On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> ITYM *execution*. The House and Senate in the USian system take care
>> of the legislation.
> Yes. And it is the legislative bodies which are pre-occupied with retaining
> the majority in the gov't. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the presidential
> system seems more stable. With our current system any small regional party
> can bring the governement down and maybe even force re-election which
> effectively means an entire year or more wasted, not to mention the costs.

Aren't the Real Executive in the Westminister system - the
bureaucracies in Whitehall and South Block - protected from the coming
and goings of MPs to a certain extent? You do have a point about costs
of elections.

> If this has been discussed elsewhere, please do forward the links if
> possible. I would like to know the arguments against a Presidential system
> (with or without an electoral college).

Africa is full of faltering democracies (de facto dictatorships) that
chose the Presidential system. I suspect the Presidential system in a
newly democratic country lends itself handy to strongmen (and they
have all been men).

Thaths
-- 
   "You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel." -- Homer J. Simpson

Reply via email to