Quote:
Originally posted by Sir Krustin:
The american system is useful in that it's possible to have a commons majority that opposes the president (This just occurred with the american midterms)
Anyone who's familiar with Canadian politics knows how bad it is to give any one party majority rule.
|
Westminster has it's checks and balances. Australia only recently handed the same party control of both senate and lower house. And then you have America, which just came off a one-party rule.
Then there's the other extreme where Europe with it's proportional representation system often has difficulty having one party with a clear majority at all making governing somewhat difficult.
I don't think any situation is perfect, I'm just wondering if westminster might be more appropriate given America's huge population.
I'll be watching what happens in the USA with interest to see how effective a party can be in having a majority in just one house. (Unless the Dems get the senate too of course).
To me it seems that if a party in the US system get's control of the house it's not as big a deal as in Westminster systems.