All other democracies in the world use a parlimentarian form of government. The people elect Representatives and the representatives choose a leader from among the representatives. Would this be a better govenment for us? One advantage is shorter campain times. Less money spent campaining means less chance to corrupt those we elect.
A second advantage is only a majority goverment can rule. This means things get done. No bickering no inaction. If the government can't pass the bills it introduces it falls and one that can replaces it.
What do you think??
2007-06-16 09:05:45 · 15 answers · asked by old-bald-one 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
A minority government often has to concede to a different political party (assuming more than 2 parties) in order to get things done as opposed to filibusters and vetos this actually works better than the system you use in the U.S. With the system you have now a President with a majority in different levels of government can play God for a time under a parlimentary system this would be a lot harder to do.The Iraq war would have had a tougher sale with a parliament than under the present system. Brother Tim M. Murphy
2007-06-16 09:23:57 · answer #1 · answered by The Brother 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People weren't made to make all the right choices. With this being said, regardless of a new government that shiny and appealing, the ethical choice will never be the majority. A new government will be good at that moment of history, but there will always be a reformation in governments as long as there isn't one absolute power.
2007-06-16 16:16:06 · answer #2 · answered by chitty_chitty_bang_bang 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The length of time of campaign would still be long here, the media drives this because of the money it involves. I disagree with the Parliamentarian system because I feel the three branches we have and the checks and balances are needed for such a large and diverse nation that we are. Especially since our state and local governments have a more important part in the government if you see how they are laid out in the constitution.
2007-06-16 16:09:54 · answer #3 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with a parliamentery government is that it lacks the separation of powers inherent in the American form of goverment. The separation of powers allows for checks and balances, which are designed to protect the populace from government getting out of hand with it's laws. In Parlimantary governments changes occur much slower then in our form of governement. Prime Ministers have unlimited (time) in power, of course with Parliament approval, whereas our form of government sweeping changes can occur every 2-4 yrs. I believe Parliaments work best in smaller homogeneous situations where our form of government works best in large diverse populations.
2007-06-16 16:19:25 · answer #4 · answered by Marcus m 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it is time for all Americans to change their apathetic attitude and get involved in getting the government to do the will of the people. The elected politicos work for the people, we don't work for them. Right now, they think they own the people, body and soul, and can do whatever they please. How long are we going to allow this to happen?
2007-06-16 16:11:29 · answer #5 · answered by WC 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First off, we were never intended to be a democracy, go to your history and look. We are a Republic, the founding fathers hated Democracy and said it was the worst kind of government ever. We with out a doubt need a new form of government, one that limits the power of lawmakers, and leaders to two years, as well as make criminal big business, and government mixing. IMPEACH BUSH AND CHARGE HIM WITH WAR CRIMES, THEN EXECUTE HIM!!!
2007-06-16 16:13:39 · answer #6 · answered by Plumbingfool 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Pleeeeeze..........
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
- John F. Kennedy
2007-06-16 16:27:12 · answer #7 · answered by Cookies Anyone? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, thanks. I like bickering and inaction. It's the only time when they don't get anything done. And judging from what comes out when they DO get things done, I like them better when they're ineffective.
2007-06-16 16:12:36 · answer #8 · answered by skip742 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
HELL Ya. I think something like the house of rep. should be in charge. alot closer to the people if you ask me. no more relying on a single person.
2007-06-16 16:24:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't agree. And remember, too, that our governmental system is a republic, not a democracy. Big difference.
2007-06-16 16:09:21 · answer #10 · answered by amazin'g 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋