It's fashionable these days to bash Washington politicians and the American political system. I'm not aware of another time-period in recent history when so many features of our system have been under attack. This time, Fareed Zakaria wonders whether we would be better off with a parliamentary system rather than a congressional/presidential system. What do you think?
Does America need a prime minister?
I totally understand why the author wants a parliamentary system that England has, because of the close relationship between the legislature and the executive, and the more unified government. However, we know from what we read that a more unified government doesn't necessarily mean that the system will be more effective. The author claims that our process is slow, but our system of checks and balances prevents corruption. Also, the fact that the legislature chooses the prime minister instead of direct election by the citizens shows that Americans would feel more distanced from the government, since they cannot choose their next leader.
ReplyDeleteDeshna Majmudar
P. 3
While there are problems with the American system, it is this exact system that caused America to be one of the greatest nation in the world. The article states that in America, you always have a contest over basic legitimacy between the president and legislative branch. However, there is evidence that divided governments do as well as unified ones in passing important laws, conducting important investigations, and ratifying significant treaties.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that it doesn't matter if you have a parliamentary system or a congress with a separate executive and judicial branch. None of these systems will work if your country doesn't have a shared sense of purpose and vision.
~Nathan Shen
Period 3
I have mixed emotions on this issue; there are definitely advantages and disadvantages to both systems. For example, the American political system may not be as unified as the parliamentary system, but too much unification may cause tyranny of the majority; thus a less unified government allows for more checks and balances. In addition, a prime minister elected from the “inside” may have more experience, but that does not mean that an “outside” president would not do the job at the same caliber. Ultimately, I do not believe one system is better or more effective than the other because they both have flaws.
ReplyDeleteSarah Alaniz
Period 3
Yes, the American political system has troubles, but no, we should not switch over to a parliamentary system. I can see where Juan Linz favors the parliamentary system over to the presidential system because of stability reasons. Countries with parliamentary systems have good ratings, but that does that mean that a parliament is going to work for America. I think that America should just stick to the ole’ fashioned presidential system because..IT WORKS, and it has been working for over a hundred years. A change in a political system is not what we need. We need a change in the people who run our political system. Better people, better results. Change is nice, but not when the change will just make everything an even bigger headache for us.
ReplyDeleteMariam Kamal
Period 2
I don't understand what the article meant but the presidential system being "unstable". Personally, I don't believe that good decisions can be made so quickly, like the article states. Sure we take our qualitative time to agree upon decisions. They are serious matters to discuss upon. Again as we have said, who's to know if the parliamentary system is beneficial to our country? Both systems has its pros and cons; neither way is perfect. Just because a system is more unified doesn't mean it will automatically get along better and be prompt with its decision making.
ReplyDeleteRimsha Y. P2
I think that presidential/congressional system is better, for our country at least. Although we may have divided government and gridlock, it doesn't mean that there is something wrong with the system. Personally, I don't really like the idea of the prime minister. He controls everything and basically decides everything that is to be done. With my understanding, he seems a little too powerful. I like the congressional/presidential system because of the checks and balances and how there isn't really one main figure. Our system is more fair to the decision making, regardless of the fighting. Fighting brings light to all sides of the issue, so I feel like that is okay to do.
ReplyDeleteMadison Pickham, Period 3
the congressional/pres. system should be kept as it has been working for many years. True other countries may be catching up and we may be slowing down due to our goverment,but a change should not be made so rapidly.There have een previous cases where both houses and executive branch have been unified by the same party but they didn't get much done, if anyhting they went into a deeper gridlock. A parliamentary system may possibly help, but it kind of reminds me of a single controlling party head, when the power is distributed well enough now.
ReplyDeletekim hao
p2
There is no need for America to change their presidential system to a Parliamentary way. Yes, it does have some pros like stability reasons but like changing it wouldn't make our country any better than it is now. We been soooooo use to the presidential way, its just like a tradition that we are use to. The American system has an advantage of checks and balances and with parliamentary it does not. Also, the presidential system gives a voice for the people because they get to choose who to run the country as in parliamentary, the prime ministers are chosen by legislature which is unfair to the people of that country. We should just keep the presidential system.
ReplyDeleteMichelle
Period 3
The Parliamentary system certainly has its benefits with a tight knit of the executive and legislative positions as well as the Prime Minister having the majority party on his side. However, the American system is specifically fashioned in a way that separates the government into three branches. This was done for a clear reason: to have a stable system of checks and balances. American citizens would have a major issue with no longer having the ability to vote for the voice of the people, as Prime Minister is voted on by parliament. The United States of America was designed to have a president and three independent branches.
ReplyDeleteClaire Freeman
Period 2
As usual, I have mixed feelings about this proposition. A parliamentary system has many good features. Since the Prime Minister is also a member of the majority party, anything he proposes is likely to be put into action, causing less gridlock. However, is that necessarily the best course of action? Does the Prime Minister really have the best interest of the people at heart, or would he just come up with random legislation just for the bragging rights. That is one concern with a parliamentary system. Another possible concern with the parliamentary system is that the Prime Minister is elected from within the legislature. This could be a problem, because he may not be very in touch with people, because of his isolation from them in an office.
ReplyDeleteThere are various pros and cons to both systems.
While I do love this country that I live in, I do believe that there needs to be change. Political efficacy is at an all time low, and government mistrust is very high; this cannot be random, there must be reason for this. Government needs to be reformed because there is no way the Founders could have anticipated the obvious change that has occurred since their day. WIth urbanization and significant technological revolution, America is an entirely new nation. I believe in finding a way of taking the best of both systems, presidential and parliamentary, and trying to make a new system of government. There will be flaws in it of course, but I believe it could be a step in the right direction
---Zack Benson, Per. 2
I believe that while the American government is deeply gridlocked on many different levels, it is this type of change-resistant government that has generally protected the people from corruption. The gridlock in our government prevents any sort of large scale change, and this resistance to change protects America from tyranny. This method may be slow, and ineffective at making changes, but is also tried and true, and has kept America relatively corruption-free for many years.
ReplyDeleteThomas Tichy
Per. 3
In the precedent of an American government, Framers bickered over who should have the power. They came down to a President and two other branches of government. From their final decision, they decided that the government should be divided in order for powers to be shared and checked. The American system was created to benefit their ideals and society. But today, those ideals and society itself have changed. Moreover, a parliamentary system would not be superior in America. Because of the Constitution and what the Framers have faced with the British parliament, they clearly did not want a monarchy. By having a parliamentary system, it seems like the step towards monarchy of a majority party. There is no checks and balances in that system. Today, there is no monarchy from our leaders but gridlock and corruption. If we could seek answers to these problems, we would not need to be arguing on how to change the government.
ReplyDelete--Michelle Young
Period 2
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, our Presidential system funtions reasonably well, and I see no reason to radically alter it. While there are some considerable predicaments the plaque the presidential system, such as gridlock and a divided government, our system has lasted since the birth of our nation. The system of checks and balances works as intended, keeping each unique branch of government from growing too powerful and overtaking the others. In addition, the presidential system allows for an executive who voted for by the people, rather than chosen by the legislative body, as in the parliamentary system. In conclusion, the presidential system complements our country well, and transitioning to a parliamentary system would be an egregious decision whose consequences would reach far and wide.
ReplyDelete-Spencer Thompson
Period 2
Our political system is slow, as it is intended to be. However, while it may improve the speed of the goings-on, merging branches of government does not necessarily FIX the problems our government has. Combining the branches could also open up doors to more corruption, and with the debt debates being bounced around, corruption is definitely not what this country wants to see right now (or ever).
ReplyDelete--Lauren Griffin, p. 2
I think that sometimes using the presidential system that we have in America is beneficial and productive as seeN Throughout throughout our history. I also do believe that the parliamentary society wood b beneficial because it would avoid the majority of conflict between the branches of government. But I got to say I like change and wouldn't necessarily mind if there was a change in the system of government.
ReplyDeleteVanessa per 3
I can understand why the author would propose a parliamentary system for the United States. Since the Prime Minister has the majority party already on his side, bills and legislation in a parliamentary system would most likely be passed through without a lot of gridlock. However, gridlock may still occur or as we read, gridlock may actually make the political system stronger. The Framers believed a presidential system that included checks and balances would be more efficient in the nation and that system has served America relatively well for over two centuries. While some aspects of a parliamentary system may be appealing to Americans, our present political arrangement works better for our nation.
ReplyDeleteChelsea Straight Per 3
I understand why the author might consider America having a Parliamentary system, but as it's been said, a unified government does not always guarantee a working one. It has fairly recent in our history to see legislature controlled by one party and an executive control another, and yet there has always been times of gridlock as well as times of things passing a bit more smoothly. So, in my opinion, changing to a Parliamentary system would make no difference.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Harper
Per. 3
Having a parliamentary system for the country would not work as well as our current system of government. The prime minister is able to make decisions quick because he is from the majority party that rules the parliament. This however does not give the minority party any say or ability to change something because they are always outnumbered. The prime minister also has no gridlock because the opposition cannot do anything against the majority. However this TOM is something that the American System has been trying to stop from the very founding of our nation. The system of checks and balances can be aggravating but it does its job by keeping bad bills and ideas from becoming law. Therefore if we were to switch it would stop the few problems we have now but create many new ones.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Hannan pd 3
Again, I don't see why everyone is so insistent on the US changing its form of government were better off than most European countries anyway...and again slow progress is a way of making sure we are making the right/careful decisions. We should stick with our checks and balances they've been just fine for a while. As for the idea of more or less corruption well every country, yes even the US, is corrupt. It is what it is. This wouldn't change anything.
ReplyDeleteFacundo Sirri
Period 2
This American system was created by the Framers so the US won't have a majority over the minority the minority like parliament does. Our system has checks and balances to not have a unified govt like England who we separated from centuries ago. They may have more stability but our system works as well even with gridlock to show that one person isn't just making a decision and it's being considered in every way. Our way works for us.
ReplyDeleteBraxton Matthews P.3
I think that the system we have in america is just fine for the US. it has been working for 200+ years now and why stop. I get where the author is coming from when he says that america might need a parliamentary system but in my opinion it wouldn't work for our country. Our system allows checks and balances to happen and if we didn't have that then who knows how the country would be. Quick decisions from the executive branch do sound well when considering how slow it might be for our system but having the decisions done so fast might now always be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteKatherine Barragan
Period: 2
I think that America should stick with the presidential system instead of the parliamentary system. The parliamentary system has some positive aspects, such as stability, a sense of unity and the system is also rewarded with "triple A-rating". However, it is unsuited for the competitive and fiercely independent nation called America. The diversity that makes up what America is requires a healthy sense of competition in order to progress. This attitude is why it is better to have checks and balances and have separate branches. More opinions are presented and as such, so are more solutions to problems.
ReplyDeleteUrsula Garcia
Period 2
Our system is just fine with it's checks and balances, it's just going through a rough patch. The PM has a majority of parliament on his side, but as kelsey stated, we saw that same party doesn't always equal less gridlock. It has to be same ideology. You shouldn't change horses in midstream and I wouldn't advise changing systems after 200+ years.
ReplyDeleteLucas Richichi
What kind of idea is this! Why on earth would we need to change our system to a parilament. Our system may not be perfect, but it is far better then this type of congress. The very thought of changing one of the key idea from the birth of the constitution is simply illogical. There are things that need to be fixed, but like how we discussed in class not to long ago, the main things that need to be fixed are extra things that we added based on the constitution. Not the constitutional ideas themselves, furthermore I have to say that this is one of the worst solutions to the government that someone has come up with.
ReplyDeleteQuinton Goodman
P.3
Although having a Parliamentary system does offer benefits that appeal to many, such as stability and the extinction of gridlock, it would not suit a desirable purpose in America. In a country with billions of strongly opinionated individuals, there is no question that having a Prime Minister and other Parliamentary components will serve as a major issue. In such a system, the word of the Prime Minister is the final say and the spearhead of any political decisions. People are already unsettled that they have limited say in our democratic government today. If their word was to be completely ignored in the government, political efficacy will be even lower than it is now. The elimination of gridlock and the foundation for stability are also outcomes of adopting a Parliamentary system. This may sound pleasing, but such a system will prevent the debates and struggling- between the two parties in government- that have resulted in a better assurance of the best interests of Americans. Like others, I believe that aspects of the American political system need to be altered. However, I do not see utilizing the Parliamentary system’s components as an effective way to solve our problems. In fact, they may even make the dilemma in America’s government worse.
ReplyDeleteBrianna Banks
Period 3
I think the system we have now in the U.S. is just fine. It’s been working for all these years, so why change it now? Our system has checks and balances, and even if we have gridlock, our government is still pretty successful. A parliamentary system may make everything more stable and unified, but I don’t believe it is a good idea for our country.
ReplyDeleteYostina Halaka
Period 3
I don't believe that America needs a prime minister because that type of system removes power and voice from the minority party. In america i feel that we pride ourselves on the idea of giving freedom of speech and opinion and being able to impact the government. In a parliamentary system that does not exist and that is why i oppose it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Parliamentry system sounds good from the outside, gov students know that our government is the most effective. Even though our check and balances causes the passing of bills/propositions/etc to go slower, it also causes a more thorough understanding of what we do make law before it happens. I say that the P. system sounds good from the outside because of the relationship between the Parliament and their Prime Minister but our three branches of government are just as, if not more, effective.
ReplyDeleteYasmine period 2
While it may be true that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential systems for the reasons of stability, I don't believe that America needs a prime minister. We shouldn't have to conform into how other nation's political systems run their course. After all, we have adopted & practiced the presidential system for many years now & although it is not flawless, it has been proven effective. Sure, there's also a struggle between one party in one house of the legislature claiming to speak for the people and a president who claims a broader mandate as the only person elected by all the people, but not everyone's wishes can be met. The checks & balances that we've adopted may take some time to make decisions, but it is essential to ponder upon a decision before rapidly making it as well. Overall, I believe our nation is fine with it's political system, we don't need a prime minister !
ReplyDelete-Kathy Hu
Period 2
Our government is fine just the way it is now. No system of government will ever truly be flawless which is why there are so many various systems throughout the world, because there’s no form of government proven to be superior to all others; it varies from nation to nation, person to person, it all boils down to opinion. Yes our government doesn’t function at the quickest pace but that’s how it was intended for it to be so our system doesn’t become overrun and come crashing down. Our government was made to have longevity with the way it was structured, and switching from a presidency to a prime minister would not be the wise idea given this country’s political history and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI hope what I wrote is coherent, sleep deprivation is so tragic.
-Jack M. Period 3
In general I tend to think parliamentary systems like those in canada or britain work better MAINLY because if we do not like out leader, he is easier to get rid of and it makes it easier for the government to
ReplyDeleteMake decisions and act. But then again.... For such a large and diverse country such as America, a constitutional presidential-congressional. I'm a big believer in the 3 branch system checking on each other. And I feel like in a parliamentary system, the supreme court would lose a lot of its power, which is not a pleasant thought. So, I vote we keep the president 👍
Tamara p3
Adopting a parliamentary system would restrict the minority party as it favors the majority party, which leaves an open gate to create a tyranny of the majority. America is just fine with a president and has been for several centuries. What might work for one nation, might not work for others, especially America taking its diversity and size into consideration.
ReplyDelete-Pattie B. Per. 2
The American Political system is fine the way it is. Although it has its ups and downs, this system has pulled this country through thick and thin. If it has worked for the past 200 years, it will probably continue to work for a long time. The beauty of this system is that all people have a chance to participate in government, or at least feel a sense of faith in it. People may be currently loosing faith in government, but alternating to a parliament would mean the end of everything this country stands for.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Nasrallah
Period 2
Adopting a parliamentary system or a prime minister just wouldn't bode well for this nation. Sure, it's worked over there, but we are a completely different nation, without even acknowledging that our system was set up this way, specifically so we wouldn't have one branch dangerously close to too much power. It's our system of checks and balances that keeps everything so steady, and it's one of the things that made this country so powerful in the first place. The way the nation conducts itself is very different from Europe, as well. The way our legislative branch works, with cordial debates but fierce ideological competition, is different from England's parliament. Many members of Congress really want that top seat of power, so if we had someone so directly involved as a prime minister, that might cause a little hostility. I mean, there's a reason the VP is supposed to stay away from the Senate until tie-breakers.
ReplyDeleteHaley Shepherd, Period 2
America needs a Prime Minister because everything would be much easier to get done. It seems like it takes years to get anything done in the US with our government and with a parliamentary system I believe our government would move much faster. I don't mind change and I don't mind fast change, I'm pretty bored with how slow things are moving in this country. It is actually quite sad to see. It is like a turtle, they are already slow and then you put that turtle in a pool of peanut butter, doesn't get much sadder than that. Anyway, personally, I would like to see our government run the way Britain runs theirs, much more exciting and fast moving. And yes I do see how it can be more corrupt but at least something gets done, I don't like pauses.
ReplyDeletep.s. That weird turtle analogy was just for you Mr.C, because I really enjoyed your fetus/baby and bill/law analogy the other day :P
-Jessica Benham per.2
Thank you, Jessica! You know I like analogies, and your "turtle in a pool of peanut butter" was funny.
DeleteHaha yayyy!(:
Delete-Jessica
Im going to say that the American poltical system is completely fine. As i have stated before we have had this system since the birth of our nation and have accomplished amazing things while on our system. There is a reason why we have the most powerfull nation on earth and not Britain, who should i mention is run by a prime minister. Legislation is meant to move slowly and carefully not headstrong and reckless. Sure we might hav a more exciting government system but since when did government business have to be exciting?? The point is the job should be done right and not jump the gun on certain situations.
ReplyDeleteJoey Aliano
Period 2
After reading this article, I'm pretty sure I'm still in favor our the American system versus any other. It would seem that a unified government would get more done and have a unified stance on most issues. However, solidarity doesn't mean much when some of the population has no voice. In an ideal world, whichever party won ther presidency would also win majorities in the house and in the senate but with minorities also represented. That way, work would still get done but it would not tyranize the minority. In a parlimentary system, the losing party has absolutely no voice, which seems unrealistic as they must be considered when making decisions.
ReplyDeleteAlex Santrach
Per. 2
I see the benefits of having prime minister, but i do agree with many of my classmates and say that it would not be best for our country. If anything, it would make the american voters very upset. I believe that a dramatic change would cause mistrust in the government and a downfall in patriotism. Our country was developed to have a 3 branch system for a reason and has remained strong for a very long time. It may have its ups and downs, but a change to a pm would be detrimental to our country.
ReplyDeleteT Sully P-2
Honestly even though a parliament seems like a key solution to our government issues now, I feel as if switching to mparliamentary system would make us Un-American. America prides itself on our own form of democracy and I think changing it would defeat our entire history of being a defined as a different and powerful nation. Our three checks and balances work fine. Don't fix what isnt broken.
ReplyDeleteJaylin S. Period 2
A parliament would take away the power of the American people to elect thier president. America is one of the few countries in the world where it's citizens can vote without fear and know their vote gets counted. Yes it has it's flaws but congress are never in a permanent state of doing nothing, gridlock is natural, people disagree. And gridlock is the result of Americans voting in congressman and senators who don't deserve to be there. The blame isn't on the system but the servers of that system
ReplyDeleteAnd the people who live In it.
Alfred Pina
Per 3
Although the notion of having a prime minister and a unified government persuades people to think that more can be accomplished and there will be less conflict, their notions are erroneous. In our reading it stated that in our own American form of government, there is a lot of partisan bickering and conflict regardless of whether a unified or divided government is currently in session. It stated that just as much gets done with a unified government as a divided government because there is no truly 'unified government'. Just because the Democratic party occupy both the exec branch and congress, doesnt mean they will all agree. Also, in the parliamentary system, the minority has absolutely no voice at all. The democratic feature of our nation (which has proven to be successful) wouldn't be as great any longer.
ReplyDeleteSahil Dhaliwal per 3
America as a nation has seen brighter days before. The financial situation and trouble that we are in leads us to believe that it could be our system of government to blame, more specifically the president. We believe that if there could be less gridlock in Washington, things would get done and America would get moving again. This could be accomplished with a parliamentary system. Personally I believe that the American Presidential system is better than the parliamentary system. True, a parliamentary system would lead to more getting done but that is at the extent of one man calling the shots and allowing no room for argument or compromise. America is a nation founded on compromise. The presidential system may have its flaws but in the end it allows for compromise and refinement of legislation that are better suited for the American people.
ReplyDeleteRicardo Campos Per. 3
Though the author makes a valid argument, I believe that our presidential system is fine the way it is. The American system is unique and provides the necessary checks on power. The presidency has evolved since its establishment and continues to be effective today. I do not agree with the author that other nations are taking over America because they are moving faster. If our policymakers moved quickly to accommodate every temporary desire of American citizens and their representatives, then our government would be a mess -even more than it is now. Our presidential system is the best fit for America because it is as unique and diverse as the American people.
ReplyDeleteKarina Jonas
Period 3
One of the author's main arguments is that the nation would be more productive with a parliamentary system. With a parliamentary system the country would be able to act fast to keep up with the fast paced world. It's productive for countries who aren't enormous like the U.S. and have small big states competing for representation. The country is huge, and everyone wants something different. A fast moving political system won't acknowledge the pros and cons of each bill and law before passing them, leaving more citizens who dont agree with it. America needs the slow but effective system it has now.
ReplyDeleteKasim Manekia
P2
I understand where the author is coming from when he considers that America should switch over to a parliamentary system to solve our current problem. The parliamentary system does indeed present some advantageous cases, mainly involving the power of the prime minister himself to have a guaranteed approval of the laws he presents to the House of Commons. However,it is with great concern that all power that is bestowed upon one man would prove to be a very risky move because Parliament would not be able to present ethical arguments on some of the prime minister's actions. If America were to adopt that kind of system, the situation would all depend on the president himself and with no form of checks and balances, the president would be able take matters into his own hands. It is better to have a government where each branch of government tries to compromise and work as a cohesive unit, than for one man to pull of a stand-alone complex in government.
ReplyDelete~ Bryan Quiambao
Period 3
Keep in mind that a parliamentary system doesn't give the prime minister all the power. He can't act alone. He still needs the legislature to agree with him.
DeleteAlthough a parliamentary system has its perks, I don't believe that it is the right fit for our nation and will support what our nation is all about. Although there are flaws in both our political system and our government, it has worked for us so far. The author argues that stability is the main reason why a parliamentary system would trump our presidential system. Isn't our country's superior standing in the world today proof of stability? Although divided, our government works through issues and keeps each branch in check. At the end of the day, both systems have their pros and cons, but like many of my classmates, I still believe that our presidential system is what's best for our country.
ReplyDeleteChristine Noche
Per. 2
America needs to keep a president over a prime minister. This country was built upon the three separate branches and by having a prime minister, the executive branch would no longer be separated from the legislative branch, since the prime minister is chosen by the legislation. Yes, the parliamentary system may work over in England, but America was built much differently than they were, and we can't just create a prime minister position when our system is completely different. This country needs a president, and we will always have one.
ReplyDeleteCody Wallace
Per. 3
I agree with Christine on this one. There is a reason why we chose the system that we did and strayed away from the parliamentary system. It has many advantages, almost seems as if it has more than our system. But it does not fit our country and how we are accustomed to conducting business. Without the checks and balances factor I would actually lean more towards parliamentary system. Our country has many flaws, but the checks and balances are what keep our nation floating. No other country performs them as we do--it is our glue politically that holds all of our opinions, debates, and criticisms from tearing us apart.
ReplyDeleteCarolina Guzman
P.2
What might work for one nation may not work for another. Our citizens are raised with the mindset that America= freedom, and adopting a parliamentary system would just destroy that idea. There are flaws to every system, yet our checks and balances system has kept the nation functioning and even made US one of the top nations in the world. Why would we want to completely change this? The best solution is simply making gradual changes. It might be argued that in the fast paced time that we live in, we need a government to be quick and decisive. However, this may only lead to unnecessary or not well thought out laws or changes being made. Overall, we should just stick to the presidential system and fix the little flaws-- not attempt to change everything at once.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Hsu, P.2
A president would be better than a Prime Minister in our situation. Since we have two major parties, if one party gets to take control of the entire government whenever they are elected, the other half of the country would be ignored and neglected. Without our system of checks and balances I believe changing our system would cause a rift within our country. Changing to a Prime Minister would of course mean changing to a parliament and without a larger number of parties this could be disaster.
ReplyDeleteKendall Mayfield
Period 2
I don't understand why just because a system is more unified that means it's qualified to do a better job. I think if we adopted a parliamentary system there would be a higher chance of tyranny of the majority. I think that our system of checks and balances still attempts to help prevent that and even if it takes them a little longer to get things done it doesn't mean it doesn't work.
ReplyDeletedestiny 2
I don't think America needs a parliamentary system, it may work for other countries but it doesn't mean it will work well for the U.S. The parliamentary does have it's advantages and with it things may get done at a faster pace but that doesn't mean that it is better for our nation. With checks and balances progress may be slow, but it's makes sure that our nation is making a well thought out decisions that are best for the nation as a whole.
ReplyDeleteHayley AW
Per. 3
I believe that our system right now is fine. Of course there are benefits to a parliamentary system, however we are the only country in the world that has this type of government and I think we should embrace our unique system. It works for us, it just seems difficult and dysfunctional sometimes. However, I believe we should keep things the way they are and continue to thrive under this form of government.
ReplyDeleteKelsi Holton
Period 3
I understand why a suggestion such as this one could make sense, but in reality, no government system is perfect because nothing is ever perfect. Besides, we've had our government system working for us since over 200 years ago. If we try to change it now, who knows what other troubles we would run into. Also, in any government system, if the system as a whole doesn't have the same, unified vision, things usually get difficult because of different view, ideologies, etc.
ReplyDeleteLinda Lee
P3
If the United States were to switch to a parliamentary system, it would receive just as much criticism as it did before. The people complain that the current system of separate legislative and executive branches result in a slow process that often ends in a divided government and gridlock. Under the parliamentary system, the people would feel powerless against the unified legislative and executive branches. The government would then be accused of corruption. The founding fathers desired a government where the federal system could not make swift and radical changes in fear of decisions that may harm the people. I think the current system delivers what was intended 200 years ago. The system of checks and balances may be slow, but it works for our nation.
ReplyDeleteKimi Kim, Period 3.
Everything about having a president instead of a prime minister is perfect for the United States. First of all, we love being different. Second, the slow process of getting things accomplished (i.e. gridlock) comforts us because we feel like any legislation that should not be passed will not survive through it. Quick, rapid change as the author of the article put it, is terrifying to me. Quick, rapid change sounds like a group being able to come to power very easily and changing everything about the system. That is exactly what the framers of our constitution were trying to avoid. The president is the face of the nation, and voting on him is something very American that I take pride in. No prime minister.
ReplyDeleteIvana Bosch
Per 3
well after reading this i do see their point in how a parliamentary may be easier & more efficient in come cases. but honestly, i believe our three branch system is doing just fine, our separate legislative and executive branch is what makes us unique & it works. Also, as we have read previously, sure getting things passed & what not may not be very time efficient, but i believe that patience is key. And finally, it's not just about having a unified government, in which one party is in control in both the white house & both houses in congress, but having a "unified government" in which it's not just the same party, but having the same ideological wing in control.
ReplyDeletepriscilla mewborne
p.3
A president is the best option for the United States. For over 200 years now the system has worked here and not only is it reliable, but it has also led us to be the most powerful country in the world. I believe that a parliamentary system where a prime minister is chosen by the majority party would go against everything the framers believed in. To avoid tyranny of the majority and one branch becoming to powerful, checks and balances was introduced to prevent a tyrant.
ReplyDeleteSam Yassa
Per. 3
I Disagree with the author. Switching to a prime minister would in fact allow the government to make more rapid changes and allow bills to become laws. But is that what we really want? Emotional driven decisions are often rational. Changing the constitution is easier than reversing Preexisting conditions. Though it may be tough for a president to make quick changes that is what makes the American system so strong.
ReplyDeleteMichael Tomey
Period 2
The parlimentry system has its benifits and a strong leadership over the government, the prime minister always is from the majority party, so the government is unified. However I like the checks and balances we have in our government, with the three branches every peice of legislature is checked by all opinions of the government. I think people get frustrated because the process takes time and gridlock occurs.
ReplyDeleteLiz Judd period 3
I see the good in parliamentary systems, but having a president in the U.S. is a long tradition. We couldn't just change it now, i think if we did try to change it everything would be worse. It would be worse because the government and people would have to get accustomed to a parliamentary system, and it would take quite some lime to adjust and adapt to it. I know our legislation and president do squabble over who is for the people but, i think a presidency system is best for U.S. because that's all we're used to.
ReplyDeleteBrandi Henry
per. 3
Despite the general American consensus for our current method of government, I would prefer a parliamentary system. Divided government that currently stalls government would be mediated by a parliament, which often form governments on the basis of coalitions based around a general direction of policy. Although the separation of powers will be lessened by combining the executive and legislative functions of government, liberty can persist; plus, the legislative powers exercised by modern American presidents are not too different from a prime minister with an official legislative role.
ReplyDeleteMaliq Nixon, Per. 3