Strengths and Weakness of Parliamentary Democracy
88Political systems come in all shapes and sizes. Which ever political system you choose, there are many different ways they work in reality. Even democracy works in many different ways. Many Americans do not understand how the parliamentary system is different than that of the United States. The systems vary in significant ways with advantages and disadvantages in both.
The easiest comparison is made between the United States and Great Britain since they both have two dominant political parties, two legislative houses and one well known executive. In the United States the House of Representatives are voted on by state districts. How many people are in the district depends on the population of the state, as does the number of representatives from each state. In Great Britain, the House of Commons is very similar. Representation is based on smaller districts and there are more members than the other legislative body.
The larger legislative body in the United States is the Senate. Each state has two senators regardless of population. In Great Britain the House of Lords serves a similar function as the Senate, although it is much larger. The House of Lords is considered the more prestigious body, as is the Senate.
In both countries the legislative bodies are elected by the people. Theoretically, the members of these bodies job is to represent the will of the people in making laws. In the United States, Congress is supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, which is why the framers made Article One of the Constitution about the Congress. In Great Britain, Parliament has one key power that does not exist for Congress.
The President of the United States is elected by the electoral college, not the people (see Gore v. Bush). The electoral college was created because the founders did not believe the average American could be trusted with such a significant decision. At the time, information did not travel quickly, making knowledge of the candidates difficult. The electoral college is now made up of political party members chosen by each state. The power of the president does not come from Congress. They are totally separate institutions. Although there are checks and balances, the executive and legislative branches function independently.
The Prime Minister of England is also not elected by the people. But unlike the United States the executive in a parliamentary democracy is given his or her authority by the legislative body. The prime minister is chosen by the majority party and can be replaced easily. In the United States the only way Congress can remove the president is through impeachment, a very long and difficult process.
This difference in the executive branch creates the key difference between the two systems. In the American system the executive and legislative branches controlled by members of different parties, as exists now with a Republican president and Democratically controlled Congress. The end result is usually partisan fighting and each side blaming the other for the country's problems and lack of action. In the parliamentary system this can not happen. The executive and legislative branches have to be from the same party, leading to more accountability. The minority party can not be blamed when they do not have much, if any, political power.
On the other hand, parliamentary systems can be confusing and ineffective. Unlike Great Britain, most countries with parliamentary systems have many prominent political parties. For any party to gain majority power is almost impossible without building coalitions and working together. Coalitions can be tenuous, and when they fail the government must reorganize and choose new leaders. Instability makes progress difficult.
This simple comparison highlights some of the significant differences between parliamentary democracy and democracy in the United States. Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, but evaluation of which is better is up to the reader.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (18)
- Funny (5)
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful (4)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
I think the comparison is great. For your knowledge it's good because in the UK (I'm a student who lives here and studies it so I know a bit about it, not too much though so if I make some mistakes pardon me.) we have more parties and it's their policies that count. People can change their decision any time, but parties are slowly turning into one and soon we might have to either ask for or just see a radical change in the way things are presented and represented. *Just a side note, those who follow politics in the UK I am voting conservative, but at thisame time this is because they now represent better and more 'Labour-like' policies than labour. Thus the comparison is good. The two opposing sides in the USA agree on a lot like the $700bln injection into the market to save the banks, and just thisame do the UK government. It's all about how it's represented. Therefore there must also be a semi-democratic country as look at how massive it is? America, is a continent. Enough said.
The misinformation about the electoral college is this: The electoral vote is a mathematical vote based on the electorate's populous vote. Essentially, it is a use of proportion and population. The electoral college has the right to over-ride a vote. Using the election of Gore vs. Bush is inaccurate because of the Florida counties continuing to "recount" votes, instead of doing it state-wide. At the same time, votes coming in from the military were being disenfranchised. At this point in time, the secretary of state Katherine Harris finalized a much-needed and prolonged state vote. This last over-ride was the third time the electoral college has over-ridden a presidential vote. This does not mean that our vote is not counted. The electoral vote is based on our votes.
Comparing our Senate to the House of Lords is like comparing apples and picture frames. Senators are voted in by the people of the state they represent. The House of Lords are made up of people who have affiliation or relation to the royal family. The role of the Senate is more more powerful (at this point in time) than the House of Lords.
Our government is a republic-not a constitutional monarchy. We have no royal family that milks our economic system. We have no royal household that costs the British taxpayers millions in pounds per year. There is no comparison to a royal family, because we don't have one. Plain and simple.
hi
ello democracy is homo land according to wikepidia
You are incorrect on at least one detail, the Senate is not the larger legislative body. The Senate has only 100 senators, two for every state, and the House of Representatives has at least 400 congressmen...
Hello I want to say theat you are WRONG BIG TIME because you don't even unerstand that the senate is MY DAD!!!!! thanks a lot for making hi feel bad-you made him cry-best wish(lol)
Hello I want to say theat you are WRONG BIG TIME because you don't even unerstand that the senate is MY DAD!!!!! thanks a lot for making hi feel bad-you made him cry-best wish(lol)
India or Israel would make a better comparison for this article. Just saying.
You guy dont get any presents this year because you made that all up !!!!
FUCKERS! Whatever you guys do not know a thing. A country does not need a government!
you are wrong because we do need i government
ummm.... yeah, we kind of DO need a government.....
really helpful....thanks alot :)
YOU SUCK
this helps alot thank u
The system is for and by the people even in voting it is in the constitution of the USA many might see the electorial system as not elected by the people but it is and there can be improvement in our voting system. paper ballots are a sure way through out the nation. Providing work for many americans while getting them involved. Camara's through out the process with reviews to make sure all goes well and honest.
hiiiiiiiii kam cho maza ma
Loads of what you have written here is wrong about the UK, the primeminster cannot be replaced easily at all by his party while he is in office and its not simple when he is out of office, also we have 100s of political parties although two are dominant, the Liberal Democrats are also potential contenders, although it is extremely unlikely.
i think it makes a lot of sense. great work done man
u people are stupiud!!!!!!!!
Agree with James Olsson
what is the advantage of having the ppl in the legislative branch chosen by the ppl? as apposed to them chose by the state legislature?
precisely helpful
IN WAY U SAY MS SUANTAK
James Olsson 4 years ago
This comparison could be much more relevant if it were made between the United States and a parliamentary democracy that did not have a two-party system. Having a political system that in reality only allows its population to vote for two different parties is deeply unfair. It would be better to compare the United States with a true parliamentary democracy like those in Scandinavia, where every vote counts and where the will of the people is actually relfected in political decisions. The United States is best described as a semi-democratic society. The reasons for this are many but include: an extremely low voter turn-out, only two viable parties, having to register to vote, voting on weekdays, first-past-the-post-system, the electoral college, the presidential veto, non-proportionate allocation of seats in assembly, and so on and so on...