| lordmandeep said: well using such logic, Majority govts in parliamentary systems are far more dictatorial (well in Canada). Also they use the First Past the Post electoral system, so a party can win a majority of seats with less than 40% support. The President does not control congress, but a Prime Minister does in a majority govt situation (a Parliament). A PM has control over executive power and control over legislative power as he also leads his party in a house. He also has control of the judiciary as he can appoint people without the consent of parliament. |
Part of what iw as asking about in the original post is that, if a system merely consists of electing representatives, who are supposed to do things without input from the public, outside of getting elected (argument for "Republic not Democracy") then the system would be prone to the body of Representatives acting dictatorial in nature, and then trying to rally for support during elections. While what you said would seem to be true theoretically, what seems to happen in practice is that Parlimentary systems tend to have more functioning political parties, which then force coalition building, and parties supporting different agendas, depending on what the agenda is. What you see in the United States is a system that is two party all the way through, without there really being too many options. What has happened is that, because of this, increasingly people are increasingly registering independent (non-party affiliated) and totally eliminating themselves from the political process outside of picking on of the two major candidates. The ignoring of primaries and supporting a particular candidate weakens the political process and causes it increasingly to be one of two products with large ad campaigns campaigning for support, backed with a "You MUST vote" campaign, and an increase in "lesser of two evils" votes.
