4 ms·

Yes, I always find it funny when I see just how easy it is to pass a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems and have a new executive government set up.

by newen 8y ago

Yes, I always find it funny when I see just how easy it is to pass a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems and have a new executive government set up. While in the US you have to wait four years(!) if you want a new government even if the majority of people do not want the current executive government in power.

anoncake 8y ago
Even in a parliamentary system the majority of people may not want the current government in power if the parliament they elected years before does.
- magduf 8y ago
  It's still much better than the presidential system, because you don't get deadlocks between the executive and legislative branches that last indefinite amounts of time. The legislature picks the executive (instead of the voters electing him separately and on a different cycle), so the two branches tend to be in agreement. And the voters are able to change the makeup of parliament to some extent at every election. Also, parliamentary countries seem to have elections based much more on party rather than actual people, so they have more parties with representation, instead of devolving to just two parties per Duverger's Law.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    > It's still much better than the presidential system, because you don't get deadlocks between the executive and legislative branches that last indefinite amounts of time. Sure, but that's a different argument. > (instead of the voters electing him separately and on a different cycle) Nothing prevents having both elections on the same cycle. AFAIK France (which is semi-presidential) somewhat recently aligned their cycles to make that disagreements between president and parliament less likely. > Also, parliamentary countries seem to have elections based much more on party rather than actual people, so they have more parties with representation, instead of devolving to just two parties per Duverger's Law. That actually weakens the claim that parliamentary systems are superior, unless presidential systems somehow cause first-past-the-post. I think they may have a common cause though: If the writers of a country's constitution believe that people should vote for parties, they'll probably chose proportional representation and a parliamentary system. If they want people to vote for individuals, a presidential system with FPTP is the obvious choice.

by newen 8y ago

anoncake 8y ago

Even in a parliamentary system the majority of people may not want the current government in power if the parliament they elected years before does.

magduf 8y ago
It's still much better than the presidential system, because you don't get deadlocks between the executive and legislative branches that last indefinite amounts of time. The legislature picks the executive (instead of the voters electing him separately and on a different cycle), so the two branches tend to be in agreement. And the voters are able to change the makeup of parliament to some extent at every election. Also, parliamentary countries seem to have elections based much more on party rather than actual people, so they have more parties with representation, instead of devolving to just two parties per Duverger's Law.
- anoncake 8y ago
  > It's still much better than the presidential system, because you don't get deadlocks between the executive and legislative branches that last indefinite amounts of time. Sure, but that's a different argument. > (instead of the voters electing him separately and on a different cycle) Nothing prevents having both elections on the same cycle. AFAIK France (which is semi-presidential) somewhat recently aligned their cycles to make that disagreements between president and parliament less likely. > Also, parliamentary countries seem to have elections based much more on party rather than actual people, so they have more parties with representation, instead of devolving to just two parties per Duverger's Law. That actually weakens the claim that parliamentary systems are superior, unless presidential systems somehow cause first-past-the-post. I think they may have a common cause though: If the writers of a country's constitution believe that people should vote for parties, they'll probably chose proportional representation and a parliamentary system. If they want people to vote for individuals, a presidential system with FPTP is the obvious choice.