The United States should have a Prime Minister

Riddle101

I think it's wrong how a country that condems dictators has a leadership like that. In USA as you may know the President is the supreme power in US, he can do whatever he wants in the country, but what 'm getting at is that i think all counties should have one Head of State and one Head of Government I.E Prime Minster and President. It may not do much but it would divide the power in America and maybe things would be a little easier. What do you think?

Bubs101

If you want to divide the powers what you want is a semi-presidential system like France used to have. It makes it harder for the President of France (i.e. the Prime Minister of England) to push through unpopular legislation because the government can call him to order easily enough. In this situation important legislation can often get held up and when you have the situation where the President is from one party and the government from another, the country runs rather slowly. It makes it more interesting but is probably a worse system

WooPeeA

Sometimes it's better to have one strong position in the government at least he is patriot. American state was created by history, problems that have came across the country and the nation itself. It's just one of the ways that democratic country can provide for the state.

And you're wrong, president cannot do anything. He cannot do anything with visas policy, immigration or health care. But yes, he have a right of veto in many things.

lostexpectation

its the unelected unaccountable cabinet that are the problem

Hobbes

WooPeeA wrote: »

Sometimes it's better to have one strong position in the government at least he is patriot. American state was created by history, problems that have came across the country and the nation itself. It's just one of the ways that democratic country can provide for the state.

First up the USA is not a democracy. At least not in the sense that most people believe a democracy is.

1. Your stuck between picking democrats or republicans. Sure vote for someone else (if you want to throw your vote away).

2. The parties pick the runners for president. You have all various hullaballo like straw polls, etc but at the end of the day they mean dick.

3. It is an Electoral College voting system. There have been four instances where the most popular runner did not become president.

4. Whoever gets in gerrymanders the heck out of the state. Republicans in Bushes first term actually changed the laws to make this even easier.

5. There are a number of ways to be denied the right to vote. But the worst is felons loose the right to vote (those that have served their time or paid the fine). For example a bounced check is enough to get your rights to vote removed. That is over 5 million people in America who are denied the right to vote because they committed a felony at some time.

And you're wrong, president cannot do anything. He cannot do anything with visas policy, immigration or health care. But yes, he have a right of veto in many things.

No your wrong. The president can do a lot. He can veto but he can also do signing statements that will change the law being passed.

Riddle101

Hobbes wrote: »

First up the USA is not a democracy. At least not in the sense that most people believe a democracy is.

1. Your stuck between picking democrats or republicans. Sure vote for someone else (if you want to throw your vote away).

2. The parties pick the runners for president. You have all various hullaballo like straw polls, etc but at the end of the day they mean dick.

3. It is an Electoral College voting system. There have been four instances where the most popular runner did not become president.

4. Whoever gets in gerrymanders the heck out of the state. Republicans in Bushes first term actually changed the laws to make this even easier.

5. There are a number of ways to be denied the right to vote. But the worst is felons loose the right to vote (those that have served their time or paid the fine). For example a bounced check is enough to get your rights to vote removed. That is over 5 million people in America who are denied the right to vote because they committed a felony at some time.



No your wrong. The president can do a lot. He can veto but he can also do signing statements that will change the law being passed.

It's also my belief that the Right to free speech is no longer allowed in America and the Government pretty much controls half the media now, as apposed to 40 years ago when the media was liberal and was a huge factor for America's loss in Vietnam. Not to mention they use torture techniques and appose a lot of human rights violtations

Belfast

Riddle101 wrote: »

I think it's wrong how a country that condems dictators has a leadership like that. In USA as you may know the President is the supreme power in US, he can do whatever he wants in the country, but what 'm getting at is that i think all counties should have one Head of State and one Head of Government I.E Prime Minster and President. It may not do much but it would divide the power in America and maybe things would be a little easier. What do you think?

The United States should have a Prime Minister? NO

The American President is not all powerful.
American government is divided into to 3 independent Branches.
1. Executive branch (President and ministers)
2. Legislature Branch (law makers)
3. Judicial Branch
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/government/branches.html

As the President is elected by the people directly he is not guaranted a majority in the Legislature Branch.

The American Goverment is designed to limit the power not only the president and the goverment.

The President can to declare war, only congress can do this.
The President can only server 2 terms.
The President cannot call a general election. Election are held at set times.
every 2 years for the house
every 7 years for senate
every 4 for the President

The British prime minister Has much more power that an American President.

Manic Moran

4. Whoever gets in gerrymanders the heck out of the state. Republicans in Bushes first term actually changed the laws to make this even easier.

You should see what the Democrats have done to California. The place is gerrymandered almost beyond hope, and, of course, has the largest 'seating' of representatives in Congress. There was thought of some hope about a year ago when a trade was proposed by the Governator of "OK, I'll kill this idea of splitting CA's electoral college votes if you agree to have the district lines re-drawn by a non-partisan group." Unfortunately, the trade fell through. Then the idea of splititng the electoral college votes also fell through, so we're no better off than we were before.

NTM

SeanW

Personally, I think the U.S. should dump the whole "Electoral College" thing altogether and have presidents elected by popular vote.

Manic Moran

And I think the opposite. Otherwise the only people the politicians will pander to will be the populations of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, DC, Detroit... The easy-to-reach, centres of population (and thus vote) density of generally homogonous priorities. Who will give a damn what the good citizens of Montana want? Those little flyover States have quite a moderating effect on presidential policy, which I think is a good thing. After all, Minnesota Democrats are quite different from California Democrats.

Another advantage to not having a parliamentary system is that if the people feel like having a very quiet sort of administration that doesn't do a whole lot of radical changes, they can vote for one party for President, and the other party for their congresscritters. That way, nobody can do too much damage. With a parliamentary system, generally speaking the person who runs the government also controls the majority of the government, and there's a greater chance of running roughshod.

Oh, and I had to go back to this one.

It's also my belief that the Right to free speech is no longer allowed in America

I can only disagree with that very vehemently. Some ammendments are arguably trampled upon, such as the 2nd and 4th, but the 1st is very strongly protected still.

NTM

Overheal

There is still free speech, but its disheartening to see the moderation happening on networks like FOX. Watching Bill O'Reilly makes my blood boil sometimes. I have to watch clips of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to calm me down.

The president is only seemingly 'all powerful' when his party is in power as well, as was the case about 2 years back. When the democrats got control of the house they were able to stall/moderate the majority of his policy changes and for the last year and a half its just been a complete back and forth posturing battle between Bush and the House: he will Veto Democratic Agenda; and they will No-Vote his. Hence the renew of the debate on war/"surge" funding: neither side can agree on a compromise with the focal point being a schedule for troop withdrawal. Its sad to see everything slowing to a crawl but on the bright side its not rocketing off in the wrong direction again.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote: »

You should see what the Democrats have done to California.

TBH both of them are as bad as each other. The Republicans have really made a mess of the country at the moment but if you look into it there is no real left/right divide except one manufactured by D/R parties.

There is still free speech,

Depends very much of how you define free speech. Free speech in the USA has always been in relation to your government, so you don't have the right say what you want about everything.

But you have "Free speech zones". Actually saw one back in 2001 for the Democrats convention. If any press ask questions that might embarrass they are blacklisted.

So its free as the government wants it to be.

EamonnKeane

Overheal wrote: »

Watching Bill O'Reilly makes my blood boil sometimes. I have to watch clips of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to calm me down.

But that's because Stewart/Colbert confirm your views... I'd imagine there are people who would reverse that to "Watching Jon Stewart makes my blood boil sometimes. I have to watch clips of Bill O'Reilly to calm me down."

Chakar

There has been no mention of the democratic institutions of the 50 states comprising the United States. The local, municipal and state governments have a lot more effect on the lives of the citizens and residents of a state.

DublinWriter

Riddle101 wrote: »

I think it's wrong how a country that condems dictators has a leadership like that. In USA as you may know the President is the supreme power in US, he can do whatever he wants in the country, but what 'm getting at is that i think all counties should have one Head of State and one Head of Government I.E Prime Minster and President. It may not do much but it would divide the power in America and maybe things would be a little easier. What do you think?

You're looking down the wrong end of the telescope.

We should have a functioning President and not a political retirement home in the Phoenix Park paid for by the likes of you and me.

The office of President of Ireland was a function set up by DeValera as a counterbalance to the office of King of Great Britain during the treaty negotiations.

As such, our model of democracy has always been slightly skewed by the British model, even post 1921. Remember, Ireland was only a Republic since 1948 and Dev himself stated several times that he felt more at home with the British model of democracy than the American one.

We are fairly unique as a Republic to have a non-executive president compared to other Republics throughout the world. Then again, the Irish political class have always been fond of jobs for the boys (or girls!).

Belfast

SeanW wrote: »

Personally, I think the U.S. should dump the whole "Electoral College" thing altogether and have presidents elected by popular vote.

The American President is elected by the states not the people as it it a Federal Government.

Each American state has 2 senators no matter how big or small.

Chakar

Irish people have a very different perspective and mentality than that of the American people. They have a culture of self-reliance influenced by their Protestant religious tradition along with their traditions of egalitarianism and individualism. The American democratic tradition is similar as they have a non-hierarchical electoral positions within states.

turgon

DublinWriter wrote: »

We should have a functioning President and not a political retirement home in the Phoenix Park paid for by the likes of you and me.

What would yee think of an executive president for Ireland?
Dont know how it would do!