2006-07-04 14:29:42 · 12 answers · asked by flong2 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Why the hell would we want to do that? Do we need a prime minister? Hey, the old system has worked reasonably well for 231 years, maybe we should leave it alone.
2006-07-04 14:36:32 · answer #1 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Parliamentary system of government is absolute bogus as per the latest trends through out the world. This is because of the multi party functioning in those countries. When the smaller parties become a decider to form the government, these small parties with least number of seats in parliament hold the entire nation to ransom and then the corruption is at the TOP and all promises made for the citizens before elections, are never fulfilled. These smaller parties have no idelogy but to make money bny all means. When such a thing happens, the country gets bankrupt. Whereas the Presidential form has all the merit, in a Democracy. The president is supreme and he decides to have his own men in the cabinet. Two parties ! Alas it was here in India. All the Governments are looting from the Treasury and fooling the ordinary citizens, for the last 10 years. None of the political parties (2050 parties) are doing any job, other than deviding the citizens for vote bank and spreading castism and untouchability. Almost 2040 parties in India are based on the lines of caste and community, and all the political parties ensure that those illiterate citizens are devide for the votes, education, jobs and security.
2016-03-27 04:07:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!!
That would eliminate the 3 Branches as laid out in the Constitution. Which are suppose to be a balance and check system. It would eliminate the need to vote for President as he would be elected by 1 Parliament, not a congress or senate.
There goes your vote!
The are usually also Monarchy as wee, so I guess we would need a King or Queen to do the "ceremonial" signing of laws!
NO THANKS!!!
They don't have states like we do. The Federal government was set up to protect the states, but has overstepped it bounds by a mile!!
We already had that as a choice and Washington declined!
2006-07-04 14:41:55 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I am not in favor of such a change.
I think we have too much history to make such a change meaningful. We are the greatest, most powerful country in the history of mankind. Why change when you are on top?
I love watching the British Prime Minister's Questions program on PBS. I think that kind of open debate would be great. But given our history, I think it would be more like the Canadian version (Zzz...).
2006-07-04 14:35:08 · answer #4 · answered by Karl the Webmaster 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. In case of emergency like 9-11 it would take Congress 150 days to reach a decision.
2006-07-04 14:31:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No -- I prefer separation of powers, tyvm. That and I don't really care for the parliamentary systems where you vote entire parties into office rather than voting for individuals.
2006-07-04 14:34:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We don't have a presidestial form. Ours is three branches of government: Executive, Congress, and the Courts.
2006-07-04 14:34:25 · answer #7 · answered by lanes 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I prefer direct election of the president in order to ensure a strong executive branch.
2006-07-04 14:33:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no b/c then we, as u.s. citizens, would have no opinion on who we want as repesentatives of our country and no voice on who can run it to our liking....and being under parliamentary rule would just be like being in a dictatorship....in my eyes atleast!!!
2006-07-04 14:37:50 · answer #9 · answered by Tiana 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm pretty happy with things as they are. They may not be perfect, but they are the best thing going.
2006-07-04 14:33:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋