Would you rather have a parliamentary democracy or what we have now

[Monty__]

a democratic republic? This is a serious question I've been pondering for a long time. I'm a historian (actually have a Ph D in history) and minored in Political Science in undergrad. Anyway, my point is, has the presidency become too powerful? And I don't just mean under Bush. I mean the office in general? It was never intended to be this powerful.

Would you rather vote for a president or for a party whose head becomes Prime Minister?

Just curious.

[gateley]

1. I'm not up on what

a parliamentary democracy entails. Could you give me a quick (!) comparison?

Also, I've heard of some countries where you can vote out the leaders -- what's that called, because I LIKE the sound of that!

Thanks!

[Monty__]

2. Sure

basically if we had that system in the US Nancy Pelosi would be Prime Minister. She's the ranking Democrat in the House. In the UK Gordon Brown is PM because his party won the most seats in the House of Commons (lower house like the House of Reps here).
Here is an exact definition:

Democratic form of government in which the party (or a coalition of parties) with the greatest representation in the parliament (legislature) forms the government, its leader becoming prime minister or chancellor.

Executive functions are exercised by members of the parliament appointed by the prime minister to the cabinet. The parties in the minority serve in opposition to the majority and have the duty to challenge it regularly. The prime minister may be removed from power whenever he loses the confidence of a majority of the ruling party or of the parliament. Parliamentary democracy originated in Britain (see Parliament) and was adopted in several of its former colonies.

[gateley]

7. Thanks --

Are the members the PM appoints to the cabinet representative of all parties -- or just the PM's?

I'm working through this, here. :7

[canetoad]

11. The prime minister

appoints senior elected members of her/his own party to fill ministerial (cabinet) positions ie. treasurer, foreign minister, health etc.

The opposition party appoints 'shadow' ministers who's job is to rebut and provide opposition to the cabinet member.

edit:typo

[gateley]

12. Okay, so

if it's the minorities' part to essentially offer rebuttal, does that preclude working together to achieve goals?

It kind of reminds me of debate class -- doesn't matter what side you put me on, my job is to convince you and the audience that you're wrong and I'm right.

And.... if it was a good system, why did our founders look for an alternative?

Still thinking on this -- aren't you sorry I clicked on your thread? :)

[canetoad]

15. Not at all

Just say the lower house (representatives) had 100 members and they were split say 50/40 with 10 independents. There would need to be a lot of consensus to get bills passed.

It is unusual, but not out of the question to vote against party lines. Conscience votes are often held, one of the more recent being on an abortion bill. I find it quite civilized!

Not at all sorry gately, I am still learning the intricacies of USA politics, and it can only be good if we learn how each other's countries function.

[Submariner]

3. parliamentary democracy

I like how in the UK or Israel, the SOB can be booted out for poor performance. To boot Bush in 2002 for sleeping on watch on 9/11 would have been the right course of action.

[otherlander]

4. I don't like the idea

that whatever party has a majority in the legislature gets to pick the prime minister. The direct election of a president is one way that I think our system is better- or would be, if we got rid of the electoral college. There are other ways in which I think a parliamentary system is better, though.

[Monty__]

6. That's a good point but my counter argument is

The office of the president, no matter if it's filled by Bush, Clinton, Carter, whoever, has become too powerful. A lot more powerful than it was ever intended to be by the founding fathers.

[canetoad]

13. Tell ya what Monty

I was always in favour of Australia becoming a republic with our own Head of State but since the reign of Bush I have started to think the opposite and would prefer to have the Queen as a constitutional figurehead rather than a popularly elected president.

I have no problems with a theoretical republic but the Bush administration has proven to the world that with corrupt intent, any elected position can be subverted.

As an aside, after the three ring circus that is the primaries, is ANY candidate going to have any energy left to be an effective president?

[DaveJ]

5. Lately I have been doubting our framework...

If McCain is elected, I will have had it with this country, to be honest. I was willing to consider GWB as a bout of temporary insanity, but if this continues I will want to disavow any ties with the U.S. and its Constitution.

Somehow we've ended up with a two party system, and somehow this two party system has boiled down to good vs evil. I don't like playing stupid games.

If we can somehow inject some sort of moral or ethical integrity into the minds of U.S. citizens then I think things will be fine. Otherwise, I think that our Constitution has failed.

[Oregone]

8. I like PDs

Its nice that the PM actually has to sit there, talk and take questions from the elected leaders in session. I also like how the parliment gets to boo and hiss at the idiots from time to time. At least it hold them publically accountable. The only time the current Presidents talk is during the SOTU, and everyone claps at every damn thing they say.

[SidDithers]

9. Can you imagine Bush every day in Question Period?...

CSPAN viewership would go through the roof!

Sid

[Liberal Gramma]

10. I think I'd like the option of voting "No Confidence"

in which case Bush would have been a 6-year president, and we'd have a Democrat in there NOW.

[deutsey]

14. Parliamentary democracy n/t