Which is a better form of government, parliamentary systems or presidential systems? (2 Viewers)

[HumblePi]

Why was 'democratic republic' omitted from the possible choices?

 

[Allan]

It’s my understanding that the executive isn’t for legislating, it’s for executing the legislation

That is I expect what was intended but it's not working very well.

 

[Rexedgar]

That is I expect what was intended but it's not working very well.

$$$$$$$$ grease the skids!

 

[Allan]

Why was 'democratic republic' omitted from the possible choices?

I think that's the "Presidential System" category.

 

[Gatsby]

Why was 'democratic republic' omitted from the possible choices?

Either presidential or parliamentary systems can fit that criteria.

 

[HumblePi]

Either presidential or parliamentary systems can fit that criteria.

Not really. Nicolas Maduro is the President of Venezuela, which is nominally a federal presidential republic, but is in practice an authoritarian system of government with limited political and civil rights. A democratic republic is where the government is chosen by the people through elections and operates under a constitution.

 

[tshade]

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".

Well, up until trump, it was our system, hands down.
I mean, given average intelligence of voters, a "Trump" never gets elected-----no way. 50% America just had an IQ drop in 2016........

 

[Gatsby]

Not really. Nicolas Maduro is the President of Venezuela, which is nominally a federal presidential republic, but is in practice an authoritarian system of government with limited political and civil rights. A democratic republic is where the government is chosen by the people through elections and operates under a constitution.

Yes but that can include both presidential and parliamentary systems. The United States (presidential), Germany (parliamentary), and France (hybrid) can all be considered democratic republics.

 

[Real blank]

Sorry boring answer but I think it depends on the size of and size of population of a country.

 

[RetiredAtLast]

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

That happens for a couple of reason that I can think of. The first is that "a loyal opposition" loses too many Congressional seats to be effective, and that happens when either party becomes just a "block it at any cost" party. The second reason is that Congress can change it's own rules too easily (to filibuster or not, to allow "reconciliation" or not, etc.).

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Sorry boring answer but I think it depends on the size of and size of population of a country.

That's not boring; it's very appropriate. If a PM, for example, can be thrown out of office easily or calls for an election, it's a lot harder to manage in a country with 50 states and 335 million people.

 

[Moi621]

Ooops, The Aussie Dutton
lost his MP seat.
What is the Aussie opposition
going to do now ?

Support "Separation of Powers" !

 

[The Mark]

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

The power of congress and the President are supposed to check each other.
But I'm not sure what mechanisms, if any, are in place to REQUIRE that. Apart from elections, which can apparently be bought.

 

[Gatsby]

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

I agree that the executive is too powerful in our current system, but that's why parliamentary systems are better than presidential systems. It doesn't really work to have two elected branches of government "checking" each other and often working at cross-purposes. One branch has an incentive to deliberately sabotage good governance when its opponents control the other branch. And everyone gets to take credit for good times and spread blame around during bad times, so voters have a muddied picture of who deserves credit or blame for the current situation. In practice, the legislature and executive do not check each other's power...the president's party in Congress works with the president and the opposition party in Congress opposes the president. If we're going to have that anyway, then we may as well have a parliamentary system so that the head of government can easily be deposed with a vote of no-confidence.

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

A system of interminable gridlock, where everyone is to blame and so no one is to blame, is precisely the kind of system most likely to give rise to a quasi-dictatorial president who promises to cut through all the red tape, break the norms to get things done, and defy the establishment.

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

A parliamentary system combines the executive and legislative branch, but it's really more of a consolidated legislature than a consolidated executive. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister holds no power beyond what Parliament allows him to hold, and he can be removed whenever Parliament wants.

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.

Ehh...I'm of two minds on this. In some ways our parties are too weak, in other ways are parties are too strong. If the GOP hadn't been so weak in 2016, they might have been able to keep an unacceptable candidate from executing a hostile takeover of the party. They've also lost a number of winnable Senate seats because they nominated crazy people. The Democrats are less prone to nominating outright crazy people for winnable seats, but they have a different problem: even their non-crazy candidates have gotten substantially out-of-touch with the median voter and they didn't even notice. These are all signs of parties that are too weak.

But in another important way, I think our parties are too strong: Party discipline in Congress. We would be better off if congresspeople were allowed to vote their conscience on most issues, instead of being expected to tow the party line on most issues. It's very hard for a Democrat to win a Senate race in Mississippi, or a Republican to win a Senate race in California, no matter how centrist and charismatic they are, because voters will (rightly) assume they are just one more generic senator voting for their party's agenda. If parties were weaker in this respect, we would have more moderation, less toxic partisanship, and less gridlock.

IMO right now, we have the worst of both worlds. Parties are too weak when it comes to candidate quality and platform quality, and too strong when it comes to congressional vote-whipping.

 

[Sweden]

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

Agreed. There is much to be said for having a separate head of state and head of government.

A parliamentary system means that a head of government - Prime Minister - can only take office if he has a majority of elected members. If at any time he loses that majority he must resign. If no one else can frm a new majority then an election must be held.

Some here seem to define 'monarchy' as 'absolute monarchy', which only existed in developed countries in the distant past.

 

[Sweden]

Sorry boring answer but I think it depends on the size of and size of population of a country.

Why? Iceland is a very small country with a parliamentary system.

 

[Allan]

Why? Iceland is a very small country with a parliamentary system.

Yup, and India is a very large country with a parliamentary system.

 

[Allan]

Agreed. There is much to be said for having a separate head of state and head of government.

A parliamentary system means that a head of government - Prime Minister - can only take office if he has a majority of elected members. If at any time he loses that majority he must resign. If no one else can frm a new majority then an election must be held.

Some here seem to define 'monarchy' as 'absolute monarchy', which only existed in developed countries in the distant past.

The feature I like most about the parliamentary system is that some elements are apolitical. The Head of State, the Senate (House of Lords in the UK) and judiciary are the "grownups in the room" and don't try to legislate.

That leaves the legislators free to go about their business knowing guardrails are in place should they make a mistake or misbehave. That knowledge tempers their conduct resulting in responsible and responsive governance.

 

[Eriech]

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".

The US is about to celebrate 250 years, most under a presidential system. Is there a system with a better record? I am currently frustrated by gridlock in the capitol but was thankful for it just a year ago.

 

[Allan]

The US is about to celebrate 250 years, most under a presidential system.

The Westminster system is 800 years old.

Is there a system with a better record?

Yeah, see above. We just had an election and didn't need to surround our Parliament with fences and soldiers.

 

[Sweden]

The feature I like most about the parliamentary system is that some elements are apolitical. The Head of State, the Senate (House of Lords in the UK) and judiciary are the "grownups in the room" and don't try to legislate.

That leaves the legislators free to go about their business knowing guardrails are in place should they make a mistake or misbehave. That knowledge tempers their conduct resulting in responsible and responsive governance.

English judges constantly attempt to overrule elected parliamentarians and are most certainly not apolitical.

The House of Lords does indeed include some non-partisan members but most appointees are elderly party hacks with long records in the HofC or councils.

 

[Allan]

English judges constantly attempt to overrule elected parliamentarians and are most certainly not apolitical.

Courts are supposed to have a role in evaluating legislation with regard to its constitutionality. That doesn't mean the judge is political.

There have been occasions in Canada where the government first sent proposed legislation to the Supreme Court to get a legal opinion on its constitutionality.

The House of Lords does indeed include some non-partisan members but most appointees are elderly party hacks with long records in the HofC or councils.

But the body itself (thinking specifically of the Canadian Senate) does not behave in a partisan manner.

 

[HumblePi]

Yes but that can include both presidential and parliamentary systems. The United States (presidential), Germany (parliamentary), and France (hybrid) can all be considered democratic republics.

But the US goes by an established constitution.

The feature I like most about the parliamentary system is that some elements are apolitical. The Head of State, the Senate (House of Lords in the UK) and judiciary are the "grownups in the room" and don't try to legislate.

That leaves the legislators free to go about their business knowing guardrails are in place should they make a mistake or misbehave. That knowledge tempers their conduct resulting in responsible and responsive governance.

That system works, unless the Senate and the Lords are co-opted by an evil man such as Donald Trump

 

[Allan]

That system works, unless the Senate and the Lords are co-opted by an evil man such as Donald Trump

The system still works because the Senate can't indefinitely block the House. On third reading the Act bypasses the Senate and goes directly to the Governor General.

Now if the GG became obstructive that would be a huge problem but that's not happened.

 

[Cameron]

I think a parliamentary system works well with 3+ parties. I don’t think it would work well in America.