Prime Minister or President?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

Well there's a lot of other checks and balances (filibuster rules and all that) as well, but the most important thing is the relative independence of each member of Congress; one of the more admirable features of the U.S political system in many ways.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It would be like giving the Chairman of the Senate Committees cabinet level positions.

Not really; pretty much all of those would be backbenchers (and probably still chairing committees...) in a Parliamentary system.

[Platypus]

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

Well there's a lot of other checks and balances (filibuster rules and all that) as well, but the most important thing is the relative independence of each member of Congress; one of the more admirable features of the U.S political system in many ways.

wilst that is true, it is still worse then parliamentary don't you think?

Australia uses a 'Washminster' system, taking the best from both the US and UK systems, and I think it works a lot more effectively then the US and a helluva lot better then the UK.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

wilst that is true, it is still worse then parliamentary don't you think?

Depends what you want really

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, certainly in theory, but hard to tell in practice because the general standard of politicians that climb high in Australia (case in point: Howard) is lower than the U.S or U.K... but backbenchers aren't. Odd that. Any explanation?

[Bono]

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

Well there's a lot of other checks and balances (filibuster rules and all that) as well, but the most important thing is the relative independence of each member of Congress; one of the more admirable features of the U.S political system in many ways.

Exactly.

[Democratic Hawk]

As much as I like the US presidential-congressional system, since the UK is a constitutional monarchy, I'd vote for the prime minister-parliamentary system

If we were to become a Republic in my life time (providing I don't throw myself off North Road viaduct in grief), I'd like the US system

Dave

[Emsworth]

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

Well there's a lot of other checks and balances (filibuster rules and all that) as well, but the most important thing is the relative independence of each member of Congress; one of the more admirable features of the U.S political system in many ways.

Exactly.

Well, the filibuster is just a procedural device, unrelated to the congressional system. There is a filibuster in the House of Lords, and there used to be one in the Commons too.

[Jake]

It would be like giving the Chairman of the Senate Committees cabinet level positions.

Not really; pretty much all of those would be backbenchers (and probably still chairing committees...) in a Parliamentary system.

So you wouldn't even have Ministers who had experience working in that field before they became Defense Minister or Chancellor?  Thats seems particularly worse.

[Speed of Sound]

congressional-presidential because i dont like the name "House Of Lords" or "House Of Commons". for some reason that bothers me.

[Richard]

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

Obviously you're right.  The Founding Fathers *designed* the system to be an improvement over Parliament.  You could call the American system version 2.0 and the UK system version 1.12942442 (I don't know many times it was revised).

[Emsworth]

congressional-presidential because i dont like the name "House Of Lords" or "House Of Commons". for some reason that bothers me.

I'm not asking about the U.S. and the U.K., but about congressional and parliamentary systems. The U.K. Parliament is the only one with a House of Lords, and the U.K. and Canada are the only ones with a House of Commons. The names are irrelevant; you can call the Houses whatever you want.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thats seems particularly worse.

No, it's where Sir Humphrey comes in

[Emsworth]

The Founding Fathers *designed* the system to be an improvement over Parliament.

Or so they thought. At the time, the prime ministerial system known today had not fully developed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The British system has never been revised wholesale since the Norman Conquest, except perhaps the time of Oliver Cromwell (and in this case, it quickly changed back to the original system). Rather, it has evolved over a thousand years.

[Speed of Sound]

congressional-presidential because i dont like the name "House Of Lords" or "House Of Commons". for some reason that bothers me.

I'm not asking about the U.S. and the U.K., but about congressional and parliamentary systems. The U.K. Parliament is the only one with a House of Lords, and the U.K. and Canada are the only ones with a House of Commons. The names are irrelevant; you can call the Houses whatever you want.

oh. i still like the US system more

[Platypus]

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

Obviously you're right. The Founding Fathers *designed* the system to be an improvement over Parliament. You could call the American system version 2.0 and the UK system version 1.12942442 (I don't know many times it was revised).

And the Australian system 3.2

[Middle-aged Europe]

Parliamentary-Prime Ministerial

Aside from purely patriotic reasons ( ), I don´t trust heads of state who hold too much power. I like presidents/monarchs to be not more than ceremonial figureheads.

[Siege40]

Despite the irony of being a President, I prefer Parliamentary system, British-style. You have to love the crushing power of a Majority Government.

Siege

[AuH2O]

I don't know if it's good or not, but the US system is MUCH more democratic, something that becomes evident particularly when you work in DC (as I do now).

It also produces more stable policy while making it all but impossible for one party to dominate for very long at all levels.

The US Congress' committee system makes that body more effective than is commonly thought; inefficiency often stems from the fact both the House and Senate are operative and important bodies, unlike the British or many other parliamentary systems.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You have to love the crushing power of a Majority Government.

True

[Platypus]

the US system is MUCH more democratic

I could understand that in regards to the UK, with an unelected upper house, but I must disagree with relation to Australia.

Australia is more democratic then the USA, because seats aren't gerrymandered; candidates must win a majority of possible votes to be elected (in theory, in reality it's about 48%) and over half the actual vote; Whilst we have a two-party system minor parties can be elected to represent viewpoints that contibute to a large part of society but not as large as the major left and right wing parties (through the senate and it's proportional system).

We have a nation-wide, independent body to administer elections, a fantastic constitution, stable government within a nation that has never had, and will never have, a civil war or segregationist arguments.

There's a hell of a lot more. Whilst the US does have some systems that we don't have (ie elected HoS), even then we have a reasonable substitute, in that its a powerless HoS.

Unlike in the UK, (unelected upper house), the US (low turnout, lobbyists owning basically every politician) or basically any other nation, there is no major problem with Australia Democracy. It's not perfect, but it's healthy, and the Australian political system, to quote 'is MUCH more democratic'.

[Jake]

Hmm, US  turnout would be high if voting was compulsory too

[Emsworth]

I could understand that in regards to the UK, with an unelected upper house, but I must disagree with relation to Australia.

So can I. Actually, I'm somewhat in favor of having an appointed upper house; it would not presume to challenge the will of the lower body, but would still act as an effective chamber of review. The House of Lords seems to be a good example; it is restricted by conventions such as the Salisbury Convention, but still effectively reviews legislation rushed through the Commons.

The Australian Senate has generally been fine in this regard; however, it does seem to have violated some basic constitutional principles of the Westminster model, as during the Whitlam affair.

[Platypus]

that was a problem, sure; although supply is now guaranteed. Also, having a bad G-G caused problems.

Still, with ONE crisis in a hundred years, and even then one that was resolved peacefully and democratically (election held basically immediately after Whitlam was dismissed), it seems pretty clear that the system works.

BTW, I actually think Fraser was better then Whitlam. Whitlam WAS needed, after such a long period of coalition control, but he should never have been re-elected in 1974.

[Emsworth]

Also, having a bad G-G caused problems.

True. If Whitlam had decided to dismiss Sir John Kerr (as Kerr feared), then he would have lost just about all popular support. The G-G was too paranoid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would absolutely agree there.

Generally, I think that the Australian system is a very, very good one. It is certainly superior to the Canadian model, since the Canadian Senate is essentially a nonentity. I think that the frequency of the elections (the parliamentary term is a maximum of three years, instead of the usual five years) is also a virtue compared to Canada, the UK, and other nations.

[Colin]

the US system is MUCH more democratic

I could understand that in regards to the UK, with an unelected upper house, but I must disagree with relation to Australia.

Australia is more democratic then the USA, because seats aren't gerrymandered; candidates must win a majority of possible votes to be elected (in theory, in reality it's about 48%) and over half the actual vote; Whilst we have a two-party system minor parties can be elected to represent viewpoints that contibute to a large part of society but not as large as the major left and right wing parties (through the senate and it's proportional system).

We have a nation-wide, independent body to administer elections, a fantastic constitution, stable government within a nation that has never had, and will never have, a civil war or segregationist arguments.

There's a hell of a lot more. Whilst the US does have some systems that we don't have (ie elected HoS), even then we have a reasonable substitute, in that its a powerless HoS.

Unlike in the UK, (unelected upper house), the US (low turnout, lobbyists owning basically every politician) or basically any other nation, there is no major problem with Australia Democracy. It's not perfect, but it's healthy, and the Australian political system, to quote 'is MUCH more democratic'.

I have to agree with you Hugh. Australia's government is very good system. Australia has taken the best of the US system and mixed it with the best of a UK system. The only thing I don't like is complusory voting but even I don't get to worked up about that. Just replace the Governor General with some type of near powerless President and I think the Aussies would have one of the better political systems in the world. The Aussie system is a huge improvement upon the Canadian system and works very well in diluting power and giving representation, in a rather equal way, to the states and to minor parties.