Comparative Analysis of the US Presidential System and the Canadian Parliamentary Sys

[Hard_Rom]

http://www.academia.edu/2763342/Canadas_Parliamentary_System_vs._U.S.s_Presidential_system

For years, political scholars have studied two types of democratic governmental systems, presidential systems and parliamentary systems, and analysed them as to their effectiveness and the ability of each system to uphold democratic principles. These two countries were chosen due to their close cultural ties, similar plurality electoral system, and somewhat similar political orientation.

Three main differences between presidential and parliamentary systems: a) in parliamentary systems the head of government requires the confidence of the legislature in order to stay in power, while in a presidential system the President remains in power for a fixed period of time (four years); b)in a presidential system, the electorate votes directly for the President, while in a parliamentary system leaders are selected by the party; and c) in a parliamentary system the Prime Minister as well as his cabinet make up the executive, in a presidential system, the President alone is a one-person executive.Iin the presidential system each level of government is separate, a phenomenon known as “separation of powers”.

This phenomenon is created by the existence of separate elections for the President and the Congress.
In Canada the Prime Minister is simply an MP(Member of Parliament) who is named the leader of the party; yielding a situation in which there is no separation of powers.

The general consensus of scholars who support parliamentary systems is that compared to a presidential system, there is a more centralized decision making process, parties tend to be stronger, and the government leader is more responsible to the legislature and ultimately more accountable to the citizens. Scholars who support presidential systems argue, that separation of powers allows for a strong legislature, voting directly for the President confers greater transparency, the system encourages pluralism (which allows for a diversity of views to be expressed), and that proposed bills are scrutinized and voted on by two levels of government, which some argue increases the accountability of the system.

The arguments for each system are strong, but in many ways

it’s the arguments against the systems that are most important. Shugart and Mainwaring have

argued that in the Parliamentary system there can be a relative lack of scrutiny in passing some bills, making passage to easy. Another criticism of parliamentary systems has been voiced by Moe and Caldwell. They explained that due to the power of the Prime Minister it is harder to form compromises between the parties and interest groups. They further go on to say that in many parliamentary systems laws can get overturned when the opposition party wins an election, resulting in instability in the system. Some have even said that parliamentary systems are not truly democratic because citizens don’t vote directly for the leader of the nation, but instead they can only vote for their member of parliament.

Similarly, there are also a substantial number of arguments against presidential systems. The most cited criticism is that the presidential system may create a major split between the executive and the legislature, which may make the law making process futile. This leads to another problem with Presidential systems, which is that they tend to be not as stable as Parliamentary systems, due to the constant debate between different levels of government.

The American system, with its principle of separation of powers, has three levels of government, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary which are divided and seen as equal. A “separation of powers” system will tend to create a large and divided bureaucracy, with many formal restrictions creating an ineffective system. The legislature who needs the support of interest groups would rather have an ineffective system, one buried in formal restrictions, because they rather only pass bills that are truly supported by the majority of the population. Presidents on the other hand would prefer an effective bureaucracy that allows for quick policy making.

The parliamentary system does not have this problem, mainly because the Prime Minister is part of the legislature. The simple Westminster parliamentary system usually creates majority governments, where the Prime Minister can easily pass a bill quickly and effectively, as he/she can rely on his/her party members to vote for it. The parliamentary system allows the leader to have the type of bureaucracy he/she wants, which is a system that allows him to pass his party’s policies and focus on certain issues.

The separation of powers system is set up mainly to place checks and balances on the power of the leader, resulting in Congress and Senate having a considerable amount of power. In Canada, the Prime Minister has a lot more power vested in the position, because he is ostensibly a part of the legislature. Given a majority of seats, the government can easily pass bills through the House.

Canada’s government can be divided three essential components: a) the executive, made up of the Governor General (who represents the Queen),the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet; b) The legislature, which is made up of the Senate and the House of Commons; and c) the judiciary which is made up of the various courts culminating in the Supreme Court. The notion of an “essentially responsible government” can be understood as the idea wherein the executive is responsible for its actions to an elected legislature. Responsible government has many advantages and allows for each level of government to be accountable to each other; ultimately being accountable to the citizens.

The American system is tripartite having the executive (President),the legislature made up of Senate and Congress, and the judiciary. in the U.S., the executive is a one person executive made up of just the President. Ostensibly the U.S. has the equivalent in that has a cabinet population by the various secretaries (health, education, defence, etc.), but constitutionally they are not part of the executive.

The parliamentary system has the Prime Minister but also has the Cabinet. The Cabinet is made up of Ministers who are Members of Parliament appointed to important positions, and are in charge of certain jurisdictions. Each Minister is assigned its jurisdiction by the Prime Minister. Having a Cabinet allows the executive to cover more issues, it allows the Prime Minister to focus on pressing matters because he knows that his Cabinet Ministers will keep track of the different policy areas.

Both the U.S. and Canada have a House of Commons/Representatives and a Senate, but the Senate is quite different in the American presidential system. In fact, the Canadian Senate and the American Senate are similar in name only. The Canadian Senate is not an overly powerful body, and has become so over the years mainly because Senators are appointed rather then elected. The Canadian Senate, which is meant to be a body for “sober second thought” functionally, cannot vote against most government policies.

The American Senate is elected and for this reason has more power. The Senate has the ability to vote on bills and in fact a bill must have the support of 60% of Senate in order to move to the Congress to be voted on. This is quite a high threshold and there have been many examples where bills enter but don’t leave the senate. The advantage of having a powerful senate is that it keeps the congress and the President in check, and as explained earlier adds to the bureaucratic structure that only allows for greater scrutiny of bills. The disadvantage of the American senate is that it increases the time it takes to pass a bill and in some cases prevents the President from passing policies that he promised he would enact.

The biggest difference between the two systems is the simple fact that in the American system the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary are all separate, each level is designed to balance each other, in what is known as a system of checks and balances. In the event of one is becoming too powerful there is a veto system. In the American system, in order for a bill to pass it has to be signed off by the President and at that stage the President has the ability to veto the bill. But the Congress can overturn the President’s veto with a two-thirds vote in the Congress. The President also has the power to pass a bill through what is known as executive order. Executive order allows the President to pass a bill even if the legislature has already voted against it. The advantage of executive order is it checks the power of the Congress, and allows the President to pass certain policies that he feels are important. The disadvantage of executive order is the view that it gives the President too much, and an overuse of executive order it can lead to an autocracy rather then a democracy. In contrast, The Prime Minister does not have this power. In a majority government the Prime Minister really does not need to have executive order because in most cases the bills he wants will be passed.

Another important difference between presidential and parliamentary systems is electoral policy. In the American presidential system, the electorate ostensibly votes for three individuals, their Senator, their Representative and their President. In addition to this allowing for the separation of powers, supporters of presidential systems have also argued that it is more democratic since the citizens are able to directly select both the leader and the legislature. However, supporters of parliamentary systems have argued that it creates a problem where a popular candidate might be selected rather then the one best for the job.

One issue that can be construed as both strength and a weakness of the American system, and is in sharp contrast to the Canadian system, is the possibility of having different political parties “in charge” of different entities. There have been innumerable examples, even in the last few years, since 2010, where the system has been extremely inefficient, with the Congress repeatedly blocking certain social and economic policies that the President has wanted to pass. This is arguably the most significant flaw of the separation of powers system, if neither the executive nor the legislature are willing to compromise, nothing will get done.

The Canadian system is immune from the aforementioned problem because the Prime Minister is not directly elected; instead voters elect a member of parliament in each riding. The party, who wins the most seats, will then become the leading party, and their leader becomes the Prime Minister, essentially making him/her a part of the legislature. This system is not perfect and many have argued that it is undemocratic to not have a direct vote for the leader.

The essential difference in the American and Canadian systems is also reflected in the issue of party discipline. Party discipline simply means the ability of a party to influence its members to support the party leader. Canada’s parliamentary system has a strong party discipline. This is a by-product of a responsible government system, which was in part created in support of strong parties. In this system, members of parliament have to vote with their party in order to prevent the Prime Minister from losing the confidence of the House. Party discipline is needed because the opposing parties increasingly scrutinize and often vote against the government’s policies. This creates an imperative for any party in leadership that in order for them to be effective; they have to have a unified vision, and strong support for their leader. The electoral system also creates a strong party structure because the electorate often vote for the “party” rather then for the leader of the party. In the Canadian system as well as other parliamentary systems, the party’s manifesto is extremely important, as in many instances citizens vote in support of a particular party’s suite of policies, with the knowledge that their MP will tend to support the party manifesto if they get elected. Party leaders and party members tend to put the party in front of their own personal views, allowing for optimal policy making.

The American presidential system sometimes creates party splits and thus weak party discipline. This notwithstanding, for the most part, especially in the current system the Democrats and Republicans do have strong party discipline. Indeed, the two parties have become increasingly polarized on many issues and fundamentally hostile towards each other. This has resulted in both parties having increased their party discipline. However, in the American system party discipline is less important since there are separate elections between the President and the legislature. Even if the parties are totally loyal to the President in order for the system to be somewhat effective the parties have to compromise with each other. Although compromise is an important part of democratic governance, as parties increasingly compromise with the attendant need to “make deals” with each other, there is a risk that they will stray from the core of their party’s manifesto.

Most political scholars have attempted to answer the question: Which democratic government system is better, Presidential systems or Parliamentary systems. So far there has been no consensus; there are strong arguments for both systems. Research that was done proved that parliamentary systems are more effective, more accountable, and create a stronger and cohesive party system. The main fault of the U.S. system is the separation of powers system, creates a bureaucracy that is buried in formal restrictions causing inefficiency when it comes to policy making. The U.S. government is consistently less effective, having division of powers and separate elections can cause disagreements between the different levels of government, which leads to instability in the system. Responsible government makes sure that each level of government is accountable for each other, which allows for a stable and efficient system.

 

[underguy1]

What are you?

10?

Only 2 types of democratic systems?

Laughable clown.

 

[LadyVer]

Whatever the system, it would be nice to ban pre-debate meetings by candidates.

 

[Hard_Rom]

What are you?

10?

Only 2 types of democratic systems?

Laughable clown.

First of you lying pretending piece of shit Yank clown, it is not my article. Check the link.
Second it is meant as a comparison of only two systems, of two countries closely linked by culture and geography.

You are a liar. You are not in New Zealand. Nor do you shyte about the Westminster Parliamentary system which runs the country you claim to be from.

You are chicken shit troll who thinks he can pretend to be something other than a trollish Yank.

I took you off my iggy list long enough to see if you were demonstrating some knowledge of New Zealand politics. Even as a republican leaning New Zealander you would have had some worthwhile comment to make.

You are a fucking liar and a troll.

Back on the iggy list you go. Say Hi to the racists, trolls and stupid fucks who populate it.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Whatever the system, it would be nice to ban pre-debate meetings by candidates.

This is how political debates should be settled

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYlWiZMhaLE

 

[Hypoxia]

Interesting analysis but questions arise.

In Westminster parliamentary systems like Canada's, who draws district lines? USA has a process called Gerrymandering, which in some states allows a party receiving 40% of the vote to take 60% of the seats.

Who decides voter eligibility, and who counts the votes? Do national standards apply, or do provinces, like USA states, set their own rules? Are groups like ex-felons disenfranchised? Are efforts at voter suppression tolerated? Can courts overturn election results?

 

[Hard_Rom]

In Canada powers are devolved downwards to the provinces unlike the US where the Federal government derives it's powers from the states.

Courts can overturn election results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada

Every Canadian citizen 18 years of age or older has the right to vote, except for the Chief Electoral Officer and the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer. In the Canada Elections Act, inmates serving a sentence of at least two years were prohibited from voting, but on October 31, 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Sauvé v. Canada that such a law violated the section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and was rendered of no force or effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_Canada

Elections Canada (French: Élections Canada) is an independent, non-partisan agency reporting directly to the Parliament of Canada. Its ongoing responsibility is to ensure that Canadians can exercise their choices in federal elections and referendums through an open and impartial process. Elections Canada is the sole agency responsible for administering Canadian federal elections.

Its responsibilities include:
Making sure that all voters have access to the electoral system
Informing citizens about the electoral system
Maintaining the National Register of Electors
Enforcing electoral legislation
Training election officers
Producing maps of electoral districts
Registering political parties, electoral district associations, and third parties that engage in election advertising
Administering the allowances paid to registered political parties
Monitoring election spending by candidates, political parties and third parties
Publishing financial information on political parties, electoral district associations, candidates, nomination contestants, leadership contestants and third parties
Supporting the independent commissions responsible for adjusting the boundaries of federal electoral districts every ten years
Reporting to Parliament on the administration of elections and referendums

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Canada

Since responsibility for drawing federal and provincial electoral boundaries was handed over to independent agencies, this problem (gerrymandering) has largely been eliminated at these levels of government. Manitoba was the first province to authorise a non-partisan group to define constituency boundaries in the 1950s. In 1964, the federal government delegated the drawing of boundaries for national seats to the "arm's length" Elections Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_...r_suppression_scandal#Electoral_law_in_Canada

It is illegal under the Canada Elections Act to impersonate Elections Canada or to interfere with somebody's right to vote. Under Section 403 of the Criminal Code finds individuals who fraudulently impersonate others "(a) with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person" or "(c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another person" guilty of identity fraud. On an indictment, the convicted faces up to 10 years in prison.

 

[underguy1]

First of you lying pretending piece of shit Yank clown, it is not my article. Check the link.
Second it is meant as a comparison of only two systems, of two countries closely linked by culture and geography.

You are a liar. You are not in New Zealand. Nor do you shyte about the Westminster Parliamentary system which runs the country you claim to be from.

You are chicken shit troll who thinks he can pretend to be something other than a trollish Yank.

I took you off my iggy list long enough to see if you were demonstrating some knowledge of New Zealand politics. Even as a republican leaning New Zealander you would have had some worthwhile comment to make.

You are a fucking liar and a troll.

Back on the iggy list you go. Say Hi to the racists, trolls and stupid fucks who populate it.

What a cretinous post.

Not surprising given that it was posted by a cretin.

 

[ishtat]

Interesting analysis but questions arise.

In Westminster parliamentary systems like Canada's, who draws district lines? USA has a process called Gerrymandering, which in some states allows a party receiving 40% of the vote to take 60% of the seats.

Who decides voter eligibility, and who counts the votes? Do national standards apply, or do provinces, like USA states, set their own rules? Are groups like ex-felons disenfranchised? Are efforts at voter suppression tolerated? Can courts overturn election results?

In UK and Oz there are National Independent Boundaries commissions, which map out the constituencies. Obviously these change from time to time and when they do, the party which perceives that they have a disadvantage can appeal and get the boundary re-examined. Change can be held up for a while but rarely indefinitely. At the moment in the UK the Labour Party has an advantage in that it needs less votes to get an MP elected than the Tories require. Proposed amendments will make it more equitable for the next General election.

Anybody can be a vote counter in Oz if they want to earn a few bucks,(employed and paid by the EC.). The parties have scrutineers at the count but almost never have any impact on the result. The Electoral Commission has a very powerful mandate. Most squabbles are over the transfer of preferences(We have a single transferable preference system. The Senate system is even more complex - very few voters understand it.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Every political system is THOSE WITH THE GOLD RULE. Everything else is folks pissing on your shoes.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Party funding

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing/

Election laws regulate most aspects of federal political party financing, both during and outside of election periods. The purpose of such regulation is to encourage greater transparency of political party activities and ensure a fair electoral arena that limits the advantages enjoyed by those with more money.

Canada’s federal election finance laws put limits on contributions to political parties and candidates. Only individuals — not corporations or trade unions — may donate. Contributions are limited to up to $1,500 a year to each political party and up to $1,500 to all of the registered electoral district associations, contestants seeking the party’s nomination and candidates for each party.

Canada’s system of party and election finance regulation provides two forms of state funding to political parties and to candidates.

First, political parties and candidates receive a reimbursement of some of their election expenses. Political parties that received either 2 per cent of the national vote or 5 per cent of the vote in the districts in which they ran candidates receive 50 per cent of the money they spent as a reimbursement. Candidates who received at least 10 per cent of the vote receive 15 per cent of the election expenses limit in their district as a reimbursement. In addition, if the candidate spent at least 30 per cent of the limit during the election, the reimbursement increases to 60 per cent of what the candidate spent during the election.

Second, Canada provides generous tax credits for donations to political parties and candidates. The first $400 of donations receives a 75 per cent tax credit; the amount between $400 and $750 receives a 50 per cent credit. Amounts over $750 receive a 33 per cent credit. An individual’s total tax credit in one year cannot exceed $650.

Because money is such an important resource in elections, party finance laws are often controversial. One of the enduring controversies is the appropriate balance between public and private funding of parties, as well as the appropriate way to provide public funding. Proponents of extensive public funding argue that it promotes transparency and reduces the potential for corruption, while opponents claim that public funding might insulate political parties from party members and voters who signal their discontent by withholding donations.

Another continuing source of controversy is the limits placed on “third parties.” Canada’s election finance regime implicitly recognizes political parties and candidates as the primary political actors in elections and places more stringent limits on the activities of advocacy groups and others who seek to intervene during elections. This limits the range of viewpoints expressed during elections, but also prevents parties from working around spending limits by having advocacy groups advertise on their behalf, a phenomenon common in the United States.

At the heart of the above controversies, and the regulation of political party financing itself, is a tension between the liberal democratic principles of freedom and equality. On the one hand, liberal democracies recognize the freedom of citizens to use their resources — including money — to achieve their political objectives. On the other hand, such freedom can compromise the fundamental political equality of citizens by giving those with access to greater financial opportunities excessive influence over the electoral process. It is this tricky balance that Canada’s regulation of political party finance attempts to strike.