Parliamentary vs. Congressional-Presidential system

[renard_ruse]

Some foreigners are questioning how the US government could shut down over a dispute between the executive and the legislative parts of government. This is because they live in systems where the executive has to command a majority in the legislature in order to govern. Our system is deliberately designed to preserve a separation of powers between the various branches of government.

Parliamentary vs. Congressional... Which system do others think is superior and why?

 

[renard_ruse]

The problem with a Parliamentary system is that a majority government can pretty much do anything it wants for 4 or 5 years with very little restraint on its power and no accountablity to the people.

In some of these systems there's a weak upper house, often unelected, which can stop some legislation but they rarely do and usually are not allowed to vote on government finance bills.

I feel these systems are generally less democratic than a Congressional system, and can lead to a 4 or 5 year dictatorship with little governmental restraint.

 

[eyer]

Why not just use what the framers tagged it, ruse:

Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

...instead of your asinine "Congressional-Presidential" crap?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Parliamentary systems.

Presidential/separation-of-powers systems.

Historically, countries with parliamentary systems have at least as good a track record WRT abuse of power and everything else. Look at the UK -- they have not even anything analogous to the U.S. Constitution to restrain government action. Technically, the House of Commons can do anything it wants to do. Nevertheless, the UK still ranks pretty high on the Democracy Index -- and on the Index of Economic Freedom, too. I think that has less to do with political system than political culture.

Federalist No. 47 and Federalist No. 51 famously argue for a separation-of-powers system, calling a system where the same authority might both enact and enforce legislation "the very definition of tyranny." But, it should come as no surprise by now that our Founding Fathers were wrong about a lot of things.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why not just use what the framers tagged it, ruse:



...instead of your asinine "Congressional-Presidential" crap?

Because there is more than one kind of republican form of government; many republics have parliamentary systems. (Lacking a monarch, they require ceremonial presidents to perform the same nonfunctions; sometimes, as in France, the president has real power shared with the PM.)

 

[renard_ruse]

Why not just use what the framers tagged it, ruse:



...instead of your asinine "Congressional-Presidential" crap?

You can have a Republican government with a Parliamentary legislature. France is one example. I'm approaching this from a comparative governments standpoint. I find Congressional-Presidential to be more specific.

 

[badbabysitter]

As much as i hate to agree with renard, he's right for a change

but to say one is inferior or superior disregards certain points which both systems have over each other

while certainly, a majority house can create its own dictatorship..as is being evidenced by the Harper Conservative party... it also prevents the minority from forcing a crisis on a nation due to its own idealogies, as evidenced by the Republican party

the Canadian system is absolutely innudated with checks and balances in how the government runs...in 2008, the Harper government..then only a minority government , suspended Parlaiment to avoid a vote of no-confidence... effectively Canada had no government...yet life continued on, everyone got paid; but we were still technically living in the worlds largest banana republic for awhile

the US system seems to falter whenever it stubs it's toe on the other hand, I feel due to its inherent lack of checks and balances..when one side comes in, they rewrite the rules, and everyone falls through the cracks

 

[badbabysitter]

Because there is more than one kind of republican form of government; many republics have parliamentary systems. (Lacking a monarch, they require ceremonial presidents to perform the same nonfunctions; sometimes, as in France, the president has real power shared with the PM.)

unless its the constitution or jesus related, eyer has never heard of it

 

[eyer]

You can have a Republican government with a Parliamentary legislature.

Not as far as the United States of America is constitutionally concerned...

I'm approaching this from a comparative governments standpoint. I find Congressional-Presidential to be more specific.

You're fabricating an American form of government...

...so you can approach this from a comparative governments standpoint?

That makes perfect renard sense...

 

[badbabysitter]

and the dumbassery from eyer keeps flowing


"you cant have that in Merikuh! praise jebus! statist"

" we're not talking about the US, eyer"

" Statist!"

 

[KingOrfeo]

the US system seems to falter whenever it stubs it's toe on the other hand, I feel due to its inherent lack of checks and balances.

Only if by "lack" you mean "presence."

 

[KingOrfeo]

Not as far as the United States of America is constitutionally concerned...

But, that is not the debate here.

 

[Wrong Element]

The problem with a Parliamentary system is that a majority government can pretty much do anything it wants for 4 or 5 years with very little restraint on its power and no accountablity to the people.

In some of these systems there's a weak upper house, often unelected, which can stop some legislation but they rarely do and usually are not allowed to vote on government finance bills.

I feel these systems are generally less democratic than a Congressional system, and can lead to a 4 or 5 year dictatorship with little governmental restraint.

There are all kinds of examples of parliamentary governments falling ahead of schedule because the people they're supposedly not accountable to got pissed off. Canada has had more national elections since 2000 than the U.S. has had.

 

[eyer]

But, that is not the debate here.

Really?

Here's the first line of ruse's opening post:

Some foreigners are questioning how the US government could shut down over a dispute between the executive and the legislative parts of government.

He ends with:

Our system is deliberately designed to preserve a separation of powers between the various branches of government.

Parliamentary vs. Congressional... Which system do others think is superior and why?

"Our system", "the US government"...

...is not either a "Congressional" or a "Congressional-Presidential" "system".

Since no such "system" exists concerning the United States of America...

...ruse's "debate" question - "Which system do others think is superior and why?" - is factually meaningless.

Though, admittedly...

...I am in no way whatsoever surprised that is also exactly why you're so naturally attracted to it.

 

[badbabysitter]

jesus fuck eyer is stupid

 

[SeaDaddy1]

 

[KingOrfeo]

jesus fuck eyer is stupid

Indeed. Or, at the very least, willfully and persistently oblivious.

 

[CandiCame]

I like mine, but I think it's just because I grew up with it. I totally get how other people think that primaries are a giant waste of time, energy, and money, and all the other problems that people have with it. I know it's not perfect. If everyone else decided to change it, I'd roll with it.

 

[oggbashan]

One of the reasons for the checks and balances built into the US system is their experience of the lack of them in the UK government at the time of the American Revolution.

The majority party in the UK, influenced by the 'King's Friends', had pushed the 13 Colonies into an impossible position, despite warnings and advice from the minority party and many within the majority. Party loyalty overrode sensible diplomacy at Westminster.

Those writing the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution didn't want the US to repeat the then recent failings at Westminster.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One of the reasons for the checks and balances built into the US system is their experience of the lack of them in the UK government at the time of the American Revolution.

The majority party in the UK, influenced by the 'King's Friends', had pushed the 13 Colonies into an impossible position, despite warnings and advice from the minority party and many within the majority. Party loyalty overrode sensible diplomacy at Westminster.

Those writing the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution didn't want the US to repeat the then recent failings at Westminster.

They also drew upon such examples as the Dutch and the previous Confederacy.

 

[KingOrfeo]

One of the reasons for the checks and balances built into the US system is their experience of the lack of them in the UK government at the time of the American Revolution.

The majority party in the UK, influenced by the 'King's Friends', had pushed the 13 Colonies into an impossible position, despite warnings and advice from the minority party and many within the majority. Party loyalty overrode sensible diplomacy at Westminster.

Those writing the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution didn't want the US to repeat the then recent failings at Westminster.

Kinda seems like they overcompensated.

 

[oggbashan]

Kinda seems like they overcompensated.

I'm not sure that is wholly fair on those who drafted it. But later interpretation has made the system much more rigid than the intentions.

 

[Sean Renaud]

As I often say, I think after a few centuries what you thought and what motivated you is sufficiently null and void that someone needs a better reason to do something than they said so.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I like mine, but I think it's just because I grew up with it. I totally get how other people think that primaries are a giant waste of time, energy, and money, and all the other problems that people have with it. I know it's not perfect. If everyone else decided to change it, I'd roll with it.

Well, primary elections have nothing to do with a debate on the relative merits of a parliamentary vs. a presidential system; they happen at a different stage in the process.

 

[Liar]

One system is not better than the other, and an executive in opposition to the legislative and political gridlock is not uncommon in a parlamentary system either, since whatever majorities there are, usually consists of frail multi party alliances.

The problem in America is not that it's a republic, but that you have a praxis (and constitution) that allows for shennanigans.

It should IMO be law that a yearly budget is passed or else Congress is fired, goes to jail, get tarred and feathered, or something. Also, the budget is authoity for the executive to borrow accordingly unless it's a surplus budget. There should also be precise rules for complementary resolutions in case of faulty projections or unforseen events - wars, comets et al.