What are the advantages of a parliamentary system over a presidential one?

If there truly was an advantage of a Parliamentary system over our 3 branches of Government I am sure the founding fathers would have adopted the Parliamentary system. They saw it’s flaws and made a much better form of governing a country of truly free people.

The problem with a parliamentary system is that the government is at the whim of whatever party happens to be in power at the time, also, it assumes that there is one government. The United States is 50 separate governments (and an assorted amount of territories) that are unified in a federalist system. The Constitution was specifically designed to be one that is difficult to enact change with the system of checks and balances. So when change happens, it must be a consensus. In a parliamentary system, a party comes to power, passes a bunch of laws, and then the next party can come in a repeal everything.

I tend to agree with @Rarebear, that the checks and balances of our three branches of government, flawed as they may be, is probably a better system that can govern with a federalist system.

Is a federalist system a necessity? Why have states? They are a throwback to tribal systems and land grants to wealthy elites in foreign countries.

Could we imagine a more efficient distribution of executing governmental functions?

Well… @Rarebear‘s statement “The United States is 50 separate governments” is part of the problem with your presidential system, I think. But I suspect that is more a philosophical difference than a political one.

Canada has a parliamentary system. We are also a nation made of ten provinces and three territories. Each of these has its own provincial government, but we don’t have the same kind of “states’ rights” acrimony that the US does, because we don’t have the same ingrained mistrust of our own federal government. With the notable exception of Quebec, which claims to be a nation in its own right (this is complicated, and I won’t go into it here).

The party that wins the general election does have a great deal of power if it wins a majority government. But the US would see the same kind of consolidated power if one party dominated the House and Senate. If a minority government is elected in Canada, then the parties must work together to get legislation passed.

I suspect the differences between the systems are largely procedural. In the broad strokes, they are very similar.

Why have states? Because local issues in Hawaii are very different than local issues in South Carolina, and states give people a greater representative control of their own local governments.

@Rarebear My question remains. Could we imagine a more efficient distribution for executing governmental functions?

A federal parliament doesn’t mean there can be no state governments.

Look at Canada and its provinces.

I’m not sure how the provincial and territorial governments compare to the individual state governments as far as autonomy. I’ll research tonight and come back tomorrow with a reply.

@Call_Me_Jay You are correct. Having a parliamentary government does not negate the existence and efficacy of having more localized governments. In the US, our current states were created for various reasons such as land grants from a king and territorial expansion of settlers. The borders are often arbitrary. I’m wondering if there’s a better way of arranging our local governments. Our current system may end up being the best answer, but it may not.

A parliamentary system works with more than two parties. Look up Mixed Member Proportional parliament system and you’ll see something more akin to democracy than the USA currently has.

Parliamentary governments can be fragile. There are typically numerous parties and it often happens in national elections that no party gets an absolute majority of seats. The leading party then forms a coalition, which is always in danger of falling apart.

Historically, most parliamentary forms of government are in countries that were formerly monarchies.

@LostInParadise “The leading party then forms a coalition, which is always in danger of falling apart.”

Not always – at least, you make it sound as if the leading party chooses one other party to always ally with to pass legislation, and that doesn’t have to happen (though it can). The leading party can ally with any other party it wants/needs to on a short term basis, without having to commit to a coalition with a specific party.

One of the differences I have noticed between the individual State governments of the US and the Provincial governments of Canada is the actual delegation of power.

The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution states that (in theory at least) all powers lie with the individual states or with the people except those that are prohibited by the Constitution, or delegated to the Federal Government by the constitution.

On the other hand, Section 91 (aka Peace, Order and Good Government) the Parliament is given powers not specifically delegated to the provinces.

@Yetanotheruser Have you seen anything that would make a parliament incompatible with the United States?

I’m thinking we could change the selection of the president to “the guy or gal chosen by the House” and call it a day.

Yes, I know changing the constitution thus would be nigh impossible, I am just thinking about the mechanics if if everyone was on board.

@Call_Me_Jay IMHO, it would not necessarily take a complete overhaul of the Constitution; Article II Section 1, which delineates the executive power, has been amended by the Twelfth Amendment (Amendment XII), which has been further amended by the 20th amendment. It would, however, require amending all 10 sections of Article I, and all four sections of Article II, as well as all subsequent amendments to these articles. I

The crazy thing in my memory of learning about the US legislative branch was that they STILL had an upper an lower house. The Senate is like the House of Lords and the Congress was the ‘lower house’. They were still delineating between the upper class who surely knew better than the common man. The House of Lords, much like the present day Senate, still holds ‘family seats’..... In England, they are passed down in families, in the US, it seems to happen not by decree, but by design and minimal effort. Early America was as classist as any society of that time. We know what happens when we leave things open to the public at large… we end up with research vessels named ‘Boaty McBoat-face’.... so there needs to be a reasonable filter. I just want the horrible, astronomical amount of money angle taken out. The money to be elected and hold the position means money rules, not conscience. Not reason or education or progress. Not even ‘class’. The US has the wrong people pulling the strings on the puppets.

@cazzie At least US senators are elected, unlike Canadian senators or members of the House of Lords. In the Canadian senate, appointments are not particularly driven by class, but they are extremely partisan and the whole body is a bit of an embarrassment. Someone promises to abolish our senate in every election cycle, and we’re still waiting for that to happen. I agree that in principle, an upper house should function as a kind of filter on what straight democracy can produce, but I’m not sure how that can be made to work in a systemic way. And I agree that the US system does not work in that way, either – it can’t if both Congress and the Senate are filled with elected officials.

@cazzie, I agree with the money part. I’ve been in favor of election finance reform for a long time.

The Senate is referred to as the “Upper House” more in reference to its place in the hierarchy in the government. The political power of a Senator is defined by being an elected member of that body, not the other way around. Each state has two Senate seats, and both Senatos represents the whole state to provide equal representation to each state regardless of population; the number of seats for each state in the House of Representatives is determined by that state’s population, and the Representatives are elected by their Congressional Districts within each state, as drawn up every 10 years by that body.

Missed edit window.
Representatives are elected by their Congressional Districts within each state, as drawn up every 10 years by that body.

To clarify: Congressional Representatives are elected every two years; Congressional Districts are redrawn every ten years, theoretically to reflect changes in the population.

@Yetanotheruser ”... theoretically to reflect changes in the population.”

Given the amount of gerrymandering that has recently occurred in congressional boundaries, we are a long way from that theory by now!

@dappled_leaves Given the amount of gerrymandering that has recently occurred in congressional boundaries, we are a long way from that theory by now!
Thus my use of the word theoretically!

@cazzie At least US senators are elected, unlike Canadian senators or members of the House of Lords.
Originally, the senators were elected by the legislators of the various states, in accordance with Article I Section 3 of the Constitution. The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913.

^^That last sentence should read: The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed that to popular vote.