03-10-2003, 08:04 PM
I will risk jumping into the middle of a discussion here. I have read several back posts in this thread though :)
>What the parliamentary system has as a weakness, in
>my view, is that you do not have the national leader
>opposed by a majority of the opposing party, as we
>have frequently experienced.
Not sure if you discuss a particular parlimentary system but I don't think most of them has a built in requirement that the "national leader" must be part of some majority party. Minority governments are not as common as majority ones but happen.
In addition. the american system does not automatically create the situation you describe. You CAN get it, but you can also get a situation were the national leader is from the same party as the majority in the congress, no? If it was such a good system, would it not require the national leader and the majority to be different and not just "happen" at times.
Still, the situation can happen in both systems.
Also, I don't think it is really a requirement but the two party system is hardly a "fact" (no idea of correct word) in US, is it? There can be other parties to or? Most other countries (parlimentary or not) have several parties which sort of complicate matters some :)
> That forces consensus, which in most domestic
>matters is a good thing.
It might also make it very hard to do anything at all since you may end up with many things being very hard or impossible to reach a concensus on. Typically most gernments that are of a minority (party or coalitions) are somewhat "weak" since they can't do much and what one do might not all end up to be working well with other decisions. One may of course have both advantages and drawbacks to such a situation. I usually feel the drawbacks are far greater than the advantages.
Ultimately it is all a question of opinion of course with no real "right" or "wrong". One may even question if the current system of "majority" vote is a good system or not (especially when there are more than two choices/people but even in a 2 option situation it may be). Does it nessecarilly give the "best" end result? What IS the goal for end result? To maximise the satisfaction of as many people as possible? The overall people? Just because more people had one option as first choise is it the best? Why not go, for example, for the option least people opose? I guess this is not really what you were discussing though but never the less an intersting issue.
Ultimately I feel one need to look at the COMPLETE solution for how a country works. One can get problems looking just at one seperate function of the government and how it works.
>What the parliamentary system has as a weakness, in
>my view, is that you do not have the national leader
>opposed by a majority of the opposing party, as we
>have frequently experienced.
Not sure if you discuss a particular parlimentary system but I don't think most of them has a built in requirement that the "national leader" must be part of some majority party. Minority governments are not as common as majority ones but happen.
In addition. the american system does not automatically create the situation you describe. You CAN get it, but you can also get a situation were the national leader is from the same party as the majority in the congress, no? If it was such a good system, would it not require the national leader and the majority to be different and not just "happen" at times.
Still, the situation can happen in both systems.
Also, I don't think it is really a requirement but the two party system is hardly a "fact" (no idea of correct word) in US, is it? There can be other parties to or? Most other countries (parlimentary or not) have several parties which sort of complicate matters some :)
> That forces consensus, which in most domestic
>matters is a good thing.
It might also make it very hard to do anything at all since you may end up with many things being very hard or impossible to reach a concensus on. Typically most gernments that are of a minority (party or coalitions) are somewhat "weak" since they can't do much and what one do might not all end up to be working well with other decisions. One may of course have both advantages and drawbacks to such a situation. I usually feel the drawbacks are far greater than the advantages.
Ultimately it is all a question of opinion of course with no real "right" or "wrong". One may even question if the current system of "majority" vote is a good system or not (especially when there are more than two choices/people but even in a 2 option situation it may be). Does it nessecarilly give the "best" end result? What IS the goal for end result? To maximise the satisfaction of as many people as possible? The overall people? Just because more people had one option as first choise is it the best? Why not go, for example, for the option least people opose? I guess this is not really what you were discussing though but never the less an intersting issue.
Ultimately I feel one need to look at the COMPLETE solution for how a country works. One can get problems looking just at one seperate function of the government and how it works.
There are three types of people in the world. Those who can count and those who can't.