4 ms·

In my opinion the parliamentary system has proven to be more effective. In this system the Prime Minister with a majority has near dictatorial control over bot

In my opinion the parliamentary system has proven to be more effective. In this system the Prime Minister with a majority has near dictatorial control over both the legislature and the presidency so that he/she can move quickly. However the backstop is the no confidence vote which operates like impeachment. This is not a theoretical power but is exercised relatively frequently in parliamentarian systems. Failure to pass a budget is also by default a no confidence vote making it very rare one isn't passed. I think deep down the US feels that as well. The democracies they have created throughout the world do not mirror the US system of government. The problem we face today with the US centralizing power in the presidency is that impeachment is seen as a "nuclear option" and therefore is not an effective backstop.

colechristensen 7y ago
Watching Brexit doesn't inspire me with confidence about parliamentary systems, and I think it would work much worse in America which has a different set of problems. The diverse societies and economies of the regions of the US would not be well represented by a winner-take-all approach – the founders had a lot to say about the dictatorship of the majority. They had good points and the problems they feared I think would be worse in the US than in many of the parliamentary governments of the world. People in the US often times have a hard time realizing that their society isn't universal. The basic problem currently in the American system is overpowered political parties which didn't fit in to the original set of checks and balances. It isn't clear if there is a simple amendment which could fix the system or if it is more of a social problem.
- jdsully 7y ago
  The UK system has survived many hundreds of years and crises far more severe than the US has ever experienced (the US has never been at serious risk of a land invasion). No system of government is without its embarrassments and messes, but the UK's parliament has been battle tested and is proven.
  - Ntrails 7y ago
    To be fair the current state of the Lords is somewhat different to the historically tested one.
    - jdsully 7y ago
      The trend in a lot of parliaments around the world is to remove the upper house. It will be interesting to see the effects of this.
icebraining 7y ago
At least in my parliamentary country, a PM with an absolute majority can also block a no confidence vote, which is why only 1 of 30 such votes in the last 45 years have actually passed. Is it different in other countries? > I think deep down the US feels that as well. The democracies they have created throughout the world do not mirror the US system of government. Well, that assumes those decisions are made solely with the best interests of the people in those democracies in mind.
- jdsully 7y ago
  Compare this with no US president ever being removed from office (although I will concede Nixon was pretty close). A no confidence vote passing once every 50 years is downright frequent in comparison.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  No British Prime Minister has lost a confidence motion since 1979, but I think it's worth noting that a) a PM with a majority can only block a no-confidence vote with the support of their party's MPs and b) the threat of a no-confidence motion is frequently sufficient to force a resignation. Callaghan was the last PM to lose a no-confidence vote, but that's not the full story. Major and Brown resigned after losing an election, but Thatcher, Blair and Cameron all resigned as PM. May is expected to resign before the next general election. No US president has resigned since Nixon in 1974, which suggests a marked difference in security of tenure under the different systems - we might not kick our prime minister out of office very often, but they usually leave office of their own volition.

colechristensen 7y ago

Watching Brexit doesn't inspire me with confidence about parliamentary systems, and I think it would work much worse in America which has a different set of problems. The diverse societies and economies of the regions of the US would not be well represented by a winner-take-all approach – the founders had a lot to say about the dictatorship of the majority. They had good points and the problems they feared I think would be worse in the US than in many of the parliamentary governments of the world. People in the US often times have a hard time realizing that their society isn't universal. The basic problem currently in the American system is overpowered political parties which didn't fit in to the original set of checks and balances. It isn't clear if there is a simple amendment which could fix the system or if it is more of a social problem.

jdsully 7y ago
The UK system has survived many hundreds of years and crises far more severe than the US has ever experienced (the US has never been at serious risk of a land invasion). No system of government is without its embarrassments and messes, but the UK's parliament has been battle tested and is proven.
- Ntrails 7y ago
  To be fair the current state of the Lords is somewhat different to the historically tested one.
  - jdsully 7y ago
    The trend in a lot of parliaments around the world is to remove the upper house. It will be interesting to see the effects of this.

icebraining 7y ago

At least in my parliamentary country, a PM with an absolute majority can also block a no confidence vote, which is why only 1 of 30 such votes in the last 45 years have actually passed. Is it different in other countries? > I think deep down the US feels that as well. The democracies they have created throughout the world do not mirror the US system of government. Well, that assumes those decisions are made solely with the best interests of the people in those democracies in mind.

jdsully 7y ago
Compare this with no US president ever being removed from office (although I will concede Nixon was pretty close). A no confidence vote passing once every 50 years is downright frequent in comparison.
jdietrich 7y ago
No British Prime Minister has lost a confidence motion since 1979, but I think it's worth noting that a) a PM with a majority can only block a no-confidence vote with the support of their party's MPs and b) the threat of a no-confidence motion is frequently sufficient to force a resignation. Callaghan was the last PM to lose a no-confidence vote, but that's not the full story. Major and Brown resigned after losing an election, but Thatcher, Blair and Cameron all resigned as PM. May is expected to resign before the next general election. No US president has resigned since Nixon in 1974, which suggests a marked difference in security of tenure under the different systems - we might not kick our prime minister out of office very often, but they usually leave office of their own volition.