|
Here's the issue I have (short version... just had a long convo about it)
The secretaries/ministers are in effect running the country, but under the US system are not elected representatives of the people, so their first loyalty is to the president who hires them, not the people, who hire them.
That said, in the US's favour judges and attorney generals are elcted, unlike Australia, where they are appointed....
No perfect system.
I just wonder if systems need to be reformed regularly to root out corruption. Certainly making the president only choose a cabinet from congressmen would get rid of the boys club in DC.
But then you're possibly not having the best men for the job doing the job.
But at least they're answerable to their constituency.
Additionally the advantage in westminster systems is that accountability is two-way.
If the P.M. is an arse, the cabinet could effectively "fire" him by staging a leadership challenge. The P.M. can also fire a cabinet member of course.
I like that accountability.
I guess congress can always impeach a president.... but that seems a much harder circumstance to bring about.
The thing I like about westminster (at least Aussie) is that we say "these are the people we want running the country" and then they work out amongst them who's the boss, who's the treasurer, who's defense minister, foreign affairs etc.
Under the US system, what do congressmen actually do? How do they "run the country"? Seems like they don't. President and cabinet do that. So how does it work? Help! I'm not a yank!!!
[ 11-10-2006, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]
|