is parliamentary form of goverment better than presidential form? why? state your position.?
107277
You are trying to compare apples and oranges. The President and Prime Minister are roughly the same. Parliament and Congress are roughly equivelant.\n\nThe one thing I don't like about Parliamentary governments is the no confidence vote. If a Parliament doesn't like a Prime Minister's policies, they can hold a "no confidence" vote. If no confidence is voted, the Prime Minister's government folds and new elections must be held. Can make for some rough times. And it surely seems like the will of Parliament rather that the will of the people to me.
1121965
I'm not sure what you mean by "inflectional forms".  "Elect" can be a noun, as in "the elect", more typically referring to an elite group of people than the body of people voted to serve as representatives in a government.  As a verb (elect, elected, electing) it means to vote for people to represent you in government
509328
Sounds good on the surface, but there is far too much room for abuse of power, as if the government isn't already abusing its power, but I won't go on about the obvious.\n\nShort answer: No.
738489
I would go for a change: a mixture of the current system and a component of proportional representation. This would mean an overall majority would be unlikely. That is a good thing in itself, so rotten laws are not forced through Parliament.
174628
I agree, when I lived in New Zealand I loved their form of gevernment. People would be represented by percentage in parliment. If 10% voted green party, 10% of parliment would be green etc.\n\nI think a system like this would be able to represent the more pluralistic society we live in, as opposed to being either "democrat" or "republican". I mean because honestly, is it democracy to have only two choices?
1137231
I hate to admit it but I completely agree with your right to believe that...and I'm not in total disagreement with you. I think that if a Democracy works right it is the greatest form of government. However a Democracy gone bad can be a disgusting beast and all forms of government become corrupt nothing quite like greed and power to cause corruption...Now I can see how someone looking at the current government in the United States and decideing they want no part of a Democracy..Why our government cant understand that I dont understand I truly think we live in the past because we know how great Democracy can be we believe it still is great and that it can be fixed and hopfully it can...but as I said I can completely see your point...but all forms of government eventually become corrupt...you probably stand a better chance of reforming a Democracy..
99321
elcetions are the best way. Nothing makes you authority more legitimite than beeing chosen by the people. After free elections of course.
716395
I know the difference.\n\nI've never voted on any national legislation. The people who represented me in the House and the Senate voted for the legislation, not me.\n\nOn the state level, my state was some of both a democracy and a republic. Most legislative proposals were voted on the people who represented me in the state legislature and on the local boards/councils. But on the state level I sometimes voted myself on proposed laws.\n\nI personally don't care whether or not you call it "democracy" or "republic." We aren't, in fact, the kind of government we call ourselves. We call ourselves, interchangably, a "democracy" or a "republic" but we are, in fact, neither one. We are a judicial oligarchy. The U.S. Supreme Court steals power that doesn't belong to them. They pretend that they are objectively interpretting the U.S. Constitution, when what they are truly doing is sheer sophistry.
391389
You should try a Parliamentary Democracy! Which is in pretty much the rest of the world.) Trying not to get into grave detail, A mutli-party system probably wouldn't work as well in America as it does in other countries. The main reason why is because in America we have relaxed party discipline, meaning that politicians in America can vote however they want to, they do not have to listen to the party. In a Parliamentary Democracy, if you vote against the party a lot, you are moved down lower in the overall party rank (which means they get less funding for reelection/many other consequences). The majority party has 50%+ of the seats in Parliament and pretty much all of the politicians vote on party lines getting legislation passed fairly fast and easy. If we the U.S. adopted your form of government, it would be hard for the government to agree on one issue and get it passed. Also, as history shows with America's current form of government, the party that controls the White House could be different than the party that controls one or both Houses of Congress. \n\nI don't understand the last part about single party governments, but as history shows they are not the most effienct way to govern.
520824
France has a parliamentary system similar to the British system, except that it also has a president.  In a parliamentary system a government is formed by the party who recieves the most votes (and therefore has the most members in parliament).  If no one party wins the majority of the seats in parliament then a coalition is formed of several parties.  The prime minister is the head of the government and is chosen by the members of the party or coalition with the majority of the seats in parliament.  The cabinet ministers are chosen in a similar fashion.
94069
The two party system is as old as the country itself.  actually, it is patterened after the house of commons in merry ole England.  If you think our party system is volitile, you should see and hear the antics used over there.  the two party system works as well as any other, probably better, given its longevity. I vote that we leave it alone except for one factor, that is popular vote.  I believe that we should still base our outcomes on the popular vote of this country.  In this way, the people have truly spoken! By the way, the hell with abroad.  We owe no other nation, or group of people, an explanation as to the domestic decisions of this country.
351786
Yes, both are based on content.  The form is only as good as you make it.
756064
It could be very good,or very bad.  Given the law of averages, it would probably be very bad.  However, Britain might manage much better than the US has.  For one thing, it doesn't expand across an entire half-continent.  That would make representation easier, and more likely to reflect actual people.  There are three branches of government in the US:  executive, legislative, and judicial.  There is a constant tug of war going on between each branch, with each one convinced that they should be given more power.  Right now, the executive has too much power, and needs to be trimmed (I know a good place to start!)  Generally, the legislature manages to hold most of the power, simply because it is made up of representatives from each state.  The judicial has been made a plaything of the Bush family, but is actually designed to be politically impartial.  I think a strong legislature might turn that around a little.\n\nIt is a bulky way of governing, but its value is in that very bulkiness.  Perhaps all Britain has to do is limit the terms of the prime ministers.  The rest can carry on as usual.
235996
A Federal Republic is actually better.
1005071
Usually, it's the parliamentarian. If you don't have a parliamentarian (get one next year), then someone like the sargeant at arms or someone who has a formal position of enforcing the rules. You could just randomly select individuals from the organization body to make up the "constitution committee" which would be more constitutional and democratic.
664529
You mean representative in the statistical sense?  Because we don't want an Average person to be responsible for making laws, do we?  I, for one, would rather send the best we have to Congress -- Parliament, in your terms -- and we can't do that, either.  The best people don't run for political office, they are too busy doing more significant things.  But we do the best we can.
595725
Consitutional monarchies like japan and the UK seem to work.Absolute monarchies, now there`s (in my opinion) a bad idea.