Which Governemnt System do you Prefer?

[Last Roman]

so, which one do you like and why?

btw, when I say presidential, I mean something like what the US has

for me, it depends on the country. in a big country like the us, i would prefer a strong president, in a smaller country, say the uk, i would prefer a parlimentary system, but since i live in the us, i voted presidential

[Aristophanes]

Like game system? Solar system? The Atkin's diet?

Parameters please.

[invictus]

This is a tough one, im going with dictatorship. -Leon

[Last Roman]

fine could a mod change the title to 'which government system'

[Nationalist_Cause]

Presidential, but only if it is implemented correctly. Alot of states, particularly in Latin America, have strong presidential systems where the executive controls the military. As one would expect, this type of system often devolves into dictatorship. It has worked very well in the U.S., but few other places. But it could easily go sour in America as well if the executive branch accumulates too much power (as it has been for decades now).

[Sétanta]

I think the presidental system gives the people the sense and power to elect their leaders but also gives their leaders the ability to act uncompromisingly. Something that has problems in corrupt nations but also gives the government the power to do what is needed.
Especially in the hands of a stable nation like the US the presidential system works perfectly.

[Last Roman]

Presidential, but only if it is implemented correctly. Alot of states, particularly in Latin America, have strong presidential systems where the executive controls the military. As one would expect, this type of system often devolves into dictatorship. It has worked very well in the U.S., but few other places. But it could easily go sour in America as well if the executive branch accumulates too much power (as it has been for decades now).

which begs the question, why has it worked so well here and not other places

[Nationalist_Cause]

which begs the question, why has it worked so well here and not other places

That I can't say for certain. My focus in college (graduate in two weeks...here I come unemployment) was mostly in global and American politics. I didn't study too much about constitutional systems. But I'll give my opinion on the matter for the sake of discussion.

It has worked better in America because we DO have a Constitution that fragments the power of government sufficiently to make a renegade executive think twice before destroying the democratic fabric of his country. The other branches of government wouldn't stand for it, and neither would the people. The U.S. was also very fortunate to draw upon the oldest and greatest constitutional tradition in the world, Magna Carta. The Founders and great thinkers of the day were all familiar with Magna Carta and Blackstone and were able to draw up a government that protected the most sacred freedoms that Anglo-Saxons had developed over the course of hundreds of years.

Again, just my opinion. I'm sure a Constitutional history major or prof could give a better explanation.

[Erik]

I voted Parliament, but proportional representation like they have in Europe, not in FPTP like they have in Britain because IMO you need more than two parties to have a democracy.
I especially like the fact that even small groups can get represented by their MP.

But, like Last Roman, I think it works best in small countries.
I don't think democracies can work in large countries, so they are probably better off with democracy on local (state/province) level and a president to control the federation.
America might stretch the limits on size, but I can't see Russia, China or India become true democracies.

[Tiwaz]

Parliamentary in European style.

Too much power to too few can NEVER be a good thing, be they presidents, monarchs or political parties/prime ministers (referring to two party systems and similar). By forcing them to rely on others (as in other political parties with different agendas) you give people better ability to have their view represented.

[MaximiIian]

Despotism if done properly, i.e for the good of the people, like during the Enlightenment Age (Frederick the Great, Joseph II, Catherine the Great, anyone?). If not that, then just do a parliamentary monarchy system, like the UK. Works best, it seems, seeing as how Britain owned, like, a quarter of the world at one time, and still sorta-half-assed-kinda do (via the British Commonwealth).

[removeduser_487563287433]

What a useless poll. There are like a gadzillion different examples of Presidential and Parliamentary systems in the world.

[the_mango55]

works differently for different nations. and each has advantages and disadvantages.

For America, I don't know if European style parliment would work. Too many parties, not enough directing power. It seems like it would slow down even more the legislative processes without a major power to direct policy.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Saying that they're unsuitable for certain countries is wrong. What the posters in this thread are getting confused with are unitary and federal systems, rather than Parliamentary and Presidential.

[Last Roman]

What the posters in this thread are getting confused with are unitary and federal systems, rather than Parliamentary and Presidential.

not really. Not all parlimentary systems use a unitary gov't and vice versa

[removeduser_487563287433]

not really. Not all parlimentary systems use a unitary gov't and vice versa

That's what I'm saying. People here have suggested that the USA is too big for a Parliamentary system, and quoting the UK Parliament as an example, when they are thinking of the UK's unitary system which is not suitable for a country the size of the USA.

[ckerr094]

As I am from Northern Ireland I have nothing to admire about our political system mainly because of squabbling grumpy men, the lack of a political system and the whole backward sectarian voting - are you a unionist or a nationalist. I do however admire the US system, fair, accountable, etc, etc!

[Sidus Preclarum]

a hybrid of both.

[MoROmeTe]

What a useless poll. There are like a gadzillion different examples of Presidential and Parliamentary systems in the world.

Word...

It is very true that the sheer differences within the parliamentary and presidential systems make such a poll slightly irrelevant. Yet, there is a fundamental principle underlying each both systems proposed and a choice in this fundamental principle creates all sorts of political effects, what can be called a "path dependancy"...

Parlamentarism is usually coupled with proportional representation (England is the big exception). Presidentialism is usually coupled with majoritary elections. The first sacrifices power of government and administration stability for a creating, in Parliament, a clear picture of the political views and interests of the population. The second sacrifices clear cut representation for stability of government and power of government. I think I actually like the English system, with its checks and balances that make the Government powerful but not at a clear expense to the Parliament.

[Pertinax]

popular democracy