Why the US don't have a prime minister & why the UK don't have a president?? Answer in 2 sentences , atmost.
959067
Prime Minister does not have the overwhelming power that the president does.. the prime minister can be kicked out anytime by a simply majority vote of non confidence.. the president is there for the length of his term, no matter what.. \nAlso, prime minister is  responsible to his parliament and can't get away with things like.." I am the decider and I will do what I please"  President can work separately of congress and pretty much anyone if he takes it into his beady little head.. speaking of Bush here!  Not a shining example of president by any means.
28156
we dont have a president the position is called PRIME MINISTER at the moment its John Howard
339473
THE UK AND A GOOD MANY EUROPEAN COUNTRIES DO.\nTHIS PRESIDENT GOT ELECTED FOR TWO TERMS OF OFFICE.\nNOW THATS DEMOCRACY. THE COUNTRY AND THE GOVERNMENT MOST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT.
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
479840
Not every country has a president, so not sure what you're trying to ask!
543325
where to start? could it be because 90% of all americans do not have a Passport- - so they are all well cultured then. Could it be because America is the ONLY place where the Terminator could become a politician. Or could it be because your powers are mixed leading to an unrepresentative state. (Montesquieu)\n\nBasically - the people of America voted for Bush. and now look what has happened. all for oil - you do realise that dont you. The USA needs to be bigger and better than everyone. whether we are talking big macs or WMDs.\n\nBush can spend billions killing people on a daily basis in Iraq, but when katrina hit, the fool didnt know where to look. And Blair is just as bad. Nuff said.\n\noh yeah one more point - Guatanamo Bay.
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.
126053
I think the main reason is common language and culture.\n\nAlthough America is a land of immigrants, the founding fathers were British and the English language has become dominant in the UK.  \n\nThe 20th century brought the UK/US closer together where we were allies in 2 world wars and how both countries worked to set up the UN and NATO.  \n\nNow the culture of the 2 countries is inextricably linked primarily through the benefit of a common language.
578227
Ok, to start off, I will correct your poor spelling - the correct title is Prime Minister.\n\nAnd the answer to your question - Scotland does not have its own Prime Minister - Tony Blair is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK.
892003
i also wonder \nthe swing 2 the democrats must re-new some faith in democracy, doesn't it?\nlets hope the next US election is a darn-sight uncontroversial as the last!\ni didn't realise u could influence the vote that easily with money u can buy the presidency, regardless of votes, strategy or qualifications!\nmore missing votes/voters, hanging chads & more corruption, can't possibly b accepted again, \ncan it?\n\ni'm in the UK and Bush scares the hell outta of us Brits.\nBush Part 3  ( Jed or whoever ) would probably kill off democracy 4 good!
207918
I'm an American and live in the UK and have been following UK politics closely...I don't think he has the ability to win elections. West Fife and Dunfermline were lost by Labour and that campaign was mostly run by Brown.
330681
The world would be a much better place. The US would no longer have those selfcentred presidents, they would speak correctly and we may even get them to write correctly. In fact the US should probably be allowed to vote to rejoin the United Kingdom. They just love the royal family and they all want to come and see the UK.\nBut we need to sort out the taxes before we allowed them back.
882814
Because we are a kingdom and not a republic. Any republican thoughts I may slip into are quickly dispelled by muttering the phrase 'President Blair'!
417204
Our democracy (as it is in the UK and the US) is seriously flawed.  There is a two party state and a lot of unelected officials wielding power but, ultimately, we can hold governments accountable and throw them out if we don't like them.
619656
A parliamentary system appeals to me because of the quick manner in which a government is elected and created.  The Brits do it in about a month - a lot quicker than we Americans, with our evenly-spaced two-year election cycles that seem endless.\n\nThat said, I prefer the presidential system.  I like the fact that in a presidential system, the executive does not derive its power and authority from the legislature, as with a parliamentary system.  In parliamentary systems, the executive / prime minister must maintain the approval of the legislature and is therefore unlikely to do anything that will be unpopular with his party; a president, since his authority does not rest with the legislature, has more freedom to act on principle and take an unpopular stand if he feels it is right.
519750
Don't believe anything neil hippy wrote, cuz he is 100% wrong.  Prime Ministers and Presidents are both "head of states", in most cases.   In china they have both, and I am not really sure what each is responsible for.   USA and UK have Pres and Prime Min, respectively.  Their duties are almost identical.   Both countries have a legislative branch that are simular to each other, ie   house of commons/house of reps, and house of lords/senate, etc.   \n\nHippy neil wrote american presidents think they are kings,  and that is completely false.   Bush cannot do a thing without some liberal butt muncher snacking on his arse.   A king or queen or dictator can do as he or she pleases without congressional/court approval.    So hippy neil,  nice try,  go back to civics class.   This time try and stay awake.\n\nSo the President and Prime Ministers have very simular duties/responsibilities.   Not all governments operate identically, but its close.    Keep in mind,  some countries have leaders that call themselves "president"  but they are really dictators.   Like Saddam, or Omar Kadaffi's fried chicken (KFC).
968724
Cool. Seeing as the UK is an elective autocracy, maybe we should both have spread a bit of democracy at home before liberating the rest of the world?