Should the United States  convert to a parliamentary form of government with a prime minister and a monarch?
407198
yes.  they don't need a monarch but they need a form of parliamentary government that will hold the prime minister (executive) more accountable to the legislature and provides for his dismissal.  the american model of an antagonistic presidency has only allowed it to grow into a criminal agency for the national elite and not a representative democracy.
553999
The Prime minister does not have a "term" in the American sense. \n\nThe process begins with a parliamentary election. Such elections must be called at least once very five years but may be called sooner.\n\nAfter the elections, the Queen, as Head of State, calls upon a member of Parliament to form a government and be her Prime Minister. In theory she may summon anyone she chooses but in fact it will always be the leader of the party that won the most seats in Parliament.\n\n\nThis person must then win the support of a majority of the members. If his party has won a majority this is no problem but if it has not he must negotiate with members of other parties to achieve a majority.\n\nIf he acheives such a majority he may then remain as prime minister for as long as five years (at which time another election must be called) so long as a majority continue to support him. \n\nIf, at any time he loses majority support thru what is called a "vote of no confidence" he must step down. In that instance the Queen may either summon another individual to attempt to gain a majority within the existing Parliament or call a new election. As a practical matter, a new election will be the choice.\n\nHe is, by the way, as others have mentioned, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not just of England.\n\nEngland as a seperate political entity vanished in 1707 with the passage of the Act of Union which joined the Kingdoms of England and Scotland in the Kindom of Great Britain.\n\nThe recent creation of a Scottish Parliament does not make Scotland a seperate country or revoke the Act of Union and England continues to be incorporated into the Kingdom of Great Britain which is itself now a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island.
821938
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.
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.
587238
Well it would depend on the Constitution of the particular country.  But as an example the United States and Great Britain both have bi-cameral legistative systems.
320834
I think the government could be useful if people like us would just stand up and start doing something.  America needs to start by cutting out this two-party bullshit.  There are only two major parties that get funded by people who get personal favors.  Then, basically we as Americans have few choices when it comes to our leaders.  There just needs to be a shift in national political theory...
97011
The people have the constitutional right to change the government by voting in local and national elections.\n\nIf you mean change the form of government, say from a Republic to a monarchy, for example, no, that isn't in there.
776792
I wouldn't; it is an outdated system that needs to be completely overhauled...the genius of the founding fathers is that they knew that they could not anticipate what the future would be and therefore built in a system to change things as the country evoled...i.e the second amendment and the electoral college both need to be reconsidered
301618
run government under u.s.a
390607
By today, it would be an idependent  federation of states, with a Prime Minister of each. The Head of State would be HM Queen Elizabeth II (who, is it must be noted, non executive)\n\nIt is possible that the Civil War might have been avoided, although slavery would have been abolished, probably gradually in the mid 19th Century.\n\nThe British would have taken America into the First World War in 1914, and I doubt that the people of America would have allowed London to retain such power over foreign policy afterwards, although perhaps they would have been influenced enough by London to join World War 2 in 1939.
943248
A completely new form of government is better\n\nThe present method of governing Britain, and most other countries, is out of date\n\n\nMy idea is that we need a complete revamp in government. Not just change the people, but completely change the way we think about government.\nWhen the current system of democracy was created the population of England was about a sixth of what it is now. So there were 659 MPs for about 10 million people, being a representation ratio of about 15000 to 1.\n\nNow, we have 646 MPs, and about 60 million people giving a representation factor of about 93,000 to one.\n\nSo each person's representation has reduced by around 600%.\nIn other words, you now get about one sixth of the representation that a citizen in 1801 got. Another way of looking at this is to say that, in order to have the same level of representation that we had in 1801, we would need 3876 MPs.\nThis is obviously ludicrous. and is absolute evidence of a need for a change.\n\nAs the population has increased so dramatically, then the effectiveness and fairness of a central government has reduced.\nWhat we now need is an increase in the power of local government, and a reduction in the power of central government.\nI propose that we should bring back something akin to the parish councils. We should have constituencies of a maximum of 500 families. These constituencies should have total control over the lives of its constituents, with no interference from outside, They must provide all of their own facilities such as school, health care, pensions, police, ar anything which they feel that they need.\nIf they feel that they are too small for a particular project or service, then  they negotiate with nearby constituencies to make suitable arrangements. There would be no higher level arbitrator. Full responsibility would rest at the local level.\n\nThe benefits of this are enormous. Firstly, everybody would know everybody else within a constituency, so when a problem arises it would be easy to get to the source, because it would be to everyone's benefit to do so. This alone would reduce terrorism and serious crime to a minimum. A sort of neighbourhood watch scheme in which everybody takes full part, and makes the decisions. The money presently spent on taxes, most of which disappears in red tape, civil servants' and MPs' salaries, waging war, and hundreds of other expenses from which the average citizen receives no benefit whatsoever, would be spent on directly benefiting the community, on projects voted for by the community.\nIt is most likely that taxes could be reduced to a fraction of what is presently paid, because all wastage would be readily identified. Everybody would participate in their own government, because they would be able to understand it, and would have a real voice.\nThere would be no need for secret services, or secrets of any kind, saving another fortune, and removing another load of confusion.\nWe would overcome the problems created by too much power in too few hands\n\nI'm sure you can identify many other benefits, and I'm also sure that any disadvantages could quickly be overcome.
706673
No!  Democracy is not compatible with royalty, a position held by accident of birth rather than popular mandate. I'd like a Head of State that we can vote in - and vote out - and with a monarchy you never get the chance to do either. I also resent being classified as a 'subject' rather than a 'citizen'.\n\nThe USA, without royalty,  is closer to being democratic than the UK, but the crazy electoral college system can distort the result, as in 2000, when Gore defeated Bush by at least half a million votes.  Why doesn't the USA simply add up all the votes across the country, as, for example, the French do?
358508
vote. What a pointless waste of time, get rid of this Head Of State rubbish, you need one democratically elected leader and that's that.  The Yanks do it, and it seems to work for them.  I guess you can tell I'm a Brit who wants a republic, but I wouldn't replace the queen with a president, just keep the role of PM
1028285
In a Parliamentary government the Executive (President or Prime Minister) more directly depends on the legislature for power. There is usually more direct control over government  by the people in this form, but it is also more inherently unstable and offers less checks and balances.
70628
If you want to change the government then do so within the means of the constitution.  Make sure  you vote.
602980
The Queen is the head of state and the Prime Minister is the head of government. teh reason for both is so that not one person would hold ALL of the power, I think they found this out the hard way years ago. I believe Kings who were tyrants, they held all the power so they did as they chose top do, thats what makes the US President unique, in that he is both head of state and of government. I think we just figured out how to fix the country..LOL
263536
I don't live in a country that has a pariamentary system of government, but my understanding is that you can't select a prime minister - you vote for a party (or a slate of candidates from a party) and the party picks the prime minister.