Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Differences and similarities presidential and parliamentary system
Differences and similarities presidential and parliamentary system
Reforming the electoral college us essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There are two key political systems; one is a presidential system, and the other is a parliamentary system. Both of them have their benefits, as well as disadvantages. No political system is flawless or has continuous stability, but history shows there are successful countries that use either type of system. Firstly, there is the presidential system, which has many characteristics. In a presidential system, there is a president, who is elected to a fixed term. The president cannot be elected for more than two consecutive terms. Additionally, voters have a greater range of electoral choices in a presidential system. The president is the head of state, but also the head of the government. There is a cabinet in the presidential system, …show more content…
The Chancellor or Prime Minister is the head of government. However, the monarch is only head of state. The monarch tends to do little or no political decision-making. The voters of a parliamentary system elect parliament who then elect the prime minister and the cabinet. In a parliamentary system, there is not a separation of powers, but there is a separation of functions. Each part of the government has its function. In a parliamentary system, a vote of confidence is proposed by a party, which needs to be backed by the other part of the government. For the most part, there is not as much stability in a parliamentary system as there is in a presidential …show more content…
I prefer the presidential system because the stability I see in the system. Nevertheless, looking at history, the United Kingdom has been stable using a parliamentary system. However, Brazil and Nigeria use a presidential system and have had periods of military rule. In a presidential system, the president is elected by the people and not by the legislature. For these reasons, I feel the United States should revamp the Electoral College. The weight of each vote should be the same, and it should not matter where the voter lives. Frances election process is similar to a presidential system, which is based on a popular vote. Another benefit of a presidential system is that there is a judicial branch, which helps the country follow and withhold the Constitution. I like that there is a separation of powers within a presidential system, which I feel is necessary for any system. Additionally, I believe it is beneficial to the country to have fixed terms for the chief executive. Moreover, I do not feel that the president should have the authority to dissolve the parliament and hold new elections. For these reasons, I think that at this time in history the United States benefits from a presidential system, but the Electoral system used could be reviewed and
Canada runs on a democratic model of governing based on the British parliamentary system. Its parliament is thus divided into two chambers: the House of Commons and the Senate. Elected politicians are seated within The House of Commons while the Senate occupies qualified citizens which are appointed by the Prime Minister. Parliament’s purpose is to hold responsibility for passing legislations and the choosing of government, referring to the political party with the largest amount of seats. Depending on the results of the election, Canada has the potential of having either a majority, minority or in the rare case a coalition government. Customarily, an election in Canada usually ends up forming a majority government. The party with more than
The fact that the popular vote holds no power to whom becomes president shows that only some of the people have the power. This seems like a sign that our own government doesn’t have faith in the population to make an educated decision on who should become president. The way smaller states votes are more important than bigger states, shows that states are still not equal in power. The way to win the presidency is more of a strategy than having the ideas to be elected. An example of this is how the electoral college elected George Bush when Al Gore won the popular vote. George Bush is said to be one of the United States worst presidents and was elected through a thought to be flawed system. I also feel as though corruption plays a role in the electoral college compared to the popular vote being authentic. I think this should be replaced with a system of electronic voting that could accurately and clearly show who the majority of the population voted for. But I also think that some sort of requirements to vote should be enacted. Education plays a big role in politics and I feel as though there are people who just vote to be voting with no kind of background knowledge. As bad as it sounds I feel like it could narrow a better decision being made than smaller, less developed states being “mind controlled” into voting for
The Electoral College system should be scrapped and be replaced with popular vote because it is unfair. By abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with popular vote, it would represent citizens equally, it would allow citizens to elect their president just as they elect their governors and senators, and it would motivate and encourage citizens to participate in voting.
In conclusion, the Electoral College should be abolished because small states are unrepresented, there are many flaws in the system, and it is not accurate based on people 's votes. Overall there seems to be no need for it, it was made for the reason that back then they thought it was a simple way of choosing a president, but really it just causes problems and does not represent the candidates or voters fairly. If America is truly about equality and democracy, then they will abolish the Electoral College and let the people have a
The first article “Why the Electoral College” by Frank Kuchar, published March 10, 2016, illustrates the advantages of the Electoral College rather then that of a direct popular vote adding that abolishing the already existing system and replacing it with a direct popular vote would change the entire U.S. government system. While in the other article “Point: Abolishing the Electoral College” by Benjamin Bolinger, published in 2007, illustrates the authors argument in favor of abolishing the Electoral College thinking that it would allow for the election of a president through a popular vote that most closely reflects the will of the American people. The Electoral College system of electing a President and Vic-President is an outdated system
Debating which constitutional form of government best serves democratic nations is discussed by political scientist Juan Linz in his essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”. Linz compares parliamentary systems with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous. Linz points out the flaws as presidentialism as he sees them and sites rigidity of fixed terms, the zero-sum game and political legitimacy coupled with lack of incentive to form alliances as issues to support his theory that the parliamentary system is superior to presidentialism.
There are some advantages of the Electoral College such as, it preserves the voices of the states with the lowest population. It also favors a two-party system and dissuades third-parties which creates more stability. Even with all these pros I think without an overhaul that we should eliminate the Electoral College. This would simplify this process and more people would get out and
The most significant issue of this system is that it is nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to win the election (Black). In all states, besides Nebraska and Maine, a winner-takes-all system exists for allocating electoral votes. Thus, the candidate who wins the majority of the votes in that state receives all of that states’ electoral votes. So even if a third-party has any significant support in a state if he/she does not receive majority they receive no electoral votes. Another drawback is that it is possible for the loser of the popular vote could win the electoral vote hence becoming president (Black). So the people’s choice is not always the winner. Many feel the people should choose the president rather than having the unpopular lead the country. Lastly, it makes voters feel that their votes do not matter since the most states vote the same way for most elections (Josephson). Voter turnout is usually low in the nation and without the Electoral College the incentive to vote may increase since people will feel that their vote actually counts since a direct election makes people vote for the president. Due to these drawbacks, countless Americans feel the nation may be better off without the electoral
Lastly, I don’t think that the Electoral College is a very good idea because each person in this country matters. If they chose a president, even if by popular vote, it was their choice and they will be the ones who have to live with whatever promises that president chooses to make or break to them. If they made a mistake on which president to choose it will be their own fault and they won’t have anyone else to blame but themselves.
By contrast, a President is elected directly by the people and presidential elections are often divisive, creating bad blood between parties. It is not uncommon for the President to adapt his/her policy agenda to meet their personal time frame. Additionally, removing a President from office requires a lengthy process. A successor will likely have political legitimacy and may have their own agenda causing further discontinuity.
During at elections one can notice a key difference between the two systems. In a parliamentary system the people of the nation elect a political party to represent their interests. Then the party that gains the majority of the votes elects, or may already have elected, someone to be their spokesperson who becomes the Prime Minister of said nation. In a presidential system, on the other hand, the people elect individual persons to become the President and members of the congress, in separate elections.
Beginning in America in 1787, the Electoral College was originally created during the Constitutional Convention to help make a fair way for the president to be elected without giving too much power to either the national government or individual states. Over the years, the Electoral College has undergone a few changes in attempt to make it more fair, but there is still much debate about whether or not the Electoral College is the most effective way to elect a president. Some people believe that the Electoral College does an excellent job of creating an equal distribution of votes across all ethnicities and social classes of America. In contrast, others think that the Electoral College does not give an accurate portrayal of the popular opinion of Americans, believing that the Electoral College is no longer necessary for the election process in our society. The issue of whether or not the Electoral College should be a part of our government is important to our society, because it has had a dramatic effect on who is elected as president. Several times in American history a potential presidential candidate has obtained the presidential office only because of the Electoral College, despite the fact that they lost the popular vote. Therefore, the Electoral College should be removed from the government and replaced with an election system based on the popular vote.
Discussions of which constitutional form of government best serves the growing number of democratic nation’s are being debated around the world. In the essay “The Perils of Presidentialism”, political scientist, Juan Linz compares the parliamentary with presidential systems as they govern democracies. As the title of Linz’s essay implies, he sees Presidentialism as potentially dangerous and sites fixed terms, the zero-sum game and legitimacy issues to support his theory. According to Linz, the parliamentary system is the superior form of democratic government because Prime Minister cannot appeal to the people without going through the Parliament creating a more cohesive form of government. By contrast, a President is elected directly by the
In the past, different civilizations have been ruled by different forms of government. The U.S. Democratic Republic, the Roman Republic, and the Athenian Democracy have similar and different functions of how they run their government.
The United Kingdom is formally called “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” Government in the United Kingdom is considered to be Parliamentary. Although it is parliamentary, it is also described as being “majoritarian.” Parliament in the UK works a little different than the United States; the people of the U.S. are allowed to elect their president. In the parliamentary system the people elect who will be in the legislature, and the legislature then selects who the next prime minister will be. Then, once the prime minister is selected he choses members of the cabinet. This system creates a quick and easy political decision-making by popular majority. In this essay we will discuss the strengths and limitations the majoritarian government of the UK. One of the strengths of majoritarian government is perhaps that it is the fastest to pass or veto legislation, however there are limitations or weaknesses also like it lacks checks and balances from the House of Lords, and the disadvantage that the smaller parties have when it comes to elections, and not having a set calendar date for elections.