Talk:Presidential system

WikiProject Systems     (Rated Start-Class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to Systems science.
Systems rating:	Start Class	Mid importance	Field unassessed.

A mishmash

This article is a mess. It mixes up a host of things

• a presidential system (which BTW doesn't mean a "president". It means "someone who presides", and so applies to monarchs and dictators also)
• A republican presidential system (which does mean president and is primarily associated with the US and countries who have modelled their constitutional systems on the US).

BTW the claim that presidential system is based on the US system is garbage. It is far older. The US system was for example based on the system of government in Great Britain in the 1770s, with the President stepping into the role of the Crown, and Congress a more clearly defined parliament.

It has also nothing to do with method of selection of a head of state. It has to do with the fact that the executive is not answerable to parliament, so cannot be voted out by a Vote of Confidence. They exist in separate spheres of influence.

I hope no-one used this garbled article in an essay in college. If they did they would have failed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There are so many parenthetical statements in your comments that I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying. However to say that "presidential system" just means a government with a presiding officer is confuse etymology with definition.

I concede that to use "republican presidential system" is a little more precise than just "presidential system," but this article makes it clear that "presidential system" only pertains to republican democracies. The books I have read on this subject, like "Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government" by Arend Lijphart just use "presidential system" without the "republican."

This article discusses how the independence of the executive is an important criteria for presidential government too.Dinopup 00:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

First sentence: "president is not accountable to the legislature"

Obviously this is false. Each branch of American gov't is accountable to each other branch in at least one way. It's been a while since I had a civics or government class, but two checks/balances of the legislature on the executive immediately come to my mind: (1) impeachemnt and (2) the sole right of congress to declare war (which puts a check on the President in his role as Chief Commander of the A.F.).

The point is, this sounds like a borderline-vandalism comment by someone who doesn't like our current executive--but it is not good information.

No, it really doesn't. The article mentions impeachment, which really is the only way the President is directly accountable to Congress. Although Congress posesses powers the President does not and vice versa, Congress cannot hold the President accountable for his actions in any eay except to impeach him. Contrast this to other systems of government, when a legislative body can simply hold a vote to throw out the head of state. --joeOnSunset 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the president is accountable to Congress. The argument that the President cannot be removed in the face of impeachment as a fact of the matter is unreasonable. The president is also accountable to the people through elections. In the US, the president is also accountable to his party - which will lose elections in Congress every two years under an unpopular president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Congressional system" redirects here

I note that Congressional system is a redirect to Presidential system: should it be? There is a (rather unsatisfactory) "article" at Congress: it currently looks like a (very incomplete) disambiguation page. --Mais oui! 08:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues with introduction

The introduction to this article seems to have a discernable bias in favor of the British parilamentary form of government and against the American model of separation of powers. It seems historically ill-informed and misleading, possibly deliberately so, and would do well to be rewritten almost entirely to remove the unnecessary comparisons with Britain and focus on introducing the topic in an objective tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.124.235 (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

"military coups to remove a leader who is said to have lost his mandate, as in Salvador Allende"

On the "weaknesses" part there was this phrase: "Since there is no legal way to remove an unpopular president, many presidential countries have experienced military coups to remove a leader who is said to have lost his mandate, as in Salvador Allende." I removed the last four words because I believe them to be biased and propagandistic. Salvador Allende was not removed because "he had lost his mandate". He was killed by foreign-financed blood- thirsty extreme-right coupists, and was replaced by Pinochet, a non-elected, illegitimate military leader who ruled with total disregard for political and human rights. The way this phrase was written made it look like Pinochet did a favour to Chilean people by removing an unpopular president. Quite the opposite is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.166.111 (talk) 19:59, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of policy to enforce bias

I noticed that on the assertion that presidential systems tend to have less ideological parties, someone put the tag "citation needed", and yet that tag shows up very rarely in the remainder of the page. I am thus compelled to concluded that this is an abuse of policy for the purposes of enforcing bias.

This is an excellent illustration of why I have historically experienced a very strong negative emotional reaction to Wikipedia's policies more or less in general, if I am honest. Hypocrisy and the enforcement of bias, in the name of supposedly maintaining neutrality, are made far too easy.

Petrus4 (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Monarchy

Why not have a system with both a president (as head of government and state), a queen just to be traditional, and a legislature (like congress) to make the laws. I think australia should have a system like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. Every monarchy should be abolished. Once and for all.84.134.99.161 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are the...

REFERENCES. I was hoping to get some help finding a site not wikipedia to cite for a paper. Found the info I want, but I need a citation that can withstand criticisms. I dont see a single reference in this article.205.250.62.216 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Belarus

It's not really a democratie!84.134.57.73 (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

More Democratic?

I'm concerned about the passage:

"A prime minister is usually chosen by a few individuals of the legislature, while a president is usually chosen by the people. According to supporters of the presidential system, a popularly elected leadership is inherently more democratic than a leadership chosen by a legislative body, even if the legislative body was itself elected, to rule."

It sounds a little junior-high-school-ish. In the British parliamentary system, the electorate votes for a House of Commons which, in turn, selects a prime minister. In the American presidential system, the electorate votes for an electoral college which, in turn, selects a president. The two seem equivalent. Why does this author think the prime minister is chosen by just "a few individuals of the legislature"? Nothing is offered to support that view.

There are many differences in power, accountability and such between the two officers once they are elected, but that's a separate topic.

--Kjb (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)G!\m/

I would have to disagree with saying that there is no difference between legislators and an electoral college in electing a country's head of state and/or head of government. When the Founding Fathers of the United States established the current system of government at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (AKA the Philadelphia Convention), they feared having United States Congress elect the president because of the fact that the legislators might put the narrow interests of their constituents above the common good of the nation as a whole and on top of that could be more susceptible to manipulation (via bribery or requests for political favors (or "favours" for those who speak the Queen's English lol). An electoral college that is seperate from the legislature, on the other hand, is far less susceptible to the manipulation of interest groups and politicians being that they are generally sheilded from such groups and individuals (that and the fact that the electors are not chosen until after the commencement of the Presidential election, as opposed to members of Congress of which 90% on average are re-elected to Congress, thus further weakening the grip of politicians and interest groups in deciding who will become President once the Popular vote is complete). They also will be more likely to vote for a president based on what is best for the nation as a whole due to the fact that they do not face the pressure of re-election to serve a constituency that may put more or less importance on certain issues (such as healthcare, abortion, religious issues, and etc.) than what the nation as a whole would. I hope that explains the reasoning of why some countries (the United States in particular in this case) would favor an electoral college to elect a head of state and/or head of government than a legislature. Fuelsaver (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This article should be replaced with several others.

Particularly because it wrongly associates a great deal of nations that all have executive Presidencies and then attempts to describe their systems with a very poor history and interpretation of the American system. Furthermore, the associated image would have you believe that the US and Iran have the same system of government, which is ridiculous--Iran has a Supreme Leader who is above the President, and a very complex system of entrenched councils that make the system very undemocratic. The article should be subdivided into articles about the American Presidential System and countries that use it (the US, et al) or some derived variation (Brazil, et al), as well as dictatorships with nominal legislatures whose dictators call themselves "President" (Cuba, et al). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The article contains almost no references and represents individual opinion. It presents a POV starting with the very term being used - a propaganda term. In describing the US - its basis is ignorance of the underlying political ideals - especially "a nation of laws and not of people." I note people arguing in support of this article comparing the "Presidential system" in the US to older European monarchies, etc. - in exact opposition to the nature sought by the designers of the US system. A clear distinction between the two is that in the US, the president is bound by the laws and the laws are directly checked for abuse of power (at least in the absense of corruption). Also notably, the US Constitution defines the Legislative Branch first, not the Executive; as they regarded the Legislative as being the most important. They also defined this federal part of overall government as having a very limited role in the affairs of the country. Thus, at least in intent and by definition - this article presents an invalid POV, no references are given to support the POV (only a couple of quotes in support of the POV, perhaps taken out of context), and no light is shown on the fact that the term "Presidential system" is used by a limited number of people and is generally contraversial. I believe that the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A topic of .....

Presidential rotation system has been added based on the following http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22presidential+rotation+system%22&btnG=Search --222.64.211.94 (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

so that all the dirty tricks maintain within a party, instead of spreading to the public

Further information: Risk management

--222.64.211.94 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

Presidential system → Civil government presidential political system — This system is only used in civil government, not in politics (eg religiuos politics, ...) as a whole User:91.176.13.181 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please discuss this multiple page move request here. Jafeluv (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Politician which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. RFC bot (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

POV?

While I agree that the article needs more references, it seems to be a rather balanced article, so I don't understand Tocino's POV tag. Tocino, can you give some examples of non-neutral statements or undue weight on particular points of view? rspεεr (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias against the United States

This article is an absolute disgrace. The United States founded the presidential system as we know it, but the credit is given to European monarchies which has little to nothing in similarity. This article has been completely manipulated by typical arrogant europhiles. And on top of it, the US is accused as having an "Imperial Presidential system" What a load of S#2%T! Lets not rape history with our anti-americanism people. Give credit where credit is due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.108.42 (talk)

I've removed some of the offedning text from the LEad. SInce it's about the presidential system, there;'s no need to take up half the space talking aboaut manarchies. Thant can go in a historical background section, with proper sources. - BilCat (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues with the change, but I think it's important to point out, that for all intents and purposes, what the Americans have is (To quote David Starkey) "An Elective Monarchy with a strong upper chamber". The Founding Fathers took what they felt was good about Constitutional Monarchies and attempted to put in "safe guards". As for your comment that the US has an Imperial Presidential System, at certain times in American history, this comment hits the nail on the head. When the President and Congress are of the same party, an Imperial President is essentially what happens. I don't say this as a bad thing, only because its an issue common to MANY, if not MOST forms of Government when Majorities are formed. Dphilp75 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet the US system is the only one for which "Imperial" appears to be used. Hence the bias. Also, though the US has a party system, party disciple is not near-automatic as in many parlimentry system, so one party-rule is not as "imperial" as in other systems. Hence the bias. - BilCat (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that largely the term "Imperial" in regards to a President is mostly used "against" the United States, but let's face it, that's what you get for being the biggest, most popular kid on the block. I'm not sure that I agree this amounts to a bias.

Further, I also agree that Party Discipline in the U.S. is nothing like it is in the UK, much less Canada, but again, historically speaking a President who enjoys his party having control over Congress does result in exactly what we are talking about. More often than not, such situations result in grumbling through out the party, but very few votes against the President's agenda.

Again, this is a problem inherent to MOST forms of "Democracy" in which Majorities can be formed. I'm certainly not bashing the U.S. on this issue; I simply want to make sure that the "truth" of the matter is acknowledged. Dphilp75 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the "truth" being acknowledged, as long as it is cited from verifiable reliable sources, and the US is not singled out as if it were an abberation. There is a difference between a strong prsidential system and an "imperial" one, regardless of the tendecy of politicl scientists to hyperbolize. Hugo Chavez is an example of the latter, not any US president, as they all have left office one way or another.

I mean ZERO offense when I say this, but I think you may have a misunderstanding of the term. An Imperial President does not mean that they stay in office. It refers to a President who is able to act with "Imperial" powers, in so much as whatever actions he sees fit to take, is taken. This happens when the U.S. President has control of Congress. Let's be honest about this; A Democrat President with a Democrat Congress is, largely, the definition of an "Imperial President".

While I sympathize with your desire not to single out the U.S., it is the most obvious and preeminent example of the term, under the above circumstances. If it is just more examples you are looking for, I would point out that the President of France is in a VERY similar situation as the President of the United States, as are numerous other republics.

Going back to what I said about the problem being an issue with almost any Political system where majorities can be formed, we can point out the President of Germany is largely nothing more than an elected "Monarchical Figurehead", one could never accuse Germany of having an Imperial President, yet could easily suggest that under like circumstances, they would have an Imperial Chancellor.

I am assuming that you are an American yourself, (?) and I would urge you to take a step back from a Nationalist viewpoint and look at it with the facts. Dphilp75 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wanting something to be reported neutrally and in the correct context is nationalistic?? Please! - BilCat (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like we'd best wait for others to weigh in, as it appears that neither of us is getting the others point. 19:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dphilp75 (talk • contribs)

If this is your point, the yes, we need more opinions, preferably some genuinel neutral ones. I'm done arguing with you. - BilCat (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you now. I suggested that we wait for others to weigh in. I apologize if I have come across a little strong on this issue, and I assure you that it was never my intention to offend you! Let's allow time for others to drop their voices in and we'll go from there.Dphilp75 (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Imperial President is an interesting term. I've never heard it used before but growing up north of the border (Canada) the way I was taught about the US system was that it was essentially an elected monarchy. The powers of the president equalled that of a monarch from the 18th century. Which seems fairly accurate when you consider how "important" Americans consider their president, how much protection they're afforded, how proper they're expected to act, and how much actual power they wield in the government. Imperial President makes sense to me as a term. I don't really think it singles the United States out. The US is a large country and one of the earliest presidential systems in modern times. It makes sense that many people would give examples that use the United States. I wouldn't call this "bias" per se. Honestly, it seems more like US-centrism.

Also, with regards to party discipline, I believe Canada has one of the strongest systems of "party discipline" in the west. That has the unfortunate effect of allowing the Prime Minister to implement any ideological policy he wishes, with no opposition, in the case of majority governments (especially if he can appoint many people to the senate and get a majority there, too). However, I would disagree that this would make him an "Imperial Prime Minster" (as stated earlier) because the Prime Minister cannot sign bills in to law. They still require royal assent and the Governor General (or the Queen) can withhold their consent, even if it is highly unlikely and unusual. It was thought that Governor General Johnston might withhold his signature on a contraversial bill that sought to dismantle the Wheat Board. Liberal Party (interim) leader Bob Rae even wrote him a letter urging him to do so. Celynn (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No History

No credit to the inventor. No progression. No... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.14.249 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)