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

[Peter]

It was a colossal failure in Germany, giving rise to Adolf Hitler and leading to WWII. The Weimar Constitution, as is the case with Parliamentary systems, allows for elections anytime the votes, or lack thereof demands one. The frequent elections allowed the rapid rise to power of the Nazis

So, you think the fact that a government can call an election was the 4eason for Hitler?

The other countries with the system have managed to avoid going full Nazi. I wonder why?

 

[Juin]

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

What has been usurped so far that is not a Presidential prerogative?

 

[Juin]

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.

The Weimar Republic comes to mind. There were too frequent elections which benefited the Nazis immensely in their rise to power in a short time. It may have been harder, if not impossible if the Nazis had to wait years for next elections. Germans would have had the time to settle down and examine them closely

 

[Peter]

What has been usurped so far that is not a Presidential prerogative?

Trumps team is currently suing the Supreme Court and claiming it has total control of it as Trump claims the court is part of the executive.

How about that for a juicy start?

That 3 pillars idea is looking a tad shaky.

 

[Juin]

It was a colossal failure in Germany, giving rise to Adolf Hitler and leading to WWII. The Weimar Constitution, as is the case with Parliamentary systems, allows for elections anytime the votes, or lack thereof demands one. The frequent elections allowed the rapid rise to power of the Nazis

So, you think the fact that a government can call an election was the 4eason for Hitler?

Its not what I think; too many elections were called in a relatively short time. The Nazis did not have to wait years for the next elections.

The other countries with the system have managed to avoid going full Nazi. I wonder why?

I gave Germany as an exanple of where the Parliamentary system was a colossal failure; should examples of dysfunctional democracies not be provided?

The Parliamentary systems were colossal failures in France as well. France's 3rd and 4th Republics were Parliamentary failures. The 5th Republic is a partial return to Presidential

 

[Juin]

What has been usurped so far that is not a Presidential prerogative?

Trumps team is currently suing the Supreme Court and claiming it has total control of it as Trump claims the court is part of the executive.

How about that for a juicy start?

That 3 pillars idea is looking a tad shaky.

What has been usurped?????

 

[Peter]

Its not what I think; too many elections were called in a relatively short time. The Nazis did not have to wait years for the next elections.





I gave Germany as an exanple of where the Parliamentary system was a colossal failure; should examples of dysfunctional democracies not be provided?

The Parliamentary systems were colossal failures in France as well. France's 3rd and 4th Republics were Parliamentary failures. The 5th Republic is a partial return to Presidential

About 7 or 8 years ago the UK had loads of elections all at the same time because the conservatives were a shambles but Labour weren't much better at the time.

British people quickly get sick of elections and the conservatives managed to get back in power with a co-alition with the Lib Dems (who I voted for and who instantly ditched their number 1 policy of free university in England to get a guy the job of deputy PM which is even more pointless than Vice President) what we didn't do was go full Nazi and in fact you can vote for the Nazi party here and they have exactly zero candidates for some unknown reason.

 

[Peter]

What has been usurped?????

He's trying to say he's in complete control of the supreme court.
If you can't work out why that's bad then maybe you need a refresher on how US politics works.

 

[Peter]

This became a famous clip over here.

 

[Juin]

He's trying to say he's in complete control of the supreme court.

That is you saying what you believe he is trying to do. Regardless, trying to say something and actually usurping something are two very different things. I take it you have no example of usurpation

If you can't work out why that's bad then maybe you need a refresher on how US politics works.

 

[Peter]

That is you saying what you believe he is trying to do. Regardless, trying to say something and actually usurping something are two very different things. I take it you have no example of usurpation

So you aren't worried by this move by the Trump team?
It completely neuters the Supreme Court if this works and puts the President in control.

I suppose that's fine if it's Trump?

Maybe watch the video I posted explaining things.

 

[Safiel]

The US system is clunky as hell. Why did the founding fathers not use the Westminster Parliamentary system as a model?

The Westminster System was not fully evolved by 1787.

It really reached its modern form in the 1830's, when King William IV was compelled to select a Prime Minister who held the support of the Parliament, setting the Constitutional norm that Prime Ministers reflect the party (or occasionally parties) that command a majority in Parliament.

 

[Gatsby]

The US system is clunky as hell. Why did the founding fathers not use the Westminster Parliamentary system as a model?

Because they didn't want a king. That was what they rebelled against.

 

[Peter]

The Westminster System was not fully evolved by 1787.

It really reached its modern form in the 1830's, when King William IV was compelled to select a Prime Minister who held the support of the Parliament, setting the Constitutional norm that Prime Ministers reflect the party (or occasionally parties) that command a majority in Parliament.

The Westminster system has sort of come together over centuries.
It's why we don't really have a solid start date as you guys do.

Maybe Magna-Carta in 1215 but that was just the start of a long process rather than a solid founding like you guys had.

 

[Peter]

Because they didn't want a king. That was what they rebelled against.

You can have a westminster style parliament without a king.
There has been some discussion of the UK becoming a Republic but it never goes anywhere.
The monarch would just be replaced with an elected head of state and everything else would stay the same.

 

[Gatsby]

You can have a westminster style parliament without a king.
There has been some discussion of the UK becoming a Republic but it never goes anywhere.
The monarch would just be replaced with an elected head of state and everything else would stay the same.

Yep, some sort of ceremonial head of state (either a constitutional monarch or a figurehead president) works pretty well IMO.

 

[JANFU]

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.

You left out Judicial Branch as a Co-Equal

Using the US as a basis for your opinion
US could have had a coup during the vote certification in Jan 21
BI-Partisan politics in the US left years ago

UK does not have a Constitution based upon 1 single document

The UK constitution is an uncodified constitution, meaning it's not contained in a single document but rather a collection of various sources like statutes, judicial precedents, conventions, and treaties. This system allows for flexibility and change as it's not formally entrenched. The British monarchy is a constitutional monarchy, with the monarch serving as Head of State while the elected Parliament has the power to make and pass laws

And a House of Lords which at 1 time was mainly hereditary and that has mostly changed to a PMs appointment
The small numbers of Hereditary Peers are close to ending

Canada added the Charter of Rights in 82
It includes a Not Withstanding Clause where the Provinces can refuse the SCOCs decisions that Provinces can use but only for specific Clauses

Our Senate is unelected with retirement at age 75. Same for SCOC.

Both countries achieved Independence in different ways, US thru War of Independence and Canada thru negotiations.
IMHO that was the imetus where our differences between the 2 countries began

The birth of seeking a consensus in Canada IMHO began after GB conquered Quebec in 1759
Prior to that the conquering country expelled the losers who were civilians.
Which is what happened in 1758 with the capture of Fort Louisbourg

Yet 1 year later GB changed that with the capture of Quebec
Many rights were granted to the French civilians

Britain captured Quebec in 1759 during the Seven Years' War (also known as the French and Indian War) after defeating French forces at the Battle of Quebec. This victory, led by General James Wolfe, was a crucial turning point, leading to the British conquest of Canada and the subsequent Treaty of Paris in 1763, which formally ceded New France to Great Britain.

Americans and Canadians look at things with a differing lense
Note I am not attacking the US but can only go by what I see and know
US is a great country and we will see how that is in during the next 3 years and 3 months or so

Myself I go with the Westminister Parliamentary system

 

[JANFU]

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.

I liked Clark
16 cents a gallon by Clarke and Trudeau 15 cents a gallon
Clark had mishaps but still liked the man

 

[Allan]

I liked Clark
16 cents a gallon by Clarke and Trudeau 15 cents a gallon
Clark had mishaps but still liked the man

Clarke is a good person who unfortunately made a couple of missteps.

His decision to move the Canadian Embassy in Israel, which he had to reverse, was an unforced error. Someone was giving him bad advice.

Then there was that vote. Was the Whip just bad at math?

 

[JANFU]

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.

Nope. India has 1.46 B population

 

[JANFU]

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.

In a Parliamentary Govt a minority must seek a partner from another party
Generally this type of government has more than 2 parties

 

[RetiredAtLast]

Nope. India has 1.46 B population

As I mentioned to someone else, Americans wouldn't accept India's P.M. replacement process. Maybe if thats how we had started....

 

[JANFU]

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.

UK has a list from the losing PM that for the most part is followed by the new PM

When a UK Prime Minister leaves office, they can submit a list of individuals they recommend for peerages, known as "resignation honors." These appointments, which can include knighthoods, damehoods, and peerages (including life peerages), are granted by the monarch at the request of the former PM. These peerages lead to appointments in the House of Lords.
Examples of Prime Ministers issuing resignation honors:

Theresa May: Issued a list of 19 new peerages upon leaving office in 2019.

Boris Johnson: Also issued a list of 7 peerages upon leaving office in 2022.
Elizabeth Truss: Issued a list of 3 peerages after a short tenure in 2022.
Rishi Sunak: Issued a list of 7 peerages in April 2025 upon leaving office.

 

[JANFU]

As I mentioned to someone else, Americans wouldn't accept India's P.M. replacement process. Maybe if thats how we had started....

Not just India it is the Parliamentary form of Government
That said the US could benefit from a 3rd party

 

[RetiredAtLast]

That said the US could benefit from a 3rd party

Probably, but we've had some attempts at it that didn't last past about one election.