- Is the British prime minister more powerful than the president of the
- How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the
- Given a choice between serving as the president of the
Friday, March 20, 2015
Group Six Discussion
Blog post due at 11:55pm on March 24 and comment due at 11:55pm on March 27.
Britain
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Given a choice between serving as the president of the United States or the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteI believe I would like the job as president for a variety of reasons. The first would be that I was elected by the will of the people. I do not like the idea of one party controlling everything for an extended period of time. We've all seen here in the US when one party has total control either nothing gets done or a lot of unpopular legislation is passed. I think the idea of the party in control of the legislature selecting the president would be very unpopular here. I also like the idea of the checking/balancing of power. If I don't like a piece of legislation I can veto it as long as congress doesn't have the necessary votes. I also like the stability of my fixed term. I'm in for four and maybe eight years, regardless of who controls congress. I would be a little leery of the confidence relationship. Has it ever been abused? I know the sysytem here isn't perfect and could use some reforms (term limits for the Congress) but we seem to be doing ok with it.
I agree with your commentary on all 3 counts...1. Being elected by public consent rather than appointed...2. The stability of a fixed term allows for an opportunity to promote change....3. A position of authority that transcends a majority party. All these are advantages of a president over a prime minister + veto rights and declaration of war or to preserve peace
DeleteI actually think that i would like to be the prime minister more than the president of the united states. First i have the power to make actual changes that can be seen where as the president is too often bogged down by congress and struggles to make any major changes durring his time in office.
DeleteI agree that Americans would be suspicious of a government that cooperated well with itself and didn't keep the other 'pieces' in check. Maybe there is a compromise, a middle ground? I think the time for all or nothing political parties is passing and proportional representation will become more and more appealing as our government becomes entrenched in gridlock of its own making.
DeleteI agree that being elected by the will of the people when choosing to serve as President is a positive reason. Being elected by the will of the people promotes diverse outcomes to help the country move toward goals where everyone can have a chance to be a part of a growing economy. Being elected by the will of the people allows new ideas to surface to develop a better society for a stronger and stable cultural environment.
DeleteIs the British Prime Minister more powerful than the President of the United States, or vice versa?
ReplyDeleteThis question caught my attention because in order to answer it, first I would have to consider what 'powerful' means. If I define it as personal power, then the president of the United States would seem to be more powerful. After all, what other leader of a country, state, or people has so much personal freedom, and so little accountability to the people he is supposed to lead? Here in the United States we have had presidents who lied, abused their power for personal gain, had affairs and used their position to cover them up and sometimes to shift the blame. Certainly we have had presidents who used the office to promote their own personal agendas and help out their personal friends. None of this sounds very powerful to me, it all sounds fairly petty, in fact.
So is power the ability to get things done? If so, then I would rather be the British Prime Minister. Although it is true that he can be booted from office much more easily than an American President, this is extremely rare. With the support of his or her party within the government, instead of fighting against the houses of Congress as our President does, the British Prime Minister has the potential, the focus and the support to be truly powerful and make a difference for his country.
I like your point on being able to work together more seamlessly as the Prime Minister. Perhaps this shared power (ability to get more things approved) may make the Prime Minister more powerful.
DeleteI think the British Prime Minister is less powerful than the President of the United States. I believe the Prime Minister is too heavily controlled by his party and the PM is easier to remove from office. The President being a part of the Executive Branch has more separation from Congress even though controls do exist. I think this separation allows the President to have more latitude to make decisions ultimately making him more powerful. However, as others have stated this is often abused based on history.
ReplyDeleteGiven the choice of serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which would you prefer?
DeleteI would prefer to be the prime minister of Great Britain. I choose this one because I feel as the the prime minister is more connected with his/her people in the government system. I also feel as though its not some political gamble in the parliamentary system of Great Britain. I think that the prime mister get what he or she deserves from their citizens and their parliament. I think that a prime minister plays a more honest role than a president. These are the reasons I would rather be a prime minister.
A Prime Minister's position is less powerful on several issues. First and foremost is being appointed by a majority party as opposed to the general public vote. Entering the office could have a negative start before the first action is ever taken. The President is elected by the citizen's choice above and beyond which party holds a majority. Public oppinion does have influence, and for this reason an electoral vote seems more apprpriate for a positive beginning. Second, the power of veto and to declare war or keep peace allows for decisive action in times of economic or international emergencies. The seperation of power by the executive branch insures greater power in some circumstances.Finally a fixed term as opposed to being fired at any moment has a more stable appeal than that of a weak term of a new Prime Minister...who could be removed at a moments notice.I feel a President should support bipartisan efforts and rise above the pressure of a party majority (even if it is his own)...A Prime Minister might find that seperation more difficult to establish.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with one premise in your argument, in that it can be assumed that a PM selected by the majority party will have the backing of those voters that helped assure that number of seats. The same cannot necessarily said for the President of the U.S. as I would cite the administrations of Presidents Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland (1888) and Albert Gore, who all won a majority of the popular vote
DeleteTheoretically, a Prime Minister would have the capacity to have more power then the President, in that he enjoys the backing of the majority party in Parliament, whereas the President must contend with a stronger opposition party within Congress. In principal, however, there can be an equal amount of resistance to initiatives proposed by the P.M. as there would be to ones proposed by the POTUS.
ReplyDeleteIn Parliament, the Conservatives hold 302 seats, the Labour party 256, the Liberal Democrat 56, and other assorted parties hold 36. David Cameron the Prime Minister would run into resistance if he pulled the government to far to the right, even though his party holds a whopping 46 seat lead over Labour Party as the Liberal Democrat party would join the Labour seats in opposition to the proposed initiative. Although Cameron would ultimatly retain his seat by virtue of the comfortable majority the Conservatives hold, his capacity for accomplishing his goals rests with being able to create a coalition between his party and the remaining 36 seats.
The POTUS must contend with his party being in the minority by a 10 seat margin in the Senate and 58 in the House. With a determined opposition party, the anything proposed will be dead on arrival, either by being bottled up in committee, through filibuster (Senate) or on a standard up and down vote. The POTUS does however, have the power (codified by the Supreme Court) to be able to, in some cases, sign executive orders on "house keeping" issues until the action can be revisited by Congress.
That being said, it could be argued that the President and Prime Minister are on equal footing when it comes to the real world application of their power. The President might have a slight edge however, as he is elected to a set term, whereas the Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of his colleagues within his party. This means that even though the President might not be backed by the majority in Congress, the tide could turn during the mid-terms, but if that kind of tide turns with the next election in England, so does the Prime Minister.
Given the choice of serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which would you prefer?
ReplyDeleteI would prefer to be the prime minister of Great Britain. I choose this one because I feel as the the prime minister is more connected with his/her people in the government system. I also feel as though its not some political gamble in the parliamentary system of Great Britain. I think that the prime mister get what he or she deserves from their citizens and their parliament. I think that a prime minister plays a more honest role than a president. These are the reasons I would rather be a prime minister.
Given the chance the prime minister's role can be just as corrupt if not more than the presidents. To me they have too much freedom and power to make their own decisions without consequences. If the wrong legislative party elects someone the feel they can control with corrupt ways, who can stop them really? The constitution protects us from corrupt officials but who protects them against corrupt officials? Humans are not perfect and I feel written laws are needed and should be enforced if not followed. .
DeleteThe presidential and parliamentary systems are very different in many ways.
ReplyDeleteThe first of these is in the way the leaders come into power. Unlike the prime minister, the president is directly elected. They also leave power very differently. The President can only be removed by impeachment, but the Parliament can dismiss a prime minister by holding a vote of no confidence.
Another crucial difference in that there is no separation of power in the parliamentary system, but the presidential system has power divided amoung three branches; Executive, Judicial, and Legislative.
Also important is that the Presidential system allows our government to be divided, while in parliamentary system the majority party is in full control
How does the power of the prime minister compare with that of the U.S. President?
ReplyDeleteThe prime minister has a lower level of power than the president but seems a lot more dangerous to me if the wrong people are in control if the office. The legislature elects the best person they feel would be good for the people. They also have the right to remove that said person from office if they feel they are no longer the best person for the people. The prime minister chooses his own cabinet members though. Neither the prime minister, the cabinet, or legislature is not upheld by any constitution. Rules are more like verbal guidelines. They can be ignored, they are unwritten, and cannot be enforced by the courts because since they are unwritten, they are not considered legal. This to me gives the prime minister more power than the president if office were to choose to abuse their authority. And if they do so and the people feel the prime minister is not on their side anymore , they cannot remove him from office. An example is in the book explaining when the Parliament raised tuition by 3x's the current amount.
The president is elected by the people and not the legislature. He does not choose his own congress like the prime minister chooses his cabinet. The president is upheld by the U.S. Constitution, rules cannot be ignored, they must be followed, they are written, and can be enforced by the courts if they violate any because the are considered legal. Neither the prime minister or the president is supreme over all.
Sorry, this go deleted, so I'm posting again:
ReplyDeleteQ 1:
"Parliamentary sovereignty is the core constitutional principle defining the role of the legislature and, in a sense, the whole system of British government." This captures a key point — that the parliament, unlike Congress, has almost no checks to its authority. There is no constitution, independent executive, judicial review or really another legislative body (like the house and senate) to counter its actions. This gives the body much more power than the American congress. That being said, the prime minister is much less powerful than the American president. The cabinet serves a much greater role in British politics than American, and there is still the threat of a vote of no confidence, however unlikely that is in reality. Furthermore, the prime minister is still a member of parliament, meaning that he is not above his fellow legislatures. And because election times are not set, a poorly timed election can lead to more uncertainty and shortened terms for a PM, whereas a president has a guaranteed four years at minimum.
I think that the President of the United States is more powerful than the Primeminister. 1 the President has at minimum 4 years to inact changes and lead teh country while the Prime minister can be removed at anytime. 2 the President is in control of the United States which is the most powerful country in the world. 3. the president has veto power to stop bills he believes are wrong from being passed by congress.
ReplyDeletePresidents are elected by the people while a prime minister is appointed by the legislative body. The laws of the country, depends on the governing power of a president and a prime minister. In both the President and the Prime Minister, power is granted and can be taken away. Both of these leaders have the capacity to serve in their given territories and promote peace and prosperity for a better society.
ReplyDeleteI believe that I would prefer to be the Prime Minister of England over the President of the United States. The political system in the U.S. places a large amount of power on the shoulders of the executive branch but there are so many checks and balances in place it prevents most action from taking place even when it appears highly necessary. Due to the control of one party within English government, it allows for an easier use of power. Additionally, the election process that takes place in the U.S. appears entirely corrupt by outside money and large interest groups where as these have less power in the English system for finding a Prime Minister. Due to these reasons it seems clear that I would be more interested in holding the position of Prime Minister.
ReplyDeleteI think that domestically the British Prime minister is more powerful than the President of the United States. The British Prime Minister is not only prime minister, he is also a serving member of Parliament and head of his party. This gives the PM both legislative and executive power, the president is head of the executive branch but both congress and the supreme court balance out the presidents power. If the prime minister has a large parliamentary majority than it is easier for their policies to be carried out. The presidents policies are limited by the constitution and must make it through congress. Internationally I think the president of the United States holds more power. The president is more involved in world affairs and has potential to influence international policies.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the prime minister is more powerful than the president. On the surface it may seem as if the prime minister was limited in their leadership roles; but if you really look at the cabinet government as a whole, the elected political party runs the whole system. The political agendas of the prime minister are easily acceptable by legislation because they are from the same party. Having an important say in the executive branch, and the legislative is certainly powerful.
DeleteGiven a choice between serving as the president of the United States or as the prime minister of Great Britain, which job would you prefer? Why?
ReplyDeleteI would choose the Executive position of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Unlike the presidential position, the prime minister and their legislatures are from the same political party. That requirement makes it a bit more easier for political agendas to be carried out. The prime minister does not have to worry about The House of Commons or The House of Lords fighting against them for a law or action to be created, unless the cabinet disproves the style of leadership.
Another reason why I would choose Prime Minister over President is because there is no fixed term of governance. The Presidential system elects the president for 2 terms (at the most), being a four year period. This fixed time makes it difficult for the leader to make any significant (worldly) change. By the time they really get the hang of their first term, its time to start the fight for the next elelection; and after their last win, making a difference seems even more impossible.