Assuming that you're dealing with an established, stable, fairly prosperous nation, which would you choose: a parliamentary system like the one in the U.K. or a presidential one such as the current U.S. government?\n\nReferences:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidentialism\n\nThis isn't classwork or anything, I'm just curious.  "Best Answer" will be awarded to the answer that is the most thoughtful and thorough.  Thank you!
119609
It depends.  Parliamentary Systems, such as the UK can be very unstable if you look at the party systems.  British parties rise and fall dramatically based on the way they split the parlimentary districts.  Also, the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system isn't 'elected'.  He/she is simply the leader of the majority party.  However in a representative democracy such as the USA an elaborate system of checks and balances has been set up in order to limit the control of anyone branch of government.  So it depends on what you want.  presidential/congressional governments prevent the rise of a single strong branch, but on the other hand parliamentary systems are much more efficient and can pass legislation much faster.
110295
As a Briton, i think Australia should do what's best for itself as an independent country. \n\nI doubt there is much to gain by becoming republic other than an increase in "national pride" - something that would mean nothing to me personally.\n\nThough i would like to see an Austalian flag with it's adopted green and yellow colours and rid of the Union Jack.
262244
We live in a republic. Our type of government is called representative democracy. In a true democracy, every voter would vote on every issue. In a representative democracy, we vote on "representatives" to vote on every issue. Our representatives are supposed to vote with the majority view of their constituents. Most, instead, vote with their party and ignore the voice of the people who they work for.
545282
I agree about our Constitution. This nation was the first nation in the modern world where it was openly acknowledged that no one possesses perfect foresight, so our body of laws had to be flexible enough to accommodate future Americans and their future issues, but solid enough and based upon firm enough principles that they would not be changed on a whim. The principles upon which our system was founded were (and are) so cutting edge that they have become a model for many countries where liberty and equality are at issue. Under the ideals upon which this country was founded, it is easy to see why we are held up as the model against which other countries measure themselves. However, the ideal and the reality sometimes are just far enough apart to reflect duplicity to those looking for c hinks in our collective armor. Suffice it to say that ours is the most effective system operating for most intents and purposes, inconsistencies notwithstanding.
268662
I don't think England would be wise to give up the monetary system they currently have. Joining the Euro system would be the same as using the American dollar. You would be assimilated, with no identity then. I am an American, and I don't like the fascism going on with the Republicans, and the current Bush Administration. Americans wont go along with it for to long without a revolt, and I see that happening really soon.
129074
Democracy is the best we've had so far.  I would like to see more direct democracy in the future.\n\nThe converse of democracy is a dictatorship.  There are many advantages to a dictatorship as well.  Countries with dictatorships essentially take a greater gamble.  A democracy will never vote in the best leader for a country, because the average IQ and political knowledge of a country is not great enough to make this decision.  A dictatorship with a perfect leader would enjoy a strong government for the leader's lifetime.\n\nThe problem with a dictatorship is that when a bad leader is in place, or when power gets the better of them, the country is stuck with them.\n\nKeep in mind that the most deadly dictator of our time, Hitler, was born out of a German democracy.  Now, Hitler never won more than 37% of the vote.  Somehow, the majority government fell and handed the power to him by default.  \n\nAll I can say is that we still have a lot to learn about what makes a great government system.\n\n\np.s...I agree with the comments about communism, but must mention that this is a separate issue from democracy.  A Democratic Communist state could theoretically exist, and it may just happen in the future.  Keep in mind that it may be much ado about nothing.  We call ourselves a Capitalist state, but are far from the true meaning of Capitalist.  All in all, we are a mild socialist state.   Likewise, a future Democracic Communist state would likely not be a true communist state, but simply a stronger form of socialist state.\n\nIe.,,,the possible futures of China or Russia.
432792
The electoral system over here is subtly different to the US but not so bad that you'd lose sleep. The big difference is that we don't elect our PM, we elect a government (think - party) and the leader of the majority is normally "requested" by Her Majesty to form a government, but this is not written down in our constitution, as we don't have a written constitution. I've had HUGE rants at the current leader of the opposition, but I must admire him for this statement:\n"The constitution of the United Kingdom is whatever The Queen says it is".\nLegally, that is 100% correct.\nOur current government (ruling party, blair's thugs) were elected based on 21% (or so, don't flame me over a percentage point) of the valid electorate. A lot of people simply don't bother to vote because they're all crooks anyway, aren't they?\nBut listen to the talk in the trains and the bars etc. When they build the scaffold to hang Saddam, make space for Tony - and George - they're ALL war criminals.
660790
What about the uk Ideally suited.They already follow uncle sam blindly,they have influence with australia,canada.new zealand and others. Mind you they are a constitutional monarchy..Would this be a problem?The brits won't give up thier sovereign
8766
This is my favorite type of question, so I'll answer with another question.  Why do we send billions overseas to help other countries when we have so many problems at home?  The real answer to this and many other questions like it is that we as a society let "our" elected officals make choices for us, that's why we are a Republic.  I wish we could have some kind of utopian country where we're a true democracy and the people voted on a budget that is proposed to them by their elected officals.  However it could never happen, we can even agree on Coke or Pepsi.
390083
The question should be are there any honest governments anywhere in the world? Are there any honest politicians left? Are people okay with their government's lack of forth-coming? I am not happy with people feeding me lies and its up to us the voters to demand the truth and honesty. Although, I am very weary of ever getting the truth to come out of a politicians mouth. Let me know your answers!
50690
our forefathers set forth in the Constitution how the government was to be run, and leaders selected, which is how we do it today.\n\nYou can't have a country run by everybody individually - leaders must be selected, and through the election process the majority of the population decides who those leaders are.\n\nIt's not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than most.
547771
There's no 'chair', and infact the way that Britain is run is nothing like in the US. The boss of the two houses is the Queen, who has no power. Britain was previously made similar to a republic when Charles I was killed and Cromwell ran the country, but the British brought kings back because they're funny and provide scandal, but the people made all monarch's powers redundant.\n\nMPs in the house of commons are elected by citizens and stay there until the next election is called, normally every 5 years.\n\nThe house of lords is occupied by the lords, consisting of religious lords (bishops), law lords, life peers and hereditary lords. Hereditary lords are the ones that inherit their title and are useless. Life peers are offered a 'peerage' because they've done something good, and the government want them in parliament.
226449
If our leaders are elected by the people, and corporations form to fill needs of consumers, which is sort of the same as the people, then we live in the world of our choosing. Sleeping in the bed we've made is tougher than making it, though...can you handle the truth about how selfish and belligerent and stupid people can be...there is no perfect world, and this one is a challenge sometimes. But, if you do right, save a little money, and avoid being an ignorant jackass, maybe try and help others here and there, you'll get further in life, I think...one thing to keep in mind when you read the news is that people do some stupid stuff out there for money. Most countries use money, and most countries have people that do stupid stuff in exchange for money. Be smart about what YOU do, and support/vote for candidates that show the same character. If that doesn't work, there's always recall elections...or move to tanzania...
95594
I think it's quite the contrary- I think not everyone is represented as well. With the British system of goverment, when one party wins elections, typically, they run the show- they control Parliament, they have the Prime Minister in power, they have all the ministers all in one party (unless it's a coalition government which is rare).\n\nIn the US, for the past 50 years, we've had one branch in charge of congress with the other controling the White House. This has been the case maybe 35 of the past 50 years. With split control, you have more bickering, but also more compromise. Clinton's best years in office happened once the Republicans took over Congress.\n\nIf it seems that there is better representation in British Parliament than in Congress, it only seems that way because there are more parties. True, if you want to get elected to Congress, you have to be one of the two parties, but people within those two parties do have a wide variety of views.
450971
I don't understand what the republics problem is... Hell are you really happy with the way things are going? The Government is taking away freedoms... We're in a country we SHOULDN"T have ever even VISITED let alone take over... (you can't argue there I mean "weapons of mass destrution" in Iraq when there are ACTUAL weapons in Japan to be concerned about... But we cant do anything about that, our troups are in Iraq.) This countries going to end if things don't change. Lets not even talk about the debt we're racking up. Jobs leaving. Economy *hit... What scares everyone SO bad about things changing (it can only get better)
480619
No, no.  Take away elected representation and what are you left with?  The executive, the courts and the media.  Who is to hold the law that the executive puts forward up to scrutiny and account?  Corporations?  I'm sorry but you are being profoundly anti-democratic and short sighted.\n\nI agree there is a problem with the current system.  (There is an argument that we have too many M.P.s and although not one I have sympathy with, it is an argument with merit).  Part of the answer to current problems though is to strengthen the powers of Parliament at the expense of the government rather than weaken it.
182473
not many countries have a government UK style. It's pretty unique. It's quite an undemocratic democracy. Find out more from the House of Commons website. I think the only other country that has a similar system is Japan. Definitely not Canada/Australia/India. I repeat! Definitely not Canada/Australia/India!The UK gov has special intricacies that mark it out as v.unique, for e.g. we have no written constitution. Check out the uk.gov. website!