Types of Democratic Governmental Systems: Presidencial and Parliamentary Systems

While he is often seen as a very influential president, his position as the first President require that he had to set many standards. In fact President Washington hoped that the presidency would not be dominate. In his inaugural address he argued for a strong legislature which he r... ... middle of paper ... ...t must deal with, it does not necessarily explain how he comes to a position on issues and deals with problems. The behavior of a President can only be explained as a combination of many factors. His personal politics and approach to the power of the Presidency will explain if he will try to lead the whole government and beyond that the whole nation, or if he will act as a clerk, putting into action the orders of Congress.

A presidential system is not perfect, but it has it’s high and low points. The other type of political system being analyzed is a parliamentary system. A parliamentary system has its executive branch in ... ... middle of paper ... ... be elected by the majority of the population of the country. Also there being a written constitution in a presidential system makes it easier to prefer because this explains the law precisely and accurately. In a presidential system there is a judicial branch which makes it fair to be tried for crimes, which is a plus too.

With that said, what scared the Framers the most was big government, not the public. In all his claims, Professor Skeptic’s most illogical and inaccurate claim is that the Constitution does not create a “real democracy.” The United States of America is a Republic. A true democracy is when every single person votes on every single issue. Instead, we elect representatives that represent our interests. They represent our votes, and

Although, president reserves some key competences. Generally, the members of government are also members of parliament, and accountable to Parliament. If the government doesn't get the vote of confidence, it can be dismissed by the Parliament or achieves the appointment of new elections to government. Such republics often have proportional electoral systems. The voters vote for parties rather than candidates.

However once a individual is elected to office the general public looses a good deal of its authority over that person’s actions. This abuse of the democratic system reaches as far up as the presidency. The president is supposed to be a servant to the people, exercising their wishes and fulfilling their goals. This is not always the case. After examining the actions of some of the modern presidents it is evident that the president can be a hindrance to democracy as well as a supporter.

The opposition in the government are also able to vote someone out of office, in what is called a vote of no-confidence. If a member i... ... middle of paper ... ...idential veto of legislation. As seen above there is quite a big difference in the way that the government is controlled in the two mentioned governmental styles. However, from what we have seen in nations so far one cannot say that one of the two systems can specifically be viewed as a superior or more liberal form of government. All one can say is that as democracy is becoming more and more popular around the world more and more nations are choosing to form their government according to one of the two above-mentioned ways.

Linze writes that “Presidentialism is ineluctably problematic because it operates according to the rule of "winner-take-all-arrangement” that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game” This causes some people to feel disenfranchised and that the President is not “their President” if the winner is not who they cast their vote for. Linze adds that parliamentary elections are more prone to give representations to a number of parties. Presidential election process leaves little room for consensus building and coalition

Linz writes that “Presidentialism is ineluctably problematic because it operates according to the rule of "winner-take-all-arrangement” that tends to make democratic politics a zero-sum game” This causes some people to feel disenfranchised and that the President is not “their President” if the winner is not who they cast their vote for. Linz adds that parliamentary elections are more prone to give representations to a number of parties. Presidential election process leaves little room for consensus building and coalition

In both countries, the Constitution declares the people as the main source of public power. Nevertheless, voters are hesitant to exercise their right of control through free elections due to the credibility of electoral results. The domination of party ideologies in democratic governments where the majority is favored has caused voter participation to decline. Voters are becoming increasingly aware of the influence which parties have on political agenda, and the electoral systems used to put parties in power seem uncontrollable. Thus it must be addresses as to which electoral system efficiently upholds the classic definition of a democracy where the power is by the people, and not the party.

The President was elected to run the country and therefore, has the most power of any individual. However, he cannot make a majority of the decisions alone and must make sure he keeps the approval of others in order to keep his job. The Constitution struck a fairly proper balance between empowering and limiting power of the President of the United States, but limited the power more so than empowering. Although the Constitution claimed the President as the leader of the Unites States, he is not able to single-handedly make decisions that affect our country. He is a large influence in a majority of the decisions in the government of the United States.