, really dumb move doesn’t affect you; it could cost you a few bucks even if you live in Castleton).

What the Newport City Council did was to decide not to welcome visitors from Quebec, or at least not welcome them in French.

Put Bienvenue on a sign? Sacre bleu, non, replied the City Council, as reported by the Newport Daily Express.

“Why can’t we put Spanish on the sign coming from the South?” asked one Alderman, a question which may or may not have had some rational foundation.

Another complained that French-speaking Quebecois are so anti-English that “the English die up there.”

Assuming loose standards for “rational foundation,” this qualifies. Francophone Quebecois do de temps en temps take this French-only business trop loins.

Still, it is unlikely that the folks in the tourism/marketing/economic development department would recommend a deliberate decision not to welcome people in their own language. Having heard about Newport’s anti-bienvenue policy, some Quebecers might decide to spend their money this summer in New Hampshire or New York, or maybe not to cross the border at all.

And who could blame them?

Now that we’re in the international mode, and before proceeding to matters of far greater substance for the rest of the week, let’s finish the recent contemplations about the possibility of altering some of the basics of Vermont governance.

Again, these are not proposals, just stuff that might be interesting to talk about. Last week and the week before, the interesting stuff was a one-house legislature, such as Nebraska has. Today, inspired by the sentiments of one reader’s comment, a more radical suggestion: Why not think about making Vermont the first state to establish a parliamentary system?

Maybe because it could be unconstitutional. The Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and by some definitions, a parliamentary system does not qualify.

But by others, it does, and every once in a while, a writer or scholar will suggest that the whole country convert. On its face, it seems a sensible suggestion. Almost all of the world’s democracies operate under a parliamentary system, and most of them seem to be governed at least as well as this one.

Those writers and scholars have not inspired a movement. The only organization that comes close to being a pro-parliamentary advocacy group is known as “US Parliament,” which is based (one will not be surprised to learn) in California, and which barely qualifies as an organization. Even Paul C, Manuel is not familiar with it. http://www.usparliament.org/parpar.htm

That’s significant because Manuel, a political scientist, co-wrote (with his wife, political scientist Anne Marie Cammisa)  Checks And Balances?: How A Parliamentary System Could Change American Politics (Westview Press, 1999 ) .

Professor Manuel, now at Georgetown University in Washington, said he and his wife were not advocating that the US switch to a parliamentary system, merely examining the pros and cons. In fact, he seems to conclude that the cons outweigh the pros. After all, he said, in more than 200 years, “the US has never had a government collapse.”

Still, there are advantages to the parliamentary system. Government in Britain, he said, has been “more responsive,” if “less stable” than its U.S. counterpart.

Because of the uncertainty, it might be interesting if one small, relatively civilized, state (that would include this one) decided to perform the experiment. If the states are, as Justice Louis Brandeis said, “the laboratories of democracy,” maybe one state would perform a service by switching to a parliamentary system. If it succeeded, other states would emulate it. If not, the first state could switch back.

Under a parliamentary system, Vermonters would not choose a governor. They would simply vote for legislators. The party that controlled the legislature would choose its leader to head the executive branch. In most parliamentary system, this leader is called the prime minister, but Vermont could continue to use the term ‘governor.’

One advantage of a parliamentary system is that the government, as long as it retained the support of a legislative majority, and presumably therefore of the people, could really get things done.

This is, of course, also the system’s biggest disadvantage. The government might do too much. But if any government did too much in the opinion of the electorate,  that government might fall, requiring a new election.

Would that be more power to the people? Or too much politics?

The power of the majority might also be constrained because legislative majorities could be harder to come by. Parliamentary systems tend to inspire the growth of minor parties, which often win seats in the legislature. Then the bigger parties have to form coalitions with them in order to get enough support to form a government.

This is precisely why some people think a parliamentary system might be a good idea. They’re the folks dissatisfied with the two parties and the powerful if unofficial two-party system which effectively invalidates minor parties.

Granted, all of this might be idle speculation, cotton candy for the mind, as someone once described theoretical musings about unlikely prospects.

But look at it this way: Thinking about making Vermont the first parliamentary system in America is no sillier, and less objectionable, than thinking about having Vermont secede, an absurdity which seems to have a  devoted (if very small) following in these parts.