Prime Minister or President?

[Platypus]

Parliamentary. The best thing about it, in my opinion, is that the Prime Minister can be questioned, and has to answer. A President does not. Drawing cabinet from elected representatives is good, too.

The aussie system isn't perfect, but it is preferable to the US system by a mile. Whilst I would like us to be a Republic, I can deal with the current system. I don't want one person to have the power that someone like Putin, Bush or even Chirac (semi-presidential) has.

[Platypus]

The primary disadvantage of the Westminster model is that backbenchers have very little power. I think a stronger Parliament would be best.

I would dispute the idea that the U.S. system is more efficient than the Westminster system. Gridlock between the President and Congress is common these days when they are controlled by different parties. Remember Clinton and Congress post 1994? In a parliamentary system, however, gridlock of this kind can generally be avoided.

The gridlock is an intentional effect of the American system. It represents part of the checks and balances intended to slow down and restrict government. Many founders had a dislike for partisanship and the parlimentary model, so they worked to reduce the effectiveness of both in their Constitution.

How effective is that when one party (GOP atm) controls both houses and the Presidency?

We're having problem at the moment in that the gov't now controls both houses of parliament (unusual here; usually minor parties hold the BoP in the senate). I can only imagine how much worse it would be if we had a President, Senate and House of Reps all controlled by the Coalition-or Labor.

[Platypus]

They're elected. Good enough for me.

Plus, if they screw up, they're basically immediately accountable in parliament. You can't f-up in Australia as a minister and not be dragged through the mud.

[Platypus]

well, the bureacrats run the day to day, elected officials make the big decisions, after advice from the department/s

[Platypus]

How effective is that when one party (GOP atm) controls both houses and the Presidency?

Well there's a lot of other checks and balances (filibuster rules and all that) as well, but the most important thing is the relative independence of each member of Congress; one of the more admirable features of the U.S political system in many ways.

wilst that is true, it is still worse then parliamentary don't you think?

Australia uses a 'Washminster' system, taking the best from both the US and UK systems, and I think it works a lot more effectively then the US and a helluva lot better then the UK.

[Platypus]

President-congress is better, because it ensures separation of powers.

Obviously you're right. The Founding Fathers *designed* the system to be an improvement over Parliament. You could call the American system version 2.0 and the UK system version 1.12942442 (I don't know many times it was revised).

And the Australian system 3.2

[Platypus]

the US system is MUCH more democratic

I could understand that in regards to the UK, with an unelected upper house, but I must disagree with relation to Australia.

Australia is more democratic then the USA, because seats aren't gerrymandered; candidates must win a majority of possible votes to be elected (in theory, in reality it's about 48%) and over half the actual vote; Whilst we have a two-party system minor parties can be elected to represent viewpoints that contibute to a large part of society but not as large as the major left and right wing parties (through the senate and it's proportional system).

We have a nation-wide, independent body to administer elections, a fantastic constitution, stable government within a nation that has never had, and will never have, a civil war or segregationist arguments.

There's a hell of a lot more. Whilst the US does have some systems that we don't have (ie elected HoS), even then we have a reasonable substitute, in that its a powerless HoS.

Unlike in the UK, (unelected upper house), the US (low turnout, lobbyists owning basically every politician) or basically any other nation, there is no major problem with Australia Democracy. It's not perfect, but it's healthy, and the Australian political system, to quote 'is MUCH more democratic'.

[Platypus]

that was a problem, sure; although supply is now guaranteed. Also, having a bad G-G caused problems.

Still, with ONE crisis in a hundred years, and even then one that was resolved peacefully and democratically (election held basically immediately after Whitlam was dismissed), it seems pretty clear that the system works.

BTW, I actually think Fraser was better then Whitlam. Whitlam WAS needed, after such a long period of coalition control, but he should never have been re-elected in 1974.