Omar Bennett
Democracies can be structured in different ways, and one of the most common distinctions is between presidential and parliamentary systems. In a presidential system, the people elect a powerful chief executive (the president) who is independent of the legislature and has extensive powers in both domestic and foreign policy. The United States is the primary example of this system, and its citizens vote for electors who then vote for a presidential candidate. This is known as the Electoral College system, and it means that a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the election. Presidential systems are associated with more corruption and tension than parliamentary systems, but they are also considered more stable. In contrast, parliamentary systems are more common globally and are characterized by the supremacy of the legislative branch. In this system, the executive and legislative functions are often merged, with the prime minister being accountable to the legislature and needing its support to take action.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Type of Government | Presidential |
| Branches of Government | Legislative, Executive, and Judicial |
| Head of State | President |
| Head of Government | President |
| Elected by | Citizens |
| Tenure | Fixed |
| Removal | Impeachment |
| Powers | Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances |
| Advantages | Stability, Efficiency, Expertise |
| Disadvantages | Gridlock, Leadership Change, Authoritarianism |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Presidential vs parliamentary systems
Presidential and parliamentary systems are two of the most common ways to elect a chief executive in democratic countries. In a presidential system, the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch of government. The head of government, usually called the president, is elected independently of the legislature, either directly by popular vote or indirectly through an electoral college. The president is not responsible to the legislature and cannot be dismissed by it except in extraordinary cases. The president's powers typically include the ability to veto laws passed by the legislature, which can usually be overridden by a supermajority vote in the legislature. Presidential systems are relatively uncommon globally, with only two of the world's 22 oldest democracies—Costa Rica and the United States—employing them.
In contrast, a parliamentary system keeps control undivided in the legislative branch, as the executive branch is merely an extension of the ruling party. The head of government, usually called the prime minister, derives their power from the confidence of the elected legislature, which can dismiss them with a simple majority or through a vote of no confidence. Parliamentary systems are more common globally, especially in Europe, where Cyprus and Turkey are the only presidential republics.
Advocates of presidential systems argue that they offer more stability during a crisis, as it is very difficult to remove a president before their term is up. They also argue that the separation of powers allows each branch to scrutinize the actions of the other and enforce limits on the executive's power. Additionally, a president is less constrained by the need to maintain legislative support and can therefore respond more rapidly to emerging situations.
On the other hand, critics of presidential systems point out that the zero-sum nature of presidential elections, combined with the rigidity of fixed terms, raises the stakes of elections and exacerbates tension and polarization. Presidential systems are also associated with more corruption than parliamentary systems.
Supporters of parliamentary systems argue that they allow for more efficient law-making as long as the ruling party has a majority. They also maintain that parliamentary systems keep the government accountable, as there is a clear subject to blame when there is a faulty policy. In addition, parliamentary systems give everyone a say, as candidates do not have to focus on urban areas to get votes.
Enumerated Powers: Congress' Triple Threat to Get Things Done
You may want to see also
The US Electoral College
The United States Electoral College is the formal body that elects the President and Vice President of the United States. The Electoral College was officially selected as the means of electing the President towards the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was chosen due to pressure from slave states wanting to increase their voting power and by small states who wanted to increase their power given the minimum of three electors per state.
Technically, in a US presidential election, voters do not directly choose a presidential candidate but instead vote for "electors" who are pledged to vote for a certain candidate. The number of electors for each state is the number of Senators (always two) plus the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives (which is allocated based on population). The least-populated states have a minimum of three electors, while the most populated state (California) has 55. All states except Maine and Nebraska use a party block voting, or general ticket method, to choose their electors, meaning all their electors go to one winning ticket.
The states and the District of Columbia hold a statewide or district-wide popular vote on Election Day in November to choose electors based upon how they have pledged to vote for president and vice president. Electors meet and vote in December, and the inaugurations of the president and vice president take place in January. The merit of the electoral college system has been a matter of ongoing debate in the United States since its inception. Critics point out that it is difficult to legislate, while others claim that it is an important check on executive power.
The US Constitution: A True Statement Exploration
You may want to see also
Divided government
In a presidential democracy, the people vote for both the legislative and executive branches, which can result in a divided government. A divided government refers to a situation where the political party in power, or with the majority, in the executive branch (usually the presidency or governorship) is different from the party controlling the legislative branch (the legislature or congress). This scenario typically arises when one party controls the executive office while the opposing party has a majority in one or both chambers of the legislature.
A divided government can occur at either the national or sub-national (state, provincial, etc.) level in a presidential system. At the national level, for example, a country may have a president from Party A, but the opposition Party B holds a majority in the House of Representatives and/or the Senate. At the sub-national level, a governor from Party A may be in office while Party B controls the state legislature.
This separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches can have significant implications for governance and policy-making. On the one hand, a divided government can lead to checks and balances, where the different branches serve as a counterweight to each other's power, preventing any one party from having unchecked control. This can promote compromise, moderation, and negotiated governance, especially when the parties work together despite their differences.
However, divided government can also result in political gridlock and legislative stagnation. When the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties, there is a potential for conflict and opposition that may hinder the passage of legislation and the implementation of policies. This dynamic can make it difficult for the government to respond effectively to pressing issues or to implement coherent and consistent policies.
In a divided government scenario, negotiation, compromise, and bipartisan cooperation become crucial for effective governance. The executive branch may need to rely on building coalitions, negotiating with individual legislators, or seeking support from moderate members of the opposition party to advance their agenda. Similarly, the legislative branch must find common ground and work across party lines to pass legislation, especially when the executive wields veto power.
The Ultimate Guide to Chief House Officers
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$9.49 $17.95
$34.19 $44.99
$15.48 $29.95
Winner-take-all voting
In winner-take-all voting, legislators are elected one at a time in single-member districts, and the winner is the one with the most votes, or a plurality of the votes. This means that in a two-way race, the winner has the majority of the votes, but in a three-way or more race, the winner may only have a plurality, such as 45% of the vote. This system is common in the United States, especially in choosing members of Congress and presidential electors.
One criticism of winner-take-all voting is that it can lead to a two-party system, as voters feel they are "wasting" their votes if they choose a third-party candidate. This can result in people voting against candidates they don't want rather than for candidates they do support. Additionally, winner-take-all voting can discourage voter turnout, as people may feel their vote doesn't matter if they are in the minority. It can also encourage gerrymandering and maintain a two-party monopoly.
Another downside of winner-take-all voting is that losing candidates gain no representation, even if they receive a substantial number of votes. In a two-candidate race, 49.9% of voters may receive no representation, and in a three-candidate race, this number can climb to 66.6%. This means that more than half of the electorate can be represented by someone they did not help elect.
While winner-take-all voting has been criticised for its undemocratic nature, it is still used in many countries, particularly in single-winner districts, where it allows nationwide minorities to gain representation.
The Dangers of Low Head Dams: What You Need to Know
You may want to see also
Checks and balances
The system of checks and balances is an essential feature of modern democratic governance. It is a mechanism that prevents any one branch of a government from becoming too powerful, thus safeguarding liberty and ensuring stability.
Each of these branches exercises certain powers that can be checked by the powers given to the other two branches. For example, the President can veto legislation passed by Congress, but Congress can override this veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers. Congress can also impeach the President for "high crimes and misdemeanors", and the Senate must approve the President's nominations for federal officials and judges. The legislative branch is also checked by the judicial branch, which can declare laws unconstitutional.
The system of checks and balances has been tested throughout history, particularly as the power of the executive branch has expanded since the 19th century. Nevertheless, it has generally functioned as intended, ensuring that the three branches operate in balance with one another and that power is both exercised and regulated, aligning governance with democratic values.
Understanding Election Frequencies and the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A presidential system of democracy is based on the separation and sharing of powers among three independent and coordinate branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. The president is elected independently of the legislature and is directly accountable to the people who elect them.
In a presidential system, the president is the chief executive and has extensive powers related to both domestic and foreign policy. The president can also veto laws passed by the legislative branch. The legislative branch makes the laws, and the judicial branch interprets and applies the law.
Advocates of the presidential system of democracy claim that it is more stable than a parliamentary system. They also argue that the separation of powers prevents any one branch from dominating the government and that the complex mechanisms of separated and shared powers require more deliberation and compromise in law-making.
Critics of the presidential system argue that it can be more polarizing than a parliamentary system due to the zero-sum nature of presidential elections and the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. Additionally, the separation of powers can make it difficult to pass legislation, and the system may be associated with more corruption.
