Advantages Of The French Presidential System

depends on what the relationship is between the executive structure and legislative system. Under a presidential system the executive and legislative branches are separated so that it is easier to distribute power equally and ensure that those in power are held accountable. Although they don’t hold “checks and balances”, under a parliamentary system, the government can be more effective when they do not separate the executive and legislative branches. This allows the government to accomplish more because they can pass more legislations faster. It is more difficult to pass policies under a presidential system because, unlike in parliamentary systems, they are unable to produce comprehensive proposals in a promptly manner. Still, problems can arise in parliamentary systems. For example, there may be “immobilism” in parliamentary systems, similar to the deadlocks in presidential systems, which could cause a delay in the process of making legislations. It is also more difficult to fix problems between the legislative and executive branches in a presidential system because each side will continue to fight over the power to pass laws and adjust it in the way they want. If the legislative branches are weakened, there is more probability of presidentialism failing than parliamentarism. Therefore, implementing a parliamentary executive structure could be an effective

France developed constitutional monarchy and then went into democratic despotism and after that into the Napoleonic empire. It all started when the people at first fought against the unfair taxes. A constitutional monarchy was established the king was not feeling the constitutional monarchy so he plotted to restore his former power. While trying to get his power back the king was caught lying and the lie cost him his head. Then they started a republic. The idea of killing enemies of the Republic seemed like a good idea at first but took a turn for the worst.

The UK is divided into parliamentary constituencies of broadly equal population (decided by the Boundaries Commission), each of which elects a Member of Parliament to the House of Commons. The leader of the party with the largest number of MPs is invited by the monarch to form a government, and becomes the Prime Minister. The leader of the second largest party becomes the Leader of the Opposition.

Since party politics began in Canada, the style in which leaders are elected is comparable to a horse race. Using the single member plurality (SMP), more commonly referred to as “first past the post,” method of seat allocation in both the House of Commons and each province's Legislative Assembly, whoever gets the most votes is asked to form the government; this only takes into accounts the number of seats a party wins, not the overall popular vote. In a political system not limited to two parties, like the United States, many times over 50% of Canadians do not want the party that won, to win. In this current electoral system, votes are wasted, smaller parties are terribly misrepresented and, in some cases, a party with a lower percent of

As the most widely adopted form of democratic government there are many strengths associated with a parliamentary government. The parliamentary system is often praised for the fast and efficient way in which it is able to pass legislation. The reason this is possible is because unlike a presidential system the legislative and executive power in a parliamentary system are merged together. Due to this fusion of power legislation does not have to undergo a lengthy process and therefore laws can be formulated and put into place much quicker(Bates, 1986: 114-5). Another advantage of a parliamentary system is that the majority of the power is not held by one individual head of state but rather is more evenly divided among a single party or coalition. One of the main benefits of this is that as there is more of a division of power a parliamentary government is less prone to authoritarianism than a presidential system. Juan Linz argues that a presidential system is more dangerous due to the fact that; “Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate”(Linz, 1990: 56), this sharp line between winners and losers increases tension between these two groups and allows the winner to isolate themselves from other political parties (Linz, 1990: 56). Due to this tension and isolation a presidential system is at a higher risk of turning into an authoritarian regime than a parliamentary system.

Every country has its own agenda for its people and purpose for it’s military. Looking at the world nations, France is one of the most advanced nations that are currently an ally to the United States (US). Looking at the political, economic, and military situation of France can best describe the type of ideals and direction of focus the society has and will continue to have over the next few years or more.

These 29 representatives are then sent off along with the other 509 from the rest of the country to vote for who the next president will be. The catch is, although the idea of the Electoral College’s is to vote for who the majority in your state has voted for it is not technically mandatory, meaning they have the ability to vote for whomever they chose. Moreover the Canadian system proves to be much more effective for various reasons such as the use of MP’s that represent a geographical population rather than area. Elected members represent cities and towns instead of representing parties and labels. Voters have the ability to choose between party leaders and representatives rather then parties. The Electoral College idea allows for the possibility

Another important reason that Canada should select a different election system is that the FPTP system has a large impact on smaller parties. According to Political Scientist Maurice Duverger’s Law, given enough time FPTP systems will eventually become a

The Prime Minister has too much ministerial power as he is allowed to fire and hire any cabinet member at anytime. A clear example would be Brian Mulroney signing the North American Free Trade Agreement without informing other members of the cabinet (Hillmer & Granatstein, 2000:p. 199). This centralization of power in the government is made worse by the inability of MP’s in the house to hold the PM adequately. Consequences like corruption could also arise. The Gomery Commission of Inquiry and Sponsorship Scandal pointed out the lack of democratic insight on the Prime Minister and Prime Minister’s Office was a major cause of the corruption.

      There are two main types of political systems, one being a presidential system and the other being a parliamentary system. Both of them have their own benefits as well as their own disadvantages. No political system can be perfect or can always have stability, but shown in history there are successful countries that use either one. Also there are countries that have failed with one of the two systems.

I believe that the US Presidential election should deserve all the media attention it is receiving because the USA is one of the strongest world economies and will have a massive influence on other country’s economies. The US politics are known to be very complex. Even though we’re inundated with the media coverage of this election, it can still be difficult to figure out what exactly is happening. In 2014 it was stated that more and more americans are using cell phones to follow political news with 28 percent of registered voters. In other words, people are following election news and development in which this can help them understand more of the US politics from looking at social media sites and blogs. As every economic situation in the world

The five year presidential term, or quinquennat, was supposed to stabilize the patterns of who was in power and for how long as well as to limit the times of cohabitation. “In this way the presidency would re-emerge as the undisputed supreme authority and centre of policy-making, re-establishing a Fifth Republic norm widely perceived to have become weakened by three periods of cohabitation, where lines of decision-making and responsibility had often seemed blurred” (Buffotot & Hanley 2003) Additionally, politicians wished that the changes would bring about alterations to problems like voter indifference, the spreading disintegration of political supply and an cumulative polarization. Moreover, “for political scientists, the new arrangement [meant] that future French presidential and legislative elections [would] occur in quick succession in five-year cycles, a situation that provides an excellent natural laboratory for analyzing multiparty competition in two different strategic contexts” (Laver et al. 2006: 669).

Lijphart is known for his creation of the concept of the two models of democracy; Majoritarian and Consensual. Majoritarian or Westminster democracy, is defined by ten characteristics. First, it has a concentration of executive power, basically, it has a single party majority cabinet or minimum winning coalitions. Second, the executive dominates the legislature, an example is in some systems ninety per cent of the passed legislature is proposed by the executive and vise versa. Third, it consists of a two-party system, which means that there are usually only two true parties that are potential rulers. Fourth, is the majoritarian or disproportional electoral system; a system that usually has disproportionate outcomes. Fifth, pluralist interest groups thrive in these systems; group openly support and compete for influence. Sixth, this system is run in a unitary and centralized government. Seventh, Unicameralism is concept to this system. Eighth, having a flexible and easily amended constitution is another point showing you are in a majoritarian system. Ninth, having a sovereign legislature that is free of judicial review. And lastly, having a central bank that is dependent on the executive. These ten characteristics makes up a majoritarian system. France is an example of a country that follows some of Lijphart’s majoritarian democracy model.

Although the parties in this case all have respective BATNAs, none are very good and would lead to a “lose-lose” proposition. For example, Mouse could disregard the positions and interests of the Mayors and attempt to move forward with the project. However, this would lead to risks such as project delays, increases in budget, lost revenue and diminished reputation in other foreign countries. Also, it would lead to a bad public relations image for the company. Therefore, the Mouse BATNA is very weak and it is in their best interest to find and agreement that satisfies all parties.

Canada and the U.S. are ruled under two different political systems of government which are parliamentary government and presidential government. These two government systems are the most fundamental and dominant government methods in the world. The main issue and debate that has been concerned is that which form of government is more superior to the other. It will provide on the characteristics of parliamentary system and also characteristics of the presidential system. Moreover, comparison of main elements of these two systems will be examined as well. Contemporary examples from both the Canadian and the U.S system will be illustrated to strengthen main differences. This paper will