• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In Defense of Presidents

JimHackerMP

Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
136
Reaction score
26
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What essentially was the purpose of the presidency?

And, why does America have a PRESIDENT not a PRIME MINISTER?
 
Another :popcorn2: ready thread in the making.
 
What essentially was the purpose of the presidency?

And, why does America have a PRESIDENT not a PRIME MINISTER?

The purpose of the presidency have a combined head of state and head of government elected by the people's representatives (the Electoral College) who could act independent of a legislature in order to govern the country's national government (including for purposes of national defense) without suffering from an ill-timed vote of no confidence or being stabbed in the back by members of his own party.

Having seen how Parliamentary democracies work, I can only say how singularly unimpressed I am. Rather than voting for an individual who one believes will best govern (or, just as likely, against an individual), most parliamentary democracies have you voting along party lines, the parties then form a winning coalition who then choose the next head of government. Rather than voting for a candidate who you believes best represents your values, you vote for a party that you believe represents your values and then pray that your party takes enough seats along with some other parties and that together they can choose a leader. Now the benefit is that you will almost certainly never get a wild maverick at the helm of of the Prime Ministership. But what is the strength of its stability is also its curse: you will almost never get a wild maverick at the helm when you need them most.

Not the worst system in the world, but certainly nothing to write home about.
 
What essentially was the purpose of the presidency?

And, why does America have a PRESIDENT not a PRIME MINISTER?

Because the founding document requires it, assuming we operate under the rule of law. The founding document is considered to be the Supreme Law of the Land.
 
Because the founding document requires it, assuming we operate under the rule of law. The founding document is considered to be the Supreme Law of the Land.

That doesn't have anything to do with having a pres instead of a PM. Australia has a PM and its constitution is also the supreme law of the land in Australia. (I've purused it a bit.)

I agree with you, Leo. I was thinking of writing a blog about "Explaining America" or something. But I can't do it myself. I need to learn a lot before putting pen to paper (or electron to website, whatever).

The Weimar Republic, the French 4th Republic (they might as well go monarchy since they don't seem to have much luck with republics!), and almost Italy in the 1960s (though it is still dysfunctional).
 
Another :popcorn2: ready thread in the making.

Yeah, I'm good at those :)

I must admit however, that the parliamentary republics are more interesting to watch. Have any of you seen Prime Minister's Questions? They have it on C-SPAN now and then.
 
That doesn't have anything to do with having a pres instead of a PM. Australia has a PM and its constitution is also the supreme law of the land in Australia. (I've purused it a bit.)

I agree with you, Leo. I was thinking of writing a blog about "Explaining America" or something. But I can't do it myself. I need to learn a lot before putting pen to paper (or electron to website, whatever).

The Weimar Republic, the French 4th Republic (they might as well go monarchy since they don't seem to have much luck with republics!), and almost Italy in the 1960s (though it is still dysfunctional).

Well it has everything to do with it mate. Nowhere in the US Constitution is the word "prime minister" mentioned. Quite simple, eh? OTOH the office of President has one entire Article devoted to it.
 
The purpose of the presidency have a combined head of state and head of government elected by the people's representatives (the Electoral College) who could act independent of a legislature in order to govern the country's national government (including for purposes of national defense) without suffering from an ill-timed vote of no confidence or being stabbed in the back by members of his own party.

Having seen how Parliamentary democracies work, I can only say how singularly unimpressed I am. Rather than voting for an individual who one believes will best govern (or, just as likely, against an individual), most parliamentary democracies have you voting along party lines, the parties then form a winning coalition who then choose the next head of government. Rather than voting for a candidate who you believes best represents your values, you vote for a party that you believe represents your values and then pray that your party takes enough seats along with some other parties and that together they can choose a leader. Now the benefit is that you will almost certainly never get a wild maverick at the helm of of the Prime Ministership. But what is the strength of its stability is also its curse: you will almost never get a wild maverick at the helm when you need them most.

Not the worst system in the world, but certainly nothing to write home about.

And to add to your excellent reply, it also serves to protect the two party system, which prevents the nations governance from fracturing into several parties like Parliaments seem to do.
 
And to add to your excellent reply, it also serves to protect the two party system, which prevents the nations governance from fracturing into several parties like Parliaments seem to do.

Our founders didn't imagine that political parties would form at the federal level. They figured there would be temporary coalitions that would coalesce around this or that particular issue. Well, no one can be a prophet.

But in a way they were right. We don't really have "parties" in the sense that the Europeans or Canadians have them. It used to be that there were more differences within the parties than between them in the U.S. I pray that the present toxic environment will not last.
 
The purpose of the presidency have a combined head of state and head of government elected by the people's representatives (the Electoral College) who could act independent of a legislature in order to govern the country's national government (including for purposes of national defense) without suffering from an ill-timed vote of no confidence or being stabbed in the back by members of his own party.

Having seen how Parliamentary democracies work, I can only say how singularly unimpressed I am. Rather than voting for an individual who one believes will best govern (or, just as likely, against an individual), most parliamentary democracies have you voting along party lines, the parties then form a winning coalition who then choose the next head of government. Rather than voting for a candidate who you believes best represents your values, you vote for a party that you believe represents your values and then pray that your party takes enough seats along with some other parties and that together they can choose a leader. Now the benefit is that you will almost certainly never get a wild maverick at the helm of of the Prime Ministership. But what is the strength of its stability is also its curse: you will almost never get a wild maverick at the helm when you need them most.

Not the worst system in the world, but certainly nothing to write home about.

You don't actually vote for the President either, though. If you did, there'd never be a President elected with a minority of votes.
Near as I can figure your system, the people elect the congress and the states elect the President.
 
Another :popcorn2: ready thread in the making.

The founders envisioned a constitutional republic in which the people would assign the powers the central government would have rather than the other way around. The purpose of the central government was to provide the common defense for the nation, establish justice which they interpreted as recognizing and protecting the unalienable rights of the individual, and promote the general welfare meaning that there would be such laws, regulation, and policy that would facilitate the various states operating as one cohesive nation without doing violence to each other.

In other words, the federal government would be strictly limited to its assigned authority and otherwise, the people were free to organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.

Toward that purpose, they designed a Constitution that authorized a legislature that would not only allow the people equitable representation in the House of Representatives, but also even out the power by authorizing two senators so that the larger states would have no advantage over the smaller ones in the Senate. Both houses must concur before something can become law. The people's elected representatives were given sole authority to pass all laws and regulation including spending the people's money as well as giving consent to appointments, treaties, and going to war against any other nation.

A judicial branch was authorized for the purpose of defending the Constitution and mediating differences of opinion as to what the laws states.

And an executive branch, the President is commander in chief of the armed forces and is authorized to sign or veto such laws and regulation as were passed by Congress and to faithfully defend the Constitution. He is supposed to faithfully execute the laws and regulation passed by the Congress and signed into law. His power is limited re what laws will be in effect by the power of Congress to override his veto. His job is to make sure the government operates according to the Constitution and the responsibilities assigned to it by the Congress. Just as every committee needs a chairman, every business needs a boss, the President is CEO of the nation to administer the government according to policies established by the Constitution and the Board of Directors, i.e. the Congress.
 
Near as I can figure your system, the people elect the congress and the states elect the President.

True at a high level. But the states leave the choice of who the state will vote for up to the people in the state. Not that it was always that way.
 
What essentially was the purpose of the presidency?

And, why does America have a PRESIDENT not a PRIME MINISTER?

The Prime Minister is the head of Parliament. The President is the head of a separate branch of government, the Executive Branch.

In a Parliamentary system there is just one governing body, the Parliament, and the executive functions of government are part of that. So the ministers of this and that are members of the Parliament.

In the US system the Executive Branch is separate and has certain powers assigned to it, such as conduct of foreign affairs and leading the military. The powers of the branches of government are both contained and enabled by the other branches. So, the President can conduct war, but in order to do that he has to go to the Congress for funding. The President can negotiate treaties, but the Senate has to confirm them. The President can nominate judges for federal courts, but they have to be confirmed by the Senate. The Congress passes laws, but the President may veto them or has the power to enforce them, and so on.

If the Parliament in the UK decided to sell Scotland to Uganda then a majority vote is all that would be required as I understand it. There would be a number of obstacles to that in the US system. The President might veto that, or the judiciary might rule it illegal, for example.

Because of the concentration of power in one body, when government changes in the UK the change in government direction can be very dramatic. Not so much in the US.

As you might have surmised, this is just off the top of my head.
 
Yeah, I'm good at those :)

I must admit however, that the parliamentary republics are more interesting to watch. Have any of you seen Prime Minister's Questions? They have it on C-SPAN now and then.

I used to watch that years ago with Tony Blair. Absolutely amazing the command of policy and communication skills. The leader of a country should be put to the test occasionally by elected representatives. I cannot imagine our current leader could handle this situation. I am sure it would be Fake, Not Fair, and SAD.
 
PM's Questions and Minister's Questions end up training the cabinet in how to wiggle out of tight spots with slick answers, not in how to truthfully inform the House of Commons.

Prime ministers are heads of parliaments. They are the heads of the governing party in parliament. However, with the need for a "national leader" figure in the age of mass media, prime ministers are no longer primus inter pares among their cabinet colleagues--they're far and away the most powerful figure among them. A minister owes, at least in part, his membership in the ministry to the prime minister, and the prime minister knows it. What looks like a more "democratic" form of government is actually lacking in checks and balances. Perhaps one day, both of the two main forms of democracy (parliamentary & presidential) will go by the wayside in favor of a better idea. But as for today, I'm glad to have a presidential government. Let the Canadians and the British keep their dictatorships.
 
Yes, thank you I have. That wasn't what I was getting at. (by the way my father was in Vietnam as well, welcome home :)

Personally I like presidential democracy better than parliamentary. There are things about the latter that scare me. But it's interesting to note that most of the new democracies have adopted a parliamentary (Westminster) model of some sort. I've often wondered why.

In Iraq, the new constitution was parliamentary--of the worst kind, too, imho. Eastern European fledgling democracies adopted the Westminster model. The presidential model seems to be confined to countries in the "new world" (i.e. the western hemisphere) except for those that were in the British Empire.

My question would have problem been more accurate if I asked WHY do most new democracies adopt the British, not American, democratic model?
 
You don't actually vote for the President either, though. If you did, there'd never be a President elected with a minority of votes.
Near as I can figure your system, the people elect the congress and the states elect the President.

Actually the people do. They just do it through a kind of filter known as the electoral college. The people elect these electors state by state. The electors carry out the will of the majority of the people of their state. Since it's done state by state, instead of the electors being pro-rated vis a vis the popular vote, there is the possibility of a majority of Trump electors being elected by the people, but more people actually voting for Clinton, for example. This also occurred in 1888 and 2000. Of course, Clinton may have won the most votes, but Trump carried the most electors. Electors are elected by the People, but it's because of the way it's done that presents the possibility of this error.

I personally wouldn't do anything about it until we clean up the primary system in this country first. But that's probably a debate for another thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom