Finest governmental system?

[unknownunknowns]

So, maybe parliamentaries created 'wealthier' nations and surely it's good when the political party you support gains a MONOPOLY of the government. However, what happens if the party whose ideology you OPPOSE gains that MONOPOLY? Sure, the bad thing about gridlocking in a presidential system is less gets done but would you want legislation you HATE get implemented?

Also, is democracy always good when a class of 6th grade students gets to decide when to end the class?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@unknownunknowns

In most parliamentary democracies the government is made up of parties elected by the majority of people in the country. In a democracy, the ideologies of the minority should be respect, but it's the ideology of the majority should be implemented.

[unknownunknowns]

@Medeasbiggestfan "it's the ideology of the majority should be implemented."

Yes, but with JUSTIFICATION all the time. For example, why should the gov't tax the wealthy, who worked extremely hard to obtain that wealth, at a higher rate?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@unknownunknowns

Because people on higher incomes can afford higher taxes. But I'd word it a different way; people who are starting out, and are on low incomes, shouldn't have to pay higher taxes. Often people on the lower end of the pay grade work just as hard in their jobs as the people higher up and they should be helped to progress by having a lower tax rate.

[cwa1984]

@Medeasbiggestfan Let's be honest here in a parliamentary system of government the party in charge doesn't give a fuck what the party not in charge wants. Since they are in power and can do what they please without any restraint unless they have a constitution and some kind of supreme court. In a paraliamentary government the elected officials in the party or parties who aren't in power don't even show up most of the time to paraliament since its a waste of time.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@cwa1984

We have a Supreme Court in the UK, and a constitution (although not codified). The government can't do whatever it wants, there are many constraints.

In a parliamentary democracy, the parties in the government have received more votes from the people than the other parties, so they should have the right to govern. In a democracy, the views of the minority are respected, but the views of the majority are implemented.

The opposition parties in parliament hold the government to account.

[cwa1984]

@Medeasbiggestfan No they are not many constraints since paraliament has sovereignty in the UK making your somewhat version of a supreme court useless. Also the opposition parties don't even show up to vote since its a waste of time and effort since the ruling party has a majority and can pass whatever legislation they want. This is considered one of the major drawbacks of a paraliamentary system as well.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@cwa1984

The Supreme Court is not useless as parliament must accept their rulings. Also, what's wrong with having sovereignty reside in Parliament (the prime part of which is elected by and made up of the people)?

The governing parties cannot pass whatever legislation they want, they must maintain the support of their own MPs and Peers (most of which are not part of the government).

[palermo131]

Contemporary comparisons no longer apply: the Republic has been taken from us (Americans). We do not see an accurate depiction today of government as intended by the framers of the constitution. We have strayed from their original intent and the People have begun to hand power over to the gov't that had once belonged to them through guile of those in power. I regret to admit that the America of today may in fact be no better than most countries in the world... yet I extend hope for her.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@palermo131

The US Constitution has never really worked the way the framers intended. The states were supposed to be semi-autonomous, with a Congress for issues that effected all the states and a President to speak for the US on foreign issues and defence.

The personality of George Washington meant that from the beginning the President used more power than was intended by the framers, though not more power than was stated in the document. This is why I say the US Constitution is very dangerous.

[cwa1984]

@Medeasbiggestfan Care to elaborate? Since the framers where not a homogenuis hive mind and disagreed constantly drafting the U.S. Constitution I find your comment here to be either from lack of knowledge or flat out lying. Also if a codified constitution is such a dangerous document why is it that the UK and Israel or the only two countries without them? Another good question here is why has the idea of a codified English Bill of rights and Constitution gaining popularity in the UK?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@cwa1984

New Zealand doesn't have a codified constitution either. Also, we've had a codified English Bill of Rights since 1689 (100 years before the US Bill).

I didn't say a codified Constitution is a bad thing, I said the US Constitution is very dangerous (as can be shown in other countries which have used it as a template for their own constitutions). I'm sure the framers did disagree, but they came to a consensus in the US Constitution, which then didn't work in the way they'd agreed upon.

[cwa1984]

@Medeasbiggestfan How is the US constitution dangerous exactly? Since almost all countries model their constitutions off the U.S. Constitution. Also the framers compromised on the U.S. Constitution after the failure of the articles of confederation and had different views on how the country should be ran. So saying the U.S. Constitution didn't work as they agreed upon makes no sense since they disagreed throughout the process of making it and its meaning.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@cwa1984

Not true, most of the world's democracies use the Parliamentary systems, modelled after the British system.

The US system is dangerous because it creates a powerful executive which is effectively unaccountable to the legislature. This makes military coups more likely as that's pretty much the only way to remove an authoritarian president.

[gamblemadman]

8 out of the top 11 democratic nations in the 2010 rankings are constitutional Monarchies.

What does that say about republicanism?

[evilsanta901]

Guys, you should remember that the president is the "king" of the republic. He can do anything unless constitution says otherwise. The PM is nothing more but a "first among equals", he NEEDS the backing of the majority. So presidential system is more likely to turn into a dictatorship.

Plus, take a look at your system. How can Obama do anything if nearly half of the house are Republicans? "Check and balance"? Hah! More like "no shit is getting done", amarite?!

[cwa1984]

This video is useless first off no country on earth practices pure direct democracy. Only Switzerland and the U.S. (state and local level) really get into using direct democracy often. Also the video fails to even to define democracy which is simply rule of the people. Democracy does not necessarily mean civil liberties and human rights. Democracy in purest form is essentially mob rule "tyranny of the majority". Also not all Presidential and parliamentary systems are created equal.

[SchoolThought]

@cwa1984 In no way did this video say that parliamentary systems lead to direct democracy. I'm also getting sick and tired of these rants about democracy and it's context in the US. You also fail to examine how well civil liberties and human rights are protected and maintained in most Presidential systems. Not all parliamentary systems are created equal but most, if not all, have and are doing better than most Presidential systems.

[cwa1984]

@SchoolThought What a crock of shit. The video uses third world countries that are have a ton of problems as an example to try and prove a bullshit point. You can't use countries that developing or not even at that stage in a comparison to countries that are developed. The video also fails to look at which countries popualations are more homogenuis to those that are not which is also another major issue in deteriming how well those countries are at civil liberties and human rights.

[SchoolThought]

@cwa1984 Don't you think a country's political system at least play a big part in it's development? Let's play devil's advocate and examine how well civil liberties and human rights are protected and maintained in the US, a Presidential system and a developed nation. Since you think you're more knowledgeable in this, explain why, according to both the HDI and the Democracy index, that the US and South Korea are the only nations with a Presidential system that are fully developed and democratic.

[cwa1984]

@SchoolThought That's relatively easy once you look at the whole picture instead of just relying on the government system the country uses. Latin American countries use a presidential system but they tend not to respect the judicial system making those countries prone to dictatorship and strong man rule by their leaders. They also had and still do major racial divides between native americans, europeans, and african slaves that made governoring those countries tremendously difficult as well.

[killerbee2k]

are u stupid? Ofc a Republic is not going to be on the top democracy list. retard

[terrorfalc]

Lots of butthurt Americans in here.

[TheHorsenation]

Sir, you fail to see the point in this claim, I guess.

The USA is the finest system, because the constitution and bill of rights are the finest on the planet, although not perfect, I admit.

For example I live in Austria which is No 14 on your list, ahead of the USA, but if I dared to say Germany did not gas 6 Mio Jews, I would land in prison for 4 years!

We have no freedom of speech here, our whole press is propaganda, and we are now in an undemocratic bureaucrazy called EU.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@TheHorsenation

It think it's wrong to say people in Austria and Germany have 'no' freedom of speech. They just can't deny the holocaust due to the hurt that would cause to the survivors.

In every other parliamentary system, the people have complete freedom of speech.

[TheHorsenation]

@Medeasbiggestfan

well, I guess it would hurt me alot more to spend 4 years in prison for thoughtcrime, than it would hurt a holocaustsurvivor if I spoke what I believe in.

google for "one third of the holocaust" it's an interesting movie, banned in austria and germany of course, but I think it offers serveral valid points critical of the story. I am not a nazi btw. npbody doubts concentration camps, but the whole gassing story is highly questionable.

[TheHorsenation]

@Medeasbiggestfan

well . the system in the US is good enough, certainly not worse than a parliamentary republic.

The only problem we all have is, that we let private banks create the money instead of the government. This is one of the main reasons why these banks could buy up whole industries, bribe senators, and the government is no longer working for the people but for the banks, cause the hand that "gives" is above the hand that takes.

watch "the money masters" or "the secret of oz".

[zakoneandonly]

@TheHorsenation well actually austraia isnt on here its australia 

[TheHorsenation]

@zakoneandonly what r u talking about?

[HILERIUS]

@TheHorsenation Democracy is good...but for people who are good followers only...

[ProtectTheDamned]

How come Australia and Canada are both more democratic than the UK even though they're the exact carbon copy of the Westminster System?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@ProtectTheDamned Australia and Canada have elected upper chambers.

[Cardi185]

@Medeasbiggestfan Canada does not elect it's upper house, it's member are appointed by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@Cardi185

My mistake. Then I don't know why Canada gets a higer rating. Perhaps it is to do with civil liberties.

[themanisheab180237ce]

@Medeasbiggestfan less corruption is probably a big factor

[blocknards]

@Medeasbiggestfan It's called the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms

[yurapetrovich]

@Medeasbiggestfan "The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture."

And they're not all just "parliamentary systems." Look up the index. Nearly half the top 20 are Constitutional Monarchies with a parliamentary (both uni and bi cameral) system!

[HerrQuixota]

The Declaration of Independence is a LEGAL DOCUMENT of the U.S.A enacted BY CONGRESS.

It smacks of God.

We are not a Christian Nation, but we are ONE NATION UNDER NATURE'S GOD.

[HerrQuixota]

We have lasted 220 years with our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

You Europeans have repeated violated the individual.

As for Authoritarian Regimes that use a "Presidential" Republican system of government.....

The people themselves are radical. They are also socialists/communists and were made so by the Soviets and Chinese.

As for nations that espouse Islam, lol! THE IMAMS ARE IN POWER! They are not true Presidential Republics anyways.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota How do Europeans 'violate the individual'?

Out of the top 20 most democratic countries in the world, 18 are Parliamentary democracies. Only one, the US, has a Presidential system and that is 17th on the list.

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

Europeans violate the individual by only listening to the MAJORITY. The minority has no way to defend their rights in a representative democracy. There are no limits as to what the prime minister and parliament can do until they actually do it, and piss the people off.

Europe has silenced free speech, seized property, taxed the living fuck out of everyone, and even destroyed any notion of parental rights. EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS OWNED BY THE STATE.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota In Parliamentary democracy, the voice of the minority is heard and is influential. The Prime Minister is directly accountable to the legislature which includes minority parties. In continental Europe, coalitions between different parties are common, making the views of the majority and minority an important part of the government.

Look at what the Democracy Index says. Europeans have freedom of speech, property and individual rights. Why do you think we do not?

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

"Why do you think we do not?"

A tenet of socialism is forced charity through the state. You pay 60% or more taxes in order to obey the law. It's all directed into welfare programs in order to achieve "redistribution". Over 50% of all you produce belongs to the government and you don't get much back. You should really only be paying 25 or even 10% total taxes and you can donate the rest. Capitalism isn't the system in Europe. Therefore, it's Socialism.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota Your definition of Socialism seems a little strange and I think many European countries would be surprised to hear they don't have capitalism.

Leaving that to one side, I am talking about a governmental system. Socialism and capitalism are social-economic systems.

Many socialist countries have Presidential systems (most of Latin America for example) and many capitalist countries have Parliamentary democracies (Australia and New Zealand for example).

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

Democracy is the surest way to Mob Rule and eventually Socialism.

AMERICANS DON'T LIKE SOCIALISM. THEY WANT LESS OF IT.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota The Parliamentary system in European countries is a form of representative democracy, as is the Presidential system in the US.

Parliamentary systems however, has systemic accountability and have been proven by history to be less likely to fall into dictatorship than the US system of government.

What Americans consider to be socialism is not the same as what Europeans (or indeed a dictionary) would call socialism.

[radomu1]

The funny thing abou that list is that every country on the top ten, except finland and switzerland, is a monarchy

[Mike10four]

The US was once a Federal Constitutional Republic - beginning in the Progressive era it drifted to day's Oligarchy under Fascism moving to Socialism. The US was never a "Presidential republic." It was the Finest Gov System for within its age of only 233 years change the world in recorded history like no other in: technology, food production, and medicine the stables of human existence throughout the globe today; results matter, the rest is just hot air.

[Chepo760]

frannce suks ass!

[jpchronic420]

fuck this commie propaganda bullshit. Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Commie? What are you talking about? How is it communist in any way?

[radomu1]

@Medeasbiggestfan For an average american, anything that isn't american is automatically "communist"

[shabandar1]

@jpchronic420 yeah right i bet u believe great britain canada australia newzealand are all communist countries

[OwensLawOffice]

I think the process it takes to impeach is a safeguard, not a bad thing. That prevents "politics" from rendering the system unstable like if a Republican Congress simply dislikes a Democrat president...etc.

You seem to have a great deal more confidence in democracy than history merits. How many so called "parliamentary democracies" have now surrendered their nation's sovereignty against the will of the people to regional bureaucratic government?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

The President is so powerful it should be a lot easier than it is to remove him or her.

The issue of politics rendering the system unworkable isn't a problem when the head of government is part of the legislature - something which couldn't happen in the US due to its obsession with separation of powers.

Yes, Parliaments devolve power to regional government, but never against the will of the people. In the case of devolved governments in the UK, it only happened after referendums.

[OwensLawOffice]

So-called parliamentary democracies are tyrannical. There is no check or limitation on their power.

There is no problem holding our President accountable to his oath of office and the limitations of that office in the Constitution. We just have a Congress that refuses to do so.

It's not the fault of the system that was created, rather the system that it has devolved into.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

There are systemic checks on power in parliamentary democracies.

It is very easy in a parliamentary system to remove the Prime Minister and the entire government. All that is required is the passing of a motion of no confidence.

In the US system, the removel of the President is a convoluted and very difficult process. Even if immpeachment is successful (which it never has been) there isn't an election, the Vice President (hand chosen by the President) takes over.

[onetwofun]

ive looked up some simple definitions and stuff

i guess its true that its easy to remove the pm, but what about the ease of putting one in place?

parliamentary:

prime minister is elected by the legislature

presidential:

president is usually chosen directly by the electorate, or by a set of electors directly chosen by the people, separate from the legislature

source is from none other that the wikipedia, written mostly by [insert ur most hated group of ppl here]

[onetwofun]

pls note that im not much into these stuff, im just a regular guy, wants to know a lil bit more from the outside world called reality

and from what i can tell, u r just in love with the system and u might be biased if ur not careful

unless ofc u have thought everything through and u could be right, so then i apologize in adv

[Medeasbiggestfan]

The Prime Minister is normally the leader of the party with the most MPs in parliament. The people know this when electing their MP.

So, in the selection of a Prime Minister, parliaments in a parliamentary system act like the electoral college in a presidential system.

[onetwofun]

whats an mp?

and btw, what if the ppl doesnt like pm? what if the very presence of the pm makes the gov look unbalanced? or more likely to be unbalanced and probably tyrannical, ending up as an oligarchy-like?

bush n obama both expanded the gov, and now the country feels more like a democracy, then itll be oligarchy, kinda fascist, and then finally socialist

but since im not even sure how exactly things goes, i still need more info

[Medeasbiggestfan]

MP stands for Member of Parliament.

If the Prime Minister became unbalanced or tyrannical the parliament could remove him or her from office via a vote of no confidence. If that didn't work, the head of state could dissolve parliament and call an election.

There aren't these safeguards in a presidential system. So Preisents can (and often have) become tyrannical and there is little to stop them.

[onetwofun]

u r right, ive read too that its easier for presidential systems to become authoritarian

both systems has their own pros n cons

but then there is the constitution (in the usa) that holds back the gov, so if the president breaks a law, he should be out of the office

while on parliamentary, im too distracted by stability and majority rule. its easy to vote a pm in and out, to me its either risky or unstable, so there must be laws to stop them from having more power

[onetwofun]

ps: im currently for a republic, constitutional rep. i will look up more into ancient (greek + roman) democracies and republics later

[OwensLawOffice]

The President of the U.S. has much less power when restricted to his Constitutional limitations. He can only execute the laws that Congress passes. He cannot make law. He is not a King.

Combining the executive and legislative functions is not wise - neither is democracy as the Ancient Greeks demonstrated and as our own country is now demonstrating.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Having the head of government be directly accountable to the legislature is not just wise, it removes the possibility of the government becoming tyrannical and as a result is a fundamental part of parliamentary democracy.

That kind of accountability is lacking in the US system of government.

[OwensLawOffice]

The USA was designed to be a "Constitutional Republic." The Constitution (law) limits and separates the powers of the federal government providing checks and balances.

America has DEVOLVED into a democracy where the "will of the people" is now expressed through the majority of the people rather than the Constitution.

This video mistakenly compares what America has BECOME to the parliamentary system.

That doesn't properly challenge the assertion. The JBS video is correct.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

The system of government set up in the US Constitution has several problems which don't exist in parliamentary systems.

For example, the President of the United States is head of state, head of government, chief executive and commander-in-chief. History has shown that's just too much power for one person.

It's a historical irony that Pres. Washington had far more power and was far less accountable than the British King or British Prime Minister who he had fought against in the revolution.

[savcola]

@Medeasbiggestfan The US congress is without question the most powerful branch of government in the united states. In fact, the us pres. is relatively weak compared to the British mp.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@savcola The President of the United States is the head of state, head of government, chief executive and the Commander in Chief. The President can veto legislation passed by congress and yet the President is not accountable to congress. This is not the case with the Prime Minister in a parliamentary democracy.

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

The President cannot do ANYTHING without approval from congress. What the flying bullshit moogle penis are you talking about.

HE CAN ONLY EXECUTE LEGISLATION. He isn't "accountable" to Congress, but he sure as fuck can't do jack shit without CONGRESS. So I have no fucking clue how this makes a Constitutional Republic inferior to Representative Democracy.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota In fact, it is more like the other way round. The US Congress cannot do many things without the agreement of the President as any bill passed by Congress has to be presented to the President before it can become law. The President can also issue executive orders and pardon convicted prisoners without congressional approval, and although only congress can declare war, the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and thus can send troops to fight anywhere at any time.

[savcola]

@Medeasbiggestfan aargh!!! The british pm can do what he/she wants. the queen gives her ascent to laws no to do so would cause a constitutional crisis!! By the way its called an override. Congress with two thirds of both houses can overturn a veto. The senate has advise and consent powers. The senate can remove the pres. vice, judges etc... Furthermore the president himself is part of the checks and balances. The president in fact cannot introduce legislation.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@savcola The Prime Minister in a Parliamentary democracy cannot do whatever s/he wants. All it takes is a simple majority in the lower legislative chamber and a Parliament can remove the Prime Minister and any member of the Government, and it can dissolve itself and call early elections. That level of safeguard is unavailable to the US Congress.

The Prime Minister in a Parliamentary democracy is directly accountable to the Parliament. The US President is not directly accountable to Congress.

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

Not true in Great Britain. The Prime Minister can cancel the election. :) Gordon Brown has done this.

And the President can be impeached if he breaks the law. Otherwise, he stays in place. Why? Because Congress must not have too much power. Group Think is easily achieved with a bunch of OLD PEOPLE that don't live the same way the rest of America does. Paycheck to Paycheck.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota You are mistaken. A Prime Minister cannot cancel an election called by a vote in Parliament.

In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister and entire government can be removed from power and new elections can be called with a simple vote in parliament. In the US, the removal of the President is a convoluted and difficult process. Even if impeachment is successful (which it never has been) there isn't an election, the Vice President (hand chosen by the President) takes over.

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

So you are completely OK with Gordon Brown canceling the GENERAL ELECTION?

watch?v=7ba7glghZ4w&feature=re­lated

Gordon Brown knows he's going to lose the election, so he canceled it.

The President of the U.S.A has no such powers.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota David Cameron is using 'spin' in that video. Gordon Brown didn't cancel the election, he just didn't call one after suggesting he would. The last election had taken place just 2 years earlier. A Prime Minister cannot cancel an election called by a vote in Parliament.

I would point out that the US President could not be held to account by Congress in the way the Prime Minister is held to account in that video.

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

I agree. The Vice President should no longer be selected by the President. Our original Constitution was "Amended". :)

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

Our court systems are vastly different as well.

In ALL America, YOU ARE INNOCENT BEFORE GUILTY.

In SOME of Europe, YOU ARE GUILTY BEFORE INNOCENT.

I find it hilarious that you don't even understand how badly your individual rights are being violated.

God gave you freedom to choose between doing the right/correct thing vs the wrong/incorrect thing.

EUROPEAN NATIONS CONTROL YOUR POWER TO CHOOSE YOUR DESTINY.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota

You seem to think I am talking about the differences between the US and Europe. In fact, I am trying to talk about the differences between a Presidential system and Parliamentary democracy.

To answer your points though, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe states that all European citizens are innocent unless proven guilty. Why do you say Europeans don't have individual rights or don't control their own destiny?

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

Some nations in Europe clearly do not abide by everything in that convention. Italy is a good example of where you are guilty as accused and you must prove yourself innocent.

Your ignorance shows, since this was a big issue a couple of months ago with an American in Europe being accused of Murder. Hilary Clinton was contacted about this very issue.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota Again, this video is about systems of government, not justice systems.

However, in Italy all people enjoy the presumption of innocence. The question is to what extent an accused person can be punished before trial. It is an issue in every free country, including the US.

Amanda Knox still enjoys presumption of innocence as she had appealed her conviction. Also, had she committed her crime in some parts of the US, Knox would have been sentenced to death.

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

The Justice System is what protects the individual from the system of government you idiot.

It is also part of the system. So if you really want to debate on systems of government, you have to include all parts of that government if you are to be intellectually honest.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota I agree, but the problem is that countries with very similar systems of government can have completely different justice systems. Equally, countries with very similar justice systems can have completely different systems of government.

For example, the US justice system was based on the UK system and is very similar as a result.

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

I am glad we can agree on something. Listen, I don't like generalizing about Europe, but I sincerely have a problem with their politics and I associate their politics with the form of government they have.

I will be honest about the U.S. government. I think it is becoming tyrannical with all it's newly established powers. People are totally disregarding our Constitution or perverting the words. Hopefully the Judiciary Branch will put checks and balances back into our system.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota

But Europe does not have one system of government. The video is very specific in talking about Parliamentary democracies which primarily exists in Scandinavia and countries which were once part of the British Empire. Several European countries have governmental systems just like that of the US.

In a democracy, the politics of a country is determined by the people of that country. This is as true in the US as it is in Europe.

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

I would disagree. The U.S. has far more checks and balances. Although ,when Bush invaded Iraq, those Checks and Balances were not used because of the corrupt nature of the Legislative Branch, both houses and parties.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota With what would you disagree?

In what way are there more checks and balances in the US systems than in a parliamentary system?

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

Both are Parliamentary. The difference is the following:

Representative Democracy vs Constitutional Republic

So please stop calling us a Presidential Republic, because our President really doesn't have as much power as you say. His "executive orders" are NOT LAW and are actually WORTHLESS.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@HerrQuixota The US is a Constitutional Republic with a Presidential system. In the same way the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary system. Both are representative democracies.

The main difference is that in a Presidential system the offices of head of state and head of government are combined. History has shown that this is far more likely to leads to dictatorship than a Parliamentary system where the head of state and the head of government are separate.

[HerrQuixota]

@Medeasbiggestfan

Please define head of state and head of government. As far as I know, they are the exact same thing.

Also, the President is only given 3 powers...which he can't abuse without further corruption in other parts of the government...which include ALL OF THE JUDICIARY and MOST OF CONGRESS.

Removing them is simply a matter of Elections or Revolution

[tucker672]

Excellent video. Well done!!!