Prime Minister or President?

[Emsworth]

Congressional-Presidential: The President is the head of state and the head of government. The executive branch is separate from and independent of the legislature. (example: United States)

Parliamentary-Prime Ministerial: The head of state is a figurehead, and the Prime Minister is the head of government. The Cabinet is drawn from the legislature, and the Government may face no-confidence motions, etc. (example: United Kingdom)
Of course, the answer probably depends on the country. But in general, which do you prefer?

I vote for Parliamentary-Prime Ministerial.

[minionofmidas]

I have a soft spot for systems of collegiate government as well, as in Switzerland or San Marino. Especially the San Marino version with its strong parliament.

[Emsworth]

Especially the San Marino version with its strong parliament.

That would make for another interesting poll: which should be more powerful, government or parliament?

[Emsworth]

A better example of your parliamentary option would be Austria. The UK has a monarch instead of a president.

Good point. I've clarified so that the head of state need not necessarily be called a President.

[minionofmidas]

Congressional-Presidential: The President is the head of state and the head of government. The executive branch is separate from and independent of the legislature. (example: United States)

Parliamentary-Prime Ministerial: The President is the titular head of state, and the Prime Minister is the head of government. The Cabinet is drawn from the legislature, and the Government may face no-confidence motions, etc. (example: United Kingdom)
Of course, the answer probably depends on the country. But in general, which do you prefer?

I vote for Parliamentary-Prime Ministerial.

A better example of your parliamentary option would be Austria. The UK has a monarch instead of a president.

The Austrian president is popularly elected and does have some interesting powers in case of a hung parliament, though.

[Jake]

I like the President/Congress, though Parliamentary is more interesting. I just feel the US system is more efficient.

[12th Doctor]

Anything from the American Federal system to the British Parlamentary system is what a generally prefer.  I think that the French President/Congress set up is damn near close to the dictatorship.

[Emsworth]

I think that the French President/Congress set up is damn near close to the dictatorship.

I don't like the French system either. When the President and Prime Minister are of opposite parties, the ensuing "cohabitation" becomes very inconvenient. When they are of the same party, Parliament becomes almost meaningless, and the powers of the President are very extensive.

[Peter]

I like the figurehead system that we have over here - the Head of State has the respect of vast swaiths of the country and can present a true uniter in times of troubles.

[Emsworth]

The primary disadvantage of the Westminster model is that backbenchers have very little power. I think a stronger Parliament would be best.

I would dispute the idea that the U.S. system is more efficient than the Westminster system. Gridlock between the President and Congress is common these days when they are controlled by different parties. Remember Clinton and Congress post 1994? In a parliamentary system, however, gridlock of this kind can generally be avoided.

[Bono]

President-congress is better, because it ensures separation of powers.

[Emsworth]

President-congress is better, because it ensures separation of powers.

Hm, as long as the judiciary is in practice independent and free of political pressure, separation of powers does not generally bother me that much.

[Jake]

The primary disadvantage of the Westminster model is that backbenchers have very little power. I think a stronger Parliament would be best.

I would dispute the idea that the U.S. system is more efficient than the Westminster system. Gridlock between the President and Congress is common these days when they are controlled by different parties. Remember Clinton and Congress post 1994? In a parliamentary system, however, gridlock of this kind can generally be avoided.

If the Prime Minister has a solid majority like Blair has. But in a situation where the Lib Dems are the balance of power and a minority government is in power, little can get done without compromise. Also, in most countries, coalitions form to back a Prime Minister which leads to further compromise and situations where the government can lose the support of a block and the government falls. In the US, elections are a held at regular intervals every two and four years which ultimately leads to more stability. In nations where the ruling party has majority support, Australia and the UK for example, the system works fairly well. In the large majority of countries, Italy for example, the system is not quite stable.

[KillerPollo]

And woot aboot Good ol' chancellor?!

[Colin]

I like a parliamentary system the best actually. It seems to, with a few exceptions, dilute power better than a Presidential system. I personally like a semi-presidential system akin to Austria or Germany where their is a figurehead President who has some responsbilities but leaves governing to the parliament and the Prime Minister. Also makes for much more interesting politics in my mind.

[MasterJedi]

Presidential-Congressional is the best and that's why the US has it.

[A18]

Congressional-presidential without a doubt.

[The Dowager Mod]

Parliamentary is better because they are more responsible to the people.

[muon2]

The primary disadvantage of the Westminster model is that backbenchers have very little power. I think a stronger Parliament would be best.

I would dispute the idea that the U.S. system is more efficient than the Westminster system. Gridlock between the President and Congress is common these days when they are controlled by different parties. Remember Clinton and Congress post 1994? In a parliamentary system, however, gridlock of this kind can generally be avoided.

The gridlock is an intentional effect of the American system. It represents part of the checks and balances intended to slow down and restrict government. Many founders had a dislike for partisanship and the parlimentary model, so they worked to reduce the effectiveness of both in their Constitution.

[Platypus]

Parliamentary. The best thing about it, in my opinion, is that the Prime Minister can be questioned, and has to answer. A President does not. Drawing cabinet from elected representatives is good, too.

The aussie system isn't perfect, but it is preferable to the US system by a mile. Whilst I would like us to be a Republic, I can deal with the current system. I don't want one person to have the power that someone like Putin, Bush or even Chirac (semi-presidential) has.

[Platypus]

The primary disadvantage of the Westminster model is that backbenchers have very little power. I think a stronger Parliament would be best.

I would dispute the idea that the U.S. system is more efficient than the Westminster system. Gridlock between the President and Congress is common these days when they are controlled by different parties. Remember Clinton and Congress post 1994? In a parliamentary system, however, gridlock of this kind can generally be avoided.

The gridlock is an intentional effect of the American system. It represents part of the checks and balances intended to slow down and restrict government. Many founders had a dislike for partisanship and the parlimentary model, so they worked to reduce the effectiveness of both in their Constitution.

How effective is that when one party (GOP atm) controls both houses and the Presidency?

We're having problem at the moment in that the gov't now controls both houses of parliament (unusual here; usually minor parties hold the BoP in the senate). I can only imagine how much worse it would be if we had a President, Senate and House of Reps all controlled by the Coalition-or Labor.

[Jake]

Parliamentary. The best thing about it, in my opinion, is that the Prime Minister can be questioned, and has to answer. A President does not. Drawing cabinet from elected representatives is good, too.

The aussie system isn't perfect, but it is preferable to the US system by a mile. Whilst I would like us to be a Republic, I can deal with the current system. I don't want one person to have the power that someone like Putin, Bush or even Chirac (semi-presidential) has.

Drawing cabinet members from a very select pool of (mostly) career politicians is not always the best way to do it. It would be like giving the Chairman of the Senate Committees cabinet level positions. Not always good.

[Platypus]

They're elected. Good enough for me.

Plus, if they screw up, they're basically immediately accountable in parliament. You can't f-up in Australia as a minister and not be dragged through the mud.

[Jake]

I'd rather have a Powell or Rumsfeld running two very important departments than a Lugar or Warner.

[Platypus]

well, the bureacrats run the day to day, elected officials make the big decisions, after advice from the department/s