Would America be better served by the westminster system of govt?

[Yorick]

No worries Aragorn!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Rikard T'Aranaxz: history has shown that if theres one group of people who shouldn't decide what happens to a country, its the mayority. the democratic system is flawed since people dont need to have any clue what the hell they are voting for in order to vote. having said that, theres nothing harder then finding a leader who wont turn into a tyrent when placed with absolute power. with all this in mind i would plead for the party system used in europe because when choosing between 2 parties, instead of going for the best, you got for the lesser of 2 evils.

Rikard!
Good to see you mate.
It's been too long.
Hope you're well bro!

[pritchke]

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:

Pritchke, are Senators in Canada not elected?

Nope, just appointed. Would be better that they were elected but they are chosen based on region and population. I think it would be better that they are elected but by being appointed they do have the experience required to make laws. I was of the mind that it should be disbanded all together but they do come up with and create some very good laws on occasion when they are not living in Flordia or Mexico. They are all mostly retired MPs and lawyers so they do have experience.

Secondly a British/Australian Prime Minister has far less power than a US president, so I'd guess the Canadian PM does too. Namely it's that their cabinet and party can fire the PM at any time by mounting a leadership challenge, so there's more accountability to the party and the people the PM is directly relating to every day.

Yes the MPs can have a vote of no confidence like in SW Eposide 1. Actually in a minority you have to tread carefully here because the other parties can have a vote of no confidence in the PM. This is the best thing about the Canadian system and it generally makes minorities work together to get things done. It is not done often because the parties who do this often get heat for forcing us to the polls again. Recently done with former PM Paul Martin he lost the no confidence vote the 2nd time around so an election and his party lost.

[ 11-15-2006, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Yorick]

Who appoints Canadian Senators?

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Yorick: Who appoints Canadian Senators?

Canadian Senators are appointed by the Governor General of Canada on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister.

Here is the Role of the Senate.

[ 11-15-2006, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Zaleukos]

I think the US system is better than westminster due to the formalization of checks and balances. The founding fathers were brilliant, though I suspect they were influenced by the English having Monarchs not being chosen by parliament...

But I prefer a Proportional Representation system to the First Past the Post used by the Anglosaxon world. FPP tends to result in "wasted" votes (if you live in the wrong district), potentially lowers voter turnout, invites gerrymandering, and produce large tent parties. PR results in coalitions between parties where the balance of between different ideological wings is much more transparent as each ideology has its own party. As a right-wing liberal/livertarian I dont risk my vote going to union-hugging protectionists or moral conservatives. FPP has advantages in that it is easier to form a functioning government and there is a clearer geographical bond between the voter and his/her personal representative, but I think that having a broader spectrum represented in parliament is more valuable. In the end I guess it boils down to whether one finds geographical or ideological representation more important... The US is after all vastly bigger than any EU country so geography becomes a problem in a different way. But why not introduce PR at state level or in presidential elections?

EDIT: Sweden has proportional representation and parliamentarism (what was called westminster in this thread). Since the prime minister almost always is supported by a majority in the parliament this means that he has to screw up pretty badly for the parliament to act as a check on him. The parties in the governing coalition act as checks on each other instead. In a way the UK is more problematic as the FPP system results in ONE party controlling both the executive and the legislature, but this is somewhat offset by looser party discipline than in many other countries:p

The UK system actually seems to work so much better in practice than it should in theory:p I guess tradition has some value after all...

[ 11-16-2006, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Zaleukos ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Rikard T'Aranaxz: history has shown that if theres one group of people who shouldn't decide what happens to a country, its the mayority.

The banking families of Israel, the U.S. and Europe who run the world thank you for your support. Remember -- support world government.

This has been a public service announcement.