AMERICANS: Would You Accept A Parliamentary System??

Question

I'm asking this because I'm curious if American citizens are tired of an untouchable leader who's only vulnerable once every 4 years. I wonder if they want a leader who can be challenged at any time

I think someone was referring to the Canadian Parliament. The Parliament doesn't choose the Prime Minister. The Party Leader is elected at a party caucus then during the elections the party with the most seats won wins control of government. The Party Leader can be unelected I think if he/she loses his or her seat I believe

Answer 1

I voted for Ross Perot in 1992. 19% of the voters did. He received 0% of the electoral votes. 0. None. Zero.

Bill Clinton NEVER received a majority popular vote for president. NEVER. He came so close in 1996, but it was less than 50%.

Al Gore received the plurality of the vote in 2000, but lost the electoral college vote.

I have said since 1992 when my vote meant less than nothing, when the other 19% of the voters votes meant less than nothing, in that election. The presidency in this country has really become outdated.

It it time to rewrite the US Constitution on the office of the presidency.

Answer 2

The parliamentary system is a disaster. Do you want unelected leaders of your country? That's what the parliamentary system provides.

Wait until you see the ruling party, parachute their hand-picked candidate into a sure-fire riding, while a back-bencher resigns, and there is a brand new leader of the country overnight, without a single vote being cast.

Wait until you see the utter inefficiency of minority governments or federal elections called every few months, in a desperate attempt to break a stalemate.

Not to mention the idiocy of a Governor General. I believe Canada can tell you all about how much money is squandered by that office. Or how about the lunacy of a second house, that is completely appointed, and not elected!

The American system, despite its warts and troubles, is a vast improvement to the older parliamentary ways, which were largely designed to accomodate a monarchy into the democractic process. Since America figured out long ago, that monarchies are a joke, I see no reason to devolve into the political system that old monarchies developed.

Answer 3

Under parliamentary systems, there is no checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches, as the parliament chooses the prime minister. In Canada and Great Britain, the prime minister can wait up to five years to call a new election, where as we have a presidential election every four years. Plus there is a term limit on American presidents.

There are plenty of checks on the executive branch in the United States, from veto over-ride to impeachment. As long as a prime minister keeps the support of his/her majority party, he/she is safe from any effective challenge; the "back benchers" can scream and yell all they want, but it will have little or no effect.

Answer 4

No, not a Parliamentary system. It simply wouldn't fit into our Constitution. However I do believe we should amend the Constitution to provide for Recall and Referendum. This sort of thing is most often found in US municipal governments. I would also like to see the electoral college abolished and the president elected by direct vote of the people.
Finally, I would like to see vice presidents elected independently of the president. In the majority of cases vice presidents obtain their position merely as a way of removing them from power in the house, senate or a state governor. Not the best of people to step to the plate if the president dies.

Answer 5

Are you kidding me... there would never be anything on TV except campaign ads if that were the case. At least this way we get 2 years off.

Answer 6

Yes, interesting, but also very European. Americans reject everything European! We didn't take to the decimal system, and I can assure you that we will never accept the monetary system of the Euro.

Answer 7

All I hear is Brits whining because they claim they didn't choose Tony Blair.

I'm totally fine with how we vote for our leaders.

Answer 8

I don't think so. Americans are content with their top-heavy, ineffectual, out-of-control roller-coaster type government. If the wheel hadn't been invented already, Americans wouldn't accept it, either.

Answer 9

We want no part of YOUR system We love our Constitution when y'all going to get one If y'all wait too long, no one well be able to read it if you use English We kind of like our leaders to call themselfs American and feel like we are one people

Answer 10

The flip side is that parliamnetary system can be very unstable........ we can challenge our leader every 4 yrs