Page 1 of 1
American Presidential System vs. Parliamentary system
Posted:
Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:24 pmby Cronus
Here is a quote from a letter to the editor of The Economist:
Lexington mused over the fondness that Americans have developed for monarchy (a reference to the fact that if Hillary wins in 2008 then there will have been 24 years of uninterrupted rule by a Clinton or Bush from January 1989 to January 2013 and possible another 4 years until January 2017), but glossed over the fact that it is America's own political system that has given the White House its "air of royalty". The biggest difference between parliamentary systems and American-style presidential systems is that the former are based around robust political parties that are the proving grounds for testing, developing and supporting political leadership. America's system, with its comparatively weak and diffuse party structure, is increasingly a "celebrity" based model, in which each presidential candidate has to create his or her own personal political party for fund-raising, advisers, etc.
In such a personality-driven system, a candidate's family members already have the advantage of name recognition that helps them raise money if they choose to run. They can also rely on the coterie of friends and advisers to the family that has been built up by previous campaigns. George Bush is the classic example of this. In 2000 more attention was paid to his inheritance of the Bush family mantle than on his meagre record as governor of Texas. Today, the celebrity factor dominates the current primary campaigns, with the media focusing on personalities and paying little attention to substantive policy issues.
Here is the article that "Lexington" refers to
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9149798
Posted:
Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:28 pmby btownmeggy
Yeah, totally, So?
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:55 amby Minister Masket
Both governments contain and are run by balding, middle age loonatics who can't run a straight line. The only difference is the time zone.
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:24 amby Titanic
I prefer the parliamentary system over the presedential system because it does not put power into one persons hand. As George Bush have proved, putting power into one person hands can be very dangerous. Also, in parliament, the Prime Minister can be overthrown by his own party at any time during the electoral term, or can stand down at any time. Onnly 1 President has never finished his term, excluding deaths.
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:29 amby Honibaz
The Honibaz Equation.
Dirty Tricks+Propaganda^2=Politics
^ means to the power of.
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:11 amby btownmeggy
Titanic wrote:I prefer the parliamentary system over the presedential system because it does not put power into one persons hand. As George Bush have proved, putting power into one person hands can be very dangerous. Also, in parliament, the Prime Minister can be overthrown by his own party at any time during the electoral term, or can stand down at any time. Onnly 1 President has never finished his term, excluding deaths.
The presidential system doesn't inherently put a whole lot of power into the hands of one person. The US Presidency has evolved greatly since its inception, making the President a much more powerful figure. According to the gospel of the Constitution (if it was actually followed), the US would be a CONGRESSIONAL system, but especially within the past 100 years, the executive has assumed a lot of the responsibilities originally given to the legislature.
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:29 amby got tonkaed
i actually think both systems have their drawbacks but for me i think if we assume that both systems are running either equally bad or equally good id take the presidency. Assuming that i do have some american bias, it seems like there is potential for either more positive with a well run presidency (which is a nice idea right) and more safeguards against a poorly run presidency with the checks and balances. Likewise i wonder, to some extent i guess, if your job can be yanked from you if you wont be doing more pandering in order to keep your job. Now theres other arguments against that of course, and its more hypothetical, since i think in general they both have their merits and drawbacks. Im not certain that a parlimentary system isnt the best way to run a goverment, but strictly at the top, i think the american presidency system is a better way (from the perspective of the top) to run a country.
Posted:
Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:30 pmby Jenos Ridan
Titanic wrote:I prefer the parliamentary system over the presedential system because it does not put power into one persons hand. As George Bush have proved, putting power into one person hands can be very dangerous. Also, in parliament, the Prime Minister can be overthrown by his own party at any time during the electoral term, or can stand down at any time. Onnly 1 President has never finished his term, excluding deaths.
The Weimar Republic that elected Hitler had the same parliamentry system for the most part. At least when the three branches are separated it is harder for one man to take over.
Posted:
Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:06 amby daddy1gringo
Although I'm an American and it's against my prejudices, I have to say that I think England's Parliamentary system does a better job of carrying out the primary goal behind both systems: to keep power from getting concentrated in one place.
The advantage of a stronger executive, like we have here, is that more can get done since the executive can on occasion bypass the debate and cut the red tape for a period of time. It's always a trade-off, you trade some control over the leader for greater efficiency, but you take a risk. In ancient Athens' democracy, the law provided tor choosing a "tyrant" at time of need. His power was absolute except for the fact that his time was limited. If I remember correctly, sometimes that worked out well for them and sometimes not.
Btw, congratulations to Cronus for starting one of the most intelligent and worthwhile threads on the forum.
Posted:
Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:06 pmby sfhbballnut
Titanic wrote:I prefer the parliamentary system over the presedential system because it does not put power into one persons hand. As George Bush have proved, putting power into one person hands can be very dangerous. Also, in parliament, the Prime Minister can be overthrown by his own party at any time during the electoral term, or can stand down at any time. Onnly 1 President has never finished his term, excluding deaths.
The power isn't in one man's hands, the president can do nothing with out the approval of Congress