Which is a better form of government, parliamentary systems or presidential systems? (1 Viewer)

[Slartibartfast]

Simple question. I will leave it up to each reader to decide how they want to define terminology and their own personal definition for "better".

 

[Allan]

Many parliamentary systems are also monarchies.

Many European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Asian countries like Japan, and some Caribbean countries.

My answer of course if the category was available would be Canada's system of Westminster parliament.

 

[cpwill]

A system where the Executive and Legislature balance and check each other is -all things being equal- better than one in which their powers are combined.

 

[Moi621]

@Allan

No "Grass Roots" candidate for chief executive is truly possible under the
parliamentary system.
Choice is limited to the most senile & bought MP for either party.

Consider a list of modern presidents and witness the benefits of the American separation of Powers

 

[Callen]

We get to kick the bums out when they decide to not represent the voters in real time

 

[Moi621]

We get to kick the bums out when they decide to not represent the voters in real time

Eh ? ?

 

[multivita-man]

Simple question. I will leave it up to each reader to decide how they want to define terminology and their own personal definition for "better".

Ultimately, regardless of what system a country has, how good it is depends on the values the people who operate it.

 

[Ishm]

A system where the Executive and Legislature balance and check each other is -all things being equal- better than one in which their powers are combined.

So you prefer the opposite to what Trump is trying to do at the moment?

There are different versions of parliamentary systems, but one thing I have observed since moving to New Zealand is that the parliamentary system allows govt to be more 'nimble' than we typically see in a country like the US where so many political stars have to align before you get a govt that can make significant decisions. There are pros and cons to that, but in general a parliamentary system allows govts more direct control on a more regular basis. In many cases of course the Prime Minister is not directly selected by the voters, but by the party itself. Some might prefer a system where you directly vote for a President, but in real terms my observation is that it doesn't seem to make huge difference for the voters, but you do have the advantage that the parties won't generally appoint rogues to be the PM. They can also more easily change the PM if they don't perform through a simple leadership challenge. No need for the complexities of impeachments and even then only defauting to the VP vs being able to chose a completely new leadership.

 

[cpwill]

So you prefer the opposite to what Trump is trying to do at the moment?

Not only that - I opposed consolidating power in the Executive when Democrats did it, too.

There are different versions of parliamentary systems, but one thing I have observed since moving to New Zealand is that the parliamentary system allows govt to be more 'nimble' than we typically see in a country like the US where so many political stars have to align before you get a govt that can make significant decisions.

I'm good with that. A system that enables energetic and active national governance sounds more dangerous to liberty.

There are pros and cons to that, but in general a parliamentary system allows govts more direct control on a more regular basis.

Yup. So would a more consolidated Executive, which Trump is pushing for. I suppose you can see the dangers therein.

In many cases of course the Prime Minister is not directly selected by the voters, but by the party itself. Some might prefer a system where you directly vote for a President, but in real terms my observation is that it doesn't seem to make huge difference for the voters, but you do have the advantage that the parties won't generally appoint rogues to be the PM. They can also more easily change the PM if they don't perform through a simple leadership challenge. No need for the complexities of impeachments and even then only defauting to the VP vs being able to chose a completely new leadership.

That point about it maintaining party power is true. We would be much better off in this country at current if our parties were more powerful.

 

[Peter]

Parliamentary system all the way.
It's been a global success.

 

[Rexedgar]

There needs to be a form of government that allows for a recall if certain conditions are met.

 

[Peter]

There needs to be a form of government that allows for a recall if certain conditions are met.

That is possible and happens a fair bit in the UK.

 

[Allan]

That is possible and happens a fair bit in the UK.

What conditions trigger a recall vote?

 

[Peter]

What conditions trigger a recall vote?

I meant just the parliament being racaled.

I think a vote can be called if a ruling party loses a vote of no confidence but that's extremely unlikely unless members of the party in power join the dissenting side.
It has not happened recently but has been threatened during the last tenure of the Conservatives where things were going really really badly for them for a while.

 

[craig]

A presidential system is too easily usurped by a demagogue as we now see.

 

[Parker_Chess]

China seems to have the best system. There's problems with the American government where everything happens on a 4 year cycle.

 

[Allan]

I meant just the parliament being racaled.

I think a vote can be called if a ruling party loses a vote of no confidence but that's extremely unlikely unless members of the party in power join the dissenting side.
It has not happened recently but has been threatened during the last tenure of the Conservatives where things were going really really badly for them for a while.

Got it. We could have had the same problem as the NDP threatened a non confidence vote which would have caused the government to fall.

The last time it actually happened was 1979, to the Conservatives.

 

[Rexedgar]

A presidential system is too easily usurped by a demagogue as we now see.

This happens when the checks and balances branches cede their authority, imo.

 

[SkyChief]

There needs to be a form of government that allows for a recall if certain conditions are met.

Exactly, and our system of government empowers Congress to impeach a rogue president, and the Senate can recall him (or her) with a 2/3 vote. (Article II, Section 4)

Also, Voters can directly recall a rogue governor with a recall election. In 2003, Californians successfully recalled Governor Gray Davis because of his incompetence and negligence.

 

[Gatsby]

A parliamentary system, with a ceremonial president and/or a constitutional monarch.

They are much less likely to become dictatorships than presidential systems (although not completely immune as Viktor Orban demonstrates). In a parliamentary system, the head of government can be dismissed anytime he screws up with a vote of no-confidence. It's much harder to get rid of a bad president.

Furthermore, the coalition-building in parliamentary system lends itself to cross-partisan cooperation, rather than the hyperpartisan gridlock of a presidential system. (And then the same people who normally say "Gridlock is good" will endorse would-be dictators for president who promise to defy norms and break through the gridlock.)

Two of my favorite political systems are Germany and New Zealand. Mixed-member proportional representation in Parliament, multiple parties and coalition governments to prevent extremism, and a ceremonial head of state.

 

[Rexedgar]

Exactly, and our system of government empowers Congress to impeach a rogue president, and the Senate can recall him (or her) with a 2/3 vote.

If one party holds all the branches, that kinda rules out the above. When we were 13 states, it made sense to have the rules that we find ourselves with after 250 years. Now that we have become 50 states far flung, the chances of 3/4 or 2/3 are slim to none.

Also, Voters can directly recall a rogue governor with a recall election. In 2003, Californians successfully recalled Governor Gray Davis because of his incompetence and negligence.

As far as I can tell, this doesn’t transfer to national elections.The fact that a House Speaker or a majority Leader in the Senate can keep a bill from seeing the light of day is wrong, imo. The representatives should be on the record as to how they vote on contentious issues, imo.

 

[Allan]

This happens when the checks and balances branches cede their authority, imo.

The issue in the US is that both the executive and legislative branches compete to legislate.

Your senate and house do the same so you have three in on it. Oh and the politicized courts.

It's a mess and nothing gets accomplished.

 

[weaver2]

Simple question. I will leave it up to each reader to decide how they want to define terminology and their own personal definition for "better".

Governments exist only because people respect and believe in them All carry within them the seeds of their own destruction and as Trump and McConnell have amply demonstrated it only takes one or two people that know they can ignore the rules and conventions for the destruction to start.

 

[Allan]

Two of my favorite political systems are Germany and New Zealand.

37 countries use the Westminster Parliamentary system. They enjoy very stable goverments.

 

[Rexedgar]

The issue in the US is that both the executive and legislative branches compete to legislate.

Your senate and house do the same so you have three in on it. Oh and the politicized courts.

It's a mess and nothing gets accomplished.

It’s my understanding that the executive isn’t for legislating, it’s for executing the legislation. Our system has been heading to gridlock for 50 or more years. The moneyed interests have gotten their hooks into the system. Until that changes, it’s all academic, imo. I’m not thinking that Congress will slit their own throats.