 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dracon II
In a Presidential system, however, Cabinet is selected by President to specialize their expertise in their specific portfolio. I believe that this system has greater potential for efficiency than the Westminster system.
|
The down side is that voters do not have an opportunity to judge members of the presidential cabinet. In the Westminister system, cabinet members can be voted out of office or pressured to resign.
As alluded to previously, the parliamentary system also puts cabinet ministers under more scrutiny in the sense they must answer questions in Parliament on a regular basis. You see that as taking time away from their jobs, I see it as ensuring that they are doing their jobs properly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dracon II
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 1970
time: 15:34
|
|
Cabinet ministers are not accountable to "the people", they are accountable to about 70,000 people living in a small part of the nation. Cabinet ministers, more than MPs deal with national problems and issues of national policy... they represent the country as a whole, and yet their political fate is tied to the electoral whims of a small number of people. I am one of the very few people in this country who has the power to eject the alternative representative of the entire nation overseas. I hardly see that as fair.
In the US system, the Cabinet is selected by and answerable to the President, who is elected by the entire nation (or states, if you want to get technical). Their fate is tied to the President's fate, whose fate is tied to the nation as a whole. I see that as a far more accountable system. The cabinet is basically the external expression of the President's will.... he has the power to hire and fire them, and he is accountable to the entire nation... not just a small pocket of the nation. So yes, the people can judge the Cabinet... once every four years, to be exact.
And as for the Parliament calling for a Cabinet minister to resign... presumably the cabinet comes from the majority party in the legislatures... and in Westminster systems parties have tight discipline. This means that Cabinet can get away with a lot worse than in the USA... because the Prime Minister can simply say that a no-confidence vote must be made on party lines... which essentially makes it moot. In the USA, the Congress has more power of scrutiny over the executive than in Westminster systems... thus (paradoxically) making Cabinet more answerable to the electorate, as there is a critical distance between them and the representatives.
quote:
PHOENIX -- U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Monday that he has "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq and the failure to send more troops.
Asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple of weeks ago.
"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence," McCain said. |
Case in point. Republican member of the legislature severely and openly criticizing a Republican member of the Executive. In Australia at least, that would be highly unorthodox....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:34
|
|
The nation can vote a governing party out of power, just as Americans can vote out a president.
Yes, the vote against a given cabinet minister is confined to a riding, but at least some people have a vote, and outsiders can participate by working for or against a minister. In the American system, no one can vote directly for a cabinet minister.
As for accountablility, does the U.S. Senate and Congress have the power to kick someone out of the presidential cabinet?
In parliaments, cabinet ministers are often forced to resign because of political pressure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
The part of the British system I admire most is the way they go at each other in sessions. The Prime Minister has to answer attacks right then and there. In the American Government, I feel there is less accountabilty required of the President.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:34
|
|
quote:
In the USA, the Congress has more power of scrutiny over the executive than in Westminster systems... thus (paradoxically) making Cabinet more answerable to the electorate, as there is a critical distance between them and the representatives. |
I'm puzzled by your view here. In Parliaments the executive must answer to legislators every single question period.
Also, there is a tradition of ministerial responsibility that can lead to resignations from cabinet that are far more frequent than such capitulations by cabinet secretaries in the US. In a good year Mulroney lost only one cabinet minister.
Finally, under Westminster the executive lives day to day. If they go seriously wrong they will be defeated on an issue of confidence in the house and an election ensue (the blunt instrument) or the PM can be turfed by his or her own party (the fine instrument) as happened to Thatcher.
I am at a loss to see how you could see the Westminster system as less accountable than those of the Jacobins.
Power of the parties, on the other hand, has been and is the bane of Parliaments. It can get to the extreme that it has in Canada where party discipline would make a fascist feel at home, and the PM then assumes powers that warp the intended functioning of the system.
Last edited by notyoueither on 15-06-2005 at 08:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
OMG there are pros and cons to both systems11!!!
The world is imperfect11!!??!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
Seriously though, the westminster model scares the hell out of me sometimes.
Imagine if GWB had that amount of power.
And please guys (i.e. Canadians), having the legislative and executive branches merged is just archaic. You know its true.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-06-2005 09:07
|