All academic since it would never actually happen, but it seems like 3rd parties enjoy more success under parliamentary systems, and super unpopular governments can be tossed out more easily. Would things be any better?
All academic since it would never actually happen, but it seems like 3rd parties enjoy more success under parliamentary systems, and super unpopular governments can be tossed out more easily. Would things be any better?
uh.... explain?
I'm a dummy. Why is the USA's bicameral system not technically "parliamentary"?
PS: – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system – ok I guess the fact that the boss man is elected separately makes it not "parliamentary"; "parliamentary" means the leader of the parliament is the head-of-state.
Ya there's a few other quirks that come along with it I think. Governments can be dissolved and elections called much easier, for instance
Oh yeah, the USA has that rigid electoral calendar, elections are not 'called'
For one, a third party can gain a foothold much more easily. In the UK, for example, small parties to the left of Labour can win and hold seats in Parliament.
It's about how much power the head of state has. If they directly run the government and make policy, presidential (or Prussian Constitutional, in the case of a monarchy). If they don't and the power is defacto devolved to a parliamentary cabinet appointed by the representatives, parliamentary. If you're the French and De Gaulle fucked up your government to maintain power, semi-presidential.
The advantage of parliamentary systems is they fail quickly and cleanly. If the governing representatives lose the ability to vote in a budget, they're not in power anymore (either a new coalition forms organically, or elections are called), while a US system can fuck around for decades with an inability to pass policy. The downside is the difficulty in making and maintaining stable majorities, see Belgium.