Can you describe the USA system of government?
825572
In a nutshell, the USA's system of government is inadequate.
619768
sadly not much, and this is only referring to the basic system here and how it should work.  if one extends the idea of knowledge of the system to include government actions and such, its probably even lower.  i would like to think i have a fair understanding of it overall, but i know very little actually except what manages to leak out about what goes on behind the closed doors in dc.  a more process transparent government would be very nice.
1024469
Elaborate your question. What political system are you referring to and what do you define as 'public stability' in which public administration?
150757
dire. our species has always insisted on a top down/pyramid leadership (a person or small group on top with the power decreasing down the base. this insures a tyrant. usa was a new idea, but we evolved it into a repeat of previous forms of governments.
996286
There are a lot of serious problems that need fixing.\nYour opening question, asking if the U.S. Government works for Americans, leads me to answer: NO.\nThe government works for itself, it's own special interest groups and any business, social or religious group that feeds it cash.\n\nPresident Bush showed signs of a good leader while Governor of Texas.\nOnce he entered the arena of Beltway politics, he was overwhelmed by the personal agendas of savvy bureaucrats.\nI don't say this to excuse his decisions, because he is still Commander-in-Chief, meaning the buck stops with him.\nBut the dynamics of Washington politics is so great, one person cannot make a difference.\n\nStill, the slow deterioration of civil rights over the past two decades, the lack of leadership, the ignorance of domestic problems all indicate that no party (Democrat or Republican) wants to take charge and work FOR the people.\n\nInstead, the nation's leaders use a bait-and-switch method.\nProblems with illegal immigrants? \nLet's focus on gay marriage!\nThe economy and health care in ruins?\nLet's drum up more funding for homeland security.\nYou get the idea.\n\nOur leaders also use divide-and-conquer tactics to keep us polarized from working together to start a third party that might bring more accountability into government.\nThink about it: \nIf you are Republican, you are automatically labeled neocon.\nIf you are a Democrat, then you must be a liberal.\nNo room for people with moderate views, those who work towards compromise, in the best interest of ALL people.\n\nBottom line:\nelected officials find it easier to fool the public with some hot-button issue (remember flag burning?) rather than tackle serious problems.\n\nUntil we put aside our differences in social and religious issues and focus on domestic business, education, health care and infrastructure, we're doomed to go the way Rome did, centuries ago.\nOnly, this time, it will be the American people fiddling while this country burns to the ground.
94573
I guess you refer to the USA president and its government. This is a good question... but it should yet have been asked and resolved years ago!! Poor USA.
90656
By "us gov" I assume you mean the current administration.  Or do you mean to include congress?  In either case, the answer is generally, no.  I'm terribly disappointed.  Or rather, not really disappointed, because I did not expect much from GWB.  But the structure of our government is still pretty good, and our Constitution is just fine, thank you.  Don't you wish the current crop of idiots paid attention to it once in awhile?\n\nThe problem I see in this country is that the vast majority of voters figure their choices are limited to the two largest parties.  Problem is, they have been trading off power trips and making back-room deals between them for so long, that does not give us much in the way of a choice.\n\nBut we have a strong and promising third party coming up fast: the Libertarian Party.  We libertarians believe that a government should be small enough to fit inside the Constitution.  We would disassemble the beaurocracy, stop butting into other countries' business, and trust the individual adult citizen to make his or her own choices about private matters.  We believe market forces would solve many of the problems that protectionism and favoritism only make worse.  And we believe that taxes should be eliminated if possible, or at least reduced to no more than it would take to run those operations that cannot be accomplished any other way.  \n\nIf the state can do it, then the feds should let them.  If the county can do it, the state should let them.  If the individual can do it, then let him alone.  If the individual cannot do it, let voluntary organizations and other structures at the local level help.  Because the larger the unit set with the task of solving a given problem, the less efficient it will inevitably be.  Perhaps the coordination necessary for defense operations would require a federal structure, but I personally cannot think of anything else that needs to be done on such a scale.  Can you?
114165
The government deals basically with two things: the inside of a country and the outside of a country. A country is defined by just an idea, that is written on a Constitution. All countries have some type of document that defines what the country is and who their people are, and the rules of the country. If you think of a soccer match, the government is the coach, and the people are the players. The constitution is the idea that formed the team, and the rules. The game itself is like foreign relations.\nThis metaphor is very simplstic and has a lot of holes, but it's kind of like that.
995536
USA is not a democracy. It is a republic.
337042
Your question is a little vague so I will approach it from the perspective of type of government.\n\nThe United States has never been a democratic form of government -- it has always been a republic.\n\nThe difference is that in a democracy the people have a direct vote.  In a republic, the citizens appoint (elect) individuals to represent them in office.\n\nOn the federal level our republic includes the president and both houses of congress.  On the state level, we have the state legislature and the governor.
1018020
Depends how fox news describes it.\nDepends how much money either side can raise from corporations to run for office.\nDepends how many elected officials not only count votes but also are head of a campaign.\nDepends if your brother is Governor, of a battle ground state.\nDepends if the 5 to 4 vote tells you to stop counting.\n\n\nIn the US democracy means the executive legislative and judicial are run by one party, with little accountability and checks an balances. \n\nThis is the best democracy money can buy.
935993
The Constitution of the United States
360782
The federal government is the central government of the United States.  That is the president and the congress.
445276
Our government is a Republic, which in the U.S. is a representative Democracy.  We elect our Congressional delegates, our representatives, to pass laws by which we will govern ourselves.
93461
It refers to the splitting of government power so that the government doesn't become too powerful.\n\nThe US government is split into three branches- judicial, legislative, and executive. The Judicial branch reviews laws and hears high court cases. The legislative branch passes new laws. The executive branch carries out laws.\n\nChecks and balences is a related concept that means that the seperated powers have similar amounts of power, so that no one group gains undue influence over the others. \n\nIn the US, the legislative branch can pass laws, but the executive branch (Mr. President) can veto them. In turn, the legislative branch can override the veto, and the judicial branch can declare the law unconstitutional.\n\nThe President can be impeached by the Congress, as can judicial court members.\n\nEtc. etc.
552770
You mean checks and balances?  The government is divided into three branches: legislative (the congress; they make the laws), executive (president, governors, mayors, etc, they enact the laws), and judicial (the courts; interpret and enforce the laws).  They keep each other in line through the systems of checks and balances because each branch can make any actions of the other two null and void.\n\nFor instance, let's say Congress passes a law, but the President doesn't like it, so he vetos it.  The Congress can still have the law enacted by passing the law again with a higher vote count (I think it has to be 2/3 majority).  But the courts can find the law to be unconstitutional, and throw it out.  Congress can then amend the Constitution to make the law constitutional, and on and on and round and round....\n\nThat's a brief description of how our government keeps any one person or body from getting too much power.
464159
Since it's (IMO) a comparative judgement, it's the best one out there - by far.\n\nI speak of our own unique system of government, not of the characters currently occupying the Executive Branch - they come and go every four to eight years, whether they like it or not!\n\nStill, there are LOTS of problems and issues with the Federal government but, hey, without those little things, life would be awfully booorrrrriing, no?\n\nAnd besides, who in this country would opt for, say, Japanese, French, Singaporean or even British-style government?  Nothing really wrong with any those countries' systems of government but the average American, given a choice and a list of pros and cons vis-a-vis what they've come to understand and expect of our government and what they'd get from any of those countries' governments, would not wish to live under any of those countries' systems of government.