That way we could oust an unsatisfactory leader and not suffer through it all until the bitter end of a four year block of time. If that did not work, we could try something else. We need to be flexible. In addition, I think that there would be more politicians of quality hovering around, waiting for a chance, never knowing just when they might be needed. That sounds like a much livelier political scene to me... and very refreshing.
What do you say?
Peace & Love
LPM
2007-02-03 10:38:16 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
In other words, according to two answerers, it is ok to be plum stuck with a president for 8 years? Er..... you know how it all works, don't you?
2007-02-03 10:53:44 · update #1
How easy is it to oust a president ....versus a prime minister? The latter only takes a vote of no confidence, is it not so? But to oust a president is a little more breath-taking a feat. Correct me if I'm wrong.
2007-02-03 10:57:34 · update #2
We can vote out a president after four years. Personally, I don't have that long to wait. I don't think the world should be
asked to wait that long either.
2007-02-03 11:01:23 · update #3
Sounds like something worth discussion.
2007-02-03 10:43:38 · answer #1 · answered by whatevit 5 · 1⤊ 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.
2016-03-29 03:32:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because our forfathers set down and discussed all this two hundred plus years ago, and set up all kinds of laws and procedures, to displace any political figure who wasn't up to par, or not doing the job. This system has worked fine for those two hundred plus years, and is still working very well today. It is we the people who have the resposability to see that things are done. Either by vote, or by our representatives. If we stand together we could get a lot more done. The best part about this country is our freedom, any one who doesn't like our system is free to find a place they do like.
2007-02-03 11:45:02 · answer #3 · answered by Royr 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if I agree with the Parliamentary form of gov't, but I do like to watch when Tony Blair has to go into the lion's den and answer the questions. Imagine if George Bush had to stand in front of Congress and actually answer questions. It would be a laughing stock.
2007-02-03 11:21:35 · answer #4 · answered by Bodhi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the Parliamentary system is a superior system to ours, but making the switch would not only require amendments, but it would, basically, require a whole new constitution. And seeing how this country can't even pass and equal rights amendment I would say it would be pretty close to impossible to switch to a Parliamentary system of government
2007-02-03 11:41:25 · answer #5 · answered by cthomp99 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Essentially, a parliamentary form of government, and congressional government are the same. You can oust an elected representative, regardless of what branch of the government they serve.
2007-02-03 10:52:03 · answer #6 · answered by billy d 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The president can be voted out after four years. I think the status quo is just fine. Peace.
2007-02-03 10:55:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I have seen thier way of gov and it sucks. They come to fist to cuffs and then take time out for a cup of bloody tea. Nothing gets done, it's worse than here if you can beleive that. Better stick with the system we have. At least they hav'nt come to blows yet.
2007-02-03 11:30:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Screw that, were Americans and number one in the world. Why would we wanna copy some lesser country's form of government. Come on son, join the winning team.
2007-02-03 10:46:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes I think we should make it easier for someone to stampede the people and take over the government
2007-02-03 10:43:17 · answer #10 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋