Different Democratic Forms and Practices

The President needs approval to go to war, but once a war has begun, how it's conducted is left pretty much solely to the President's discretion. That's how the separation of powers works; the legislative branch decides what to do, and the executive branch decides how to do it.

Sure but more to the point is whether you think that is more beneficial versus a parliamentary system. I don't see much value in having a president versus all the costs (increased politicization, slower ability to pass legislation due to more political roadblocks rather than intelligent well-meaning discussion).

But parliamentary systems still have an executive branch; it's just the head of the executive branch is also a member of the legislative branch. There's even something sorta similar in the American system, where the Vice-President is also considered "President of the Senate" and is in charge of breaking ties there (though that situation doesn't come up too often). How does having the chief executive pull double-duty as a legislator change things all that much?

Technically, the President is only restricted in that way if he calls the action a "war". The US hasn't gone to "war" in generations, but we deploy troops into action overseas all the damn time.

On the other hand, any troops the Pres deploys overseas are coming back in less than a year unless the Congress provides another year of funding. So given that, there are still constraints on what the Pres can do, just not very tight ones. Pretty much, he can do anything he wants to if he can generate public support for it.

Nevertheless, I like directly elected Presidents. I dont like legislatures so much. The whole problem with our electoral system right now is the result of policies undertaken in Congress and decisions by the Supreme Court. Presidents had little to do with it.

That said, I would like legislatures better if the were better representatives of the public. There is only so much that you can expect from elected representatives.

edited 31st Jul '13 6:34:24 AM by DeMarquis

@De Marquis, I think if we switched to a score voting system and forced them to put their platform easily accessible where we vote, our elected leaders would better represent us better.

@Raven Wilder

An advantage with parliamentary systems is responsible government. A legislature not only appoints the executive leader(s), but also can dismiss them if they don't do a satisfactory job. This is called motion of no confidence. This reminds the leaders that they're not dictators but are elected officials abiding by the law as the lawmakers intended.

Presidential systems don't quite have that. For instance, motion of no confidence in United States is quite inefficient because you have to impeach officials one by one, and it's likely to have replacement officers with similar party backgrounds (but perhaps more capability).

@Soban: I think that would work, but do you prefer a district based system or a party based one instead?

Well only some systems actually have an executive branch. Canada simply does not have one. We split legislation by type and what is needed to pass them.

I see no advantage of adding another politician as head of state so I'd like a lengthy explanation as to what you believe it improves before I consider it further.

I'd prefer local representative system but the problem passing it right now is lack of vote quality. Very few people have the qualifications to judge the majority of proposed policies let alone the time to do so.

District, if the districts are drawn in a non partisan manner. It makes sense to me that geographical areas define representation. On the other hand, a party based one would be interesting considering the information age.

Canada doesn't have an executive branch? Then what exactly do the Prime Minister and Governor General do all day?

The Prime Minister of Canada is not part of the executive branch, he/she is part of the legislative branch. This is the "combined" system that the OP talked about. They do what everyone else in the legislative body does; they only have one vote and one voice in the House of Commons.

The Governor General (the supreme ruler of Canada) does nothing all day is what. I am quite serious.

edited 31st Jul '13 8:06:53 PM by breadloaf

Branches can overlap. Whoever is in charge of the government administration is the executive. So the prime minister would be an executive, in addition to being a legislator by virtue of membership in the parliament.

As I mentioned before, in practice the difference between the two systems is actually not that great. go ahead and read my previous post. In part, I said:

"...I dont see an inherent advantage of one over the other. I suspect that checks and balances between power-centers are necessary in any functioning democratic system, it all depends on where you put them. In a presidential system, the balance is between two or three (three in the US) branches of government. In a parliamentary system, the balance is between competing political parties. In practice, this seems to mean that the primary divisions within a presidential system will be based on geography, while those in a parliamentary will be based on ideology..."

In a parlementary system, there is only one branch of gov't, but the differences between the parties, and the necessity for a coalition to govern, mean that they act as an effective check on power. In the US, the two parties have overlapping interests, so they dont check and balance each other sufficiently. That's ok because we have different branches of gov't, and the interests of the different branches, esp the legislative and the executive, are sufficient to check each other even when held by the same party (if one party, say the Democrats, holds all three branches of gov't, which happens occassionally, they just split into conservative and liberal factions within the party and oppose each other anyway). The whole point of both systems is that no one constituency can hold all the power and force its interests on the rest of the country.

Well I just think that policy should be the dividing point of power. Afterall, the whole point of government is to forward effective policy and if your dividing point is technicalities and branch-fighting instead of policy-fighting, the end result is poorer policy. Or I should say, you get more random policy because the political victories in a Presidential system have nothing to do with policy.

Historically, the competition between branches of gov't are precisely about policy. Generally, the President proposes a policy, and various factions within the Congress approve, change or resist it. Everyone keeps a close eye on the polls, because public opinion acts as the final "court of appeals".

Does anyone outside US actually say "checks and balances"? It seems like a phrase invented to justify its system.

Other Wiki. I think it may be because we are the only ones who explicitly use this system. In theory, everyone has to use some version of it or they end up with one faction or constituency controlling the gov't. The term itself apparently goes back to Montesquieu.

I think "checks and balances" is not American, since they did invent their own system based on an evolved Westminster system.

Well, I might be biased in the way I view America because Congress seems so ideological that I view the entire system as causing such but that may not be entirely true. One of the problems I see in the US system is that it is not about policy; it's about ideology. There's a major difference. One speaks on party lines only, the other has rational discussions with facts.

The smaller the country, as far as I've seen, culturally speaking, the more I see discussions float around policies and facts and less about ideology. So I usually ask myself, what is it about these places that create such a political environment?

greater variety of elected officials, I think. in a big country you have to group along "lines", other wise you don't get enough support to be elected, and a legislature can only have so many members before it gets too big so you end up with more and more "general" officials rather then those elected on specific issues.

I wonder how India compares?

India is bad. There are recent movement from young middle class in cities for policy in last several years, but generally most politician have "patronage" basis for election, it could be caste, religion, region, etc. Ideologically two largest party is Bharatiya Janata that based on Hindu Nationalism, and Congress Party that more secular, but most politician have their own patronage network. Corruption, Pork-barrel for supporters, etc is very widespread. There are even genuine criminals in parliament.

homogeneous society ? most people political choice is based more on "monkeysphere" than any logical basis. in Society that too large, subgroup self-interest will triumph over nationalism. ideology simply one of basis people can self-organise to subgroup.

In America you could see connection between : african-american > democrat, southern white > republican, urban > democrat, rural > republican to see that ideology is designed for subgroup self-interest.

I have some ideas for how to increase political participation in certain countries in the context of their respective systems.

Saudi Arabia:

• The tradition of petition to the king through the majlis would be extended to a direct democracy system.
• The Consultative Assembly would be the legislature that formally drafts law. The king approves laws by royal assent. Bills that are vetoed by the king can later be sent out to the electorate in regularly scheduled referendums, held in about every 2 years.
• After appointment, members of the Consultative Assembly would be reconfirmed regularly in merit plan-based elections.

People's Republic of China:

• Remove the word "communist" from the party and turn it into a catch-all party. Set up the party as a formal bureaucracy: establish a federal structure, remove discrimination in applying for party membership, and elect positions and candidates by decentralized and democratic processes.
• The National People's Congress would be the legislative body with oversight on the State Council. It needs to have longer regular sessions, and active committees instead of a single Presidium.
• The party would abide by law; it is not allowed to act contrary to those official legislations or take extrajudicial actions.
• Candidates for offices would be sent on referendum for general vote, where voters decide on retention for the offices.

Iran:

• Have the Supreme Leader become an elected constitutional monarch, elected and supervised by the Assembly of Experts, serving indefinitely under good behavior.
• Executive power would be divided between the Leader and the president, who would be responsible to the parliament (Consultative Assembly).
• Limit the Guardian Council's power to the theological aspects; in particular, its role in checking candidates would be reduced to just for the Assembly of Experts. This frees up the primary political branches of presidency and parliament.
• The Consultative Assembly would have a greater role in government to replace the reduction of power in the Guardian Council. It would now confirm the appointments of the Leader.