Prime Minister or President?

[Emsworth]

Congressional-Presidential: The President is the head of state and the head of government. The executive branch is separate from and independent of the legislature. (example: United States)

Parliamentary-Prime Ministerial: The head of state is a figurehead, and the Prime Minister is the head of government. The Cabinet is drawn from the legislature, and the Government may face no-confidence motions, etc. (example: United Kingdom)
Of course, the answer probably depends on the country. But in general, which do you prefer?

I vote for Parliamentary-Prime Ministerial.

[Emsworth]

Especially the San Marino version with its strong parliament.

That would make for another interesting poll: which should be more powerful, government or parliament?

[Emsworth]

A better example of your parliamentary option would be Austria. The UK has a monarch instead of a president.

Good point. I've clarified so that the head of state need not necessarily be called a President.

[Emsworth]

I think that the French President/Congress set up is damn near close to the dictatorship.

I don't like the French system either. When the President and Prime Minister are of opposite parties, the ensuing "cohabitation" becomes very inconvenient. When they are of the same party, Parliament becomes almost meaningless, and the powers of the President are very extensive.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Emsworth]

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

Hm, as long as the judiciary is in practice independent and free of political pressure, separation of powers does not generally bother me that much.

[Emsworth]

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.

Exactly.

Well, the filibuster is just a procedural device, unrelated to the congressional system. There is a filibuster in the House of Lords, and there used to be one in the Commons too.

[Emsworth]

congressional-presidential because i dont like the name "House Of Lords" or "House Of Commons". for some reason that bothers me.

I'm not asking about the U.S. and the U.K., but about congressional and parliamentary systems. The U.K. Parliament is the only one with a House of Lords, and the U.K. and Canada are the only ones with a House of Commons. The names are irrelevant; you can call the Houses whatever you want.

[Emsworth]

The Founding Fathers *designed* the system to be an improvement over Parliament.

Or so they thought. At the time, the prime ministerial system known today had not fully developed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The British system has never been revised wholesale since the Norman Conquest, except perhaps the time of Oliver Cromwell (and in this case, it quickly changed back to the original system). Rather, it has evolved over a thousand years.

[Emsworth]

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

So can I. Actually, I'm somewhat in favor of having an appointed upper house; it would not presume to challenge the will of the lower body, but would still act as an effective chamber of review. The House of Lords seems to be a good example; it is restricted by conventions such as the Salisbury Convention, but still effectively reviews legislation rushed through the Commons.

The Australian Senate has generally been fine in this regard; however, it does seem to have violated some basic constitutional principles of the Westminster model, as during the Whitlam affair.

[Emsworth]

Also, having a bad G-G caused problems.

True. If Whitlam had decided to dismiss Sir John Kerr (as Kerr feared), then he would have lost just about all popular support. The G-G was too paranoid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would absolutely agree there.

Generally, I think that the Australian system is a very, very good one. It is certainly superior to the Canadian model, since the Canadian Senate is essentially a nonentity. I think that the frequency of the elections (the parliamentary term is a maximum of three years, instead of the usual five years) is also a virtue compared to Canada, the UK, and other nations.