Barack Obama for President.

[Heracles 417]

Its not all fun and games in the world of Parliamentary government, given that parliamentary Weimar Germany became one of the worst regimes in history.

Wrong decade 6. I am talking about 2008.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not all fun and games in the world of Parliamentary government, given that parliamentary Weimar Germany became one of the worst regimes in history.

Wrong decade 6. I am talking about 2008.

You were talking about the relative merits of Parliamentary systems in comparison to Presidential systems. I responded to that.

[Heracles 417]

Its not all fun and games in the world of Parliamentary government, given that parliamentary Weimar Germany became one of the worst regimes in history.

Wrong decade 6. I am talking about 2008.

You were talking about the relative merits of Parliamentary systems in comparison to Presidential systems. I responded to that.

By using an extreme example.

I prefer to look at the countries with the highest standard of living in the world like Canada, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland etc.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not all fun and games in the world of Parliamentary government, given that parliamentary Weimar Germany became one of the worst regimes in history.

Wrong decade 6. I am talking about 2008.

You were talking about the relative merits of Parliamentary systems in comparison to Presidential systems. I responded to that.

By using an extreme example.

I prefer to look at the countries with the highest standard of living in the world like Canada, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland etc.

The point was made that Presidential systems are prone to authoritarian takeover. I simply illustrated that it isn't as simple as that.

In that respect of course we should look perhaps at individual countries and their specific histories rather than at generalised historical precedents.

[Heracles 417]

The point was made that Presidential systems are prone to authoritarian takeover. I simply illustrated that it isn't as simple as that.

In that respect of course we should look perhaps at individual countries and their specific histories rather than at generalised historical precedents.

I am just looking at which system works and which does not.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This thread is teeming with change.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point was made that Presidential systems are prone to authoritarian takeover. I simply illustrated that it isn't as simple as that.

In that respect of course we should look perhaps at individual countries and their specific histories rather than at generalised historical precedents.

I am just looking at which system works and which does not.

I don't think there's an answer that question, if you're applying generalities to the case of a specific country.

[LaGreenEyes 0]

I prefer to look at the countries using it. And they do speak for themselves. Whereas everyone else seems to be using the parliamentary system or a form of it.

As Bruce Ackerman says of the 30 countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, "All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare [of breakdown] one time or another, often repeatedly."

Democracies with a presidential system of government

* Afghanistan

* Argentina

* Belarus

* Bolivia

* Brazil

* Chile

* Colombia

* Costa Rica

* Cyprus

* Dominican Republic

* Ecuador

* El Salvador

* Guatemala

* Honduras

* Indonesia

* Kenya

* Mexico

* Nicaragua

* Nigeria

* Panama

* Peru

* Philippines

* Republic of China

* Seychelles

* South Korea

* Suriname

* Tanzania

* Uganda

* United States

* Uruguay

* Venezuela

* Zambia

------------------------------

I would beg to differ at this point for Venezuela..a dictatorship whos "president" fixed the last election and failed on a referendum last year that would give him power to be "elected" for "indefinite" terms of office. The referendum will be presented again this year and will most definitely be fixed so that it passes. The presidents of Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia and pretty much Argentina now are his pawns because he :"pays" their debts and "gives" them oil.

But, I suppose there would have to be a new classification of government for this...yet to be determined.

[Peikko 1,575]

Change isn't by definition something good. It can be, or it can be something horrendous. Change is a stupid slogan to base an election on in my opinion.

[Peikko 1,575]

By the way 6, I don't agree that political apathy is set in concrete in the UK.

[Dan J 277]

Change isn't by definition something good. It can be, or it can be something horrendous. Change is a stupid slogan to base an election on in my opinion.

It has been what most politicians run on in some way or another. They all run on a platform of changing something for better or for worse.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By the way 6, I don't agree that political apathy is set in concrete in the UK.

Something has been amiss there ever since the Tories imploded in the mid-90's and since Blair's New Labour turned out to be a crushing disappointment, reflected prominently in the piss-poor local election result that Labour got recently. I just can't fathom why people always turn to the Tories when the party is run by yet another public school toff (compared to the last few - David Cameron seems to be particularly "out there").

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Change isn't by definition something good. It can be, or it can be something horrendous. Change is a stupid slogan to base an election on in my opinion.

It has been what most politicians run on in some way or another. They all run on a platform of changing something for better or for worse.

True - but by defition there's an element of stating the obvious - of course a new government means "change"; but you can't base your election campaign on it - especially without really defining what it is that you are supposed to be "changing". Obama's problem is that he started out by suggesting idea that he was going to radically transform the political landscape - but his campaign seems to have a devil of time trying to define exactly what that means, and its been an oft-repeated criticism that people don't know what Obama really stands for.

Its a definite problem for him.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree that with most politicians we have at least some idea of what exactly they are talking about when they talk about 'change' even if ultimately they fail to deliver (which happens rather a lot for a multitude of reasons).

Barack doesn't really seem to have enough substance to his slogan - at least not as far as I am concerned. That is not to say that his campaign is a dead loss, just that I am surprised he can get away with being quite so airy fairy. It seems to me to do a disservice to the electorate to be so casual about what he stands for.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Change isn't by definition something good. It can be, or it can be something horrendous. Change is a stupid slogan to base an election on in my opinion.

How about, "Black - it's the new White?" I just don't get why people get riled up over campaign slogans as if Obama invented campaign slogans...they are what they are.

Here's some more great ones from past presidential campaigns...

Turn the Rascals Out

Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine. Continental Liar from the state of Maine.

We Polked you in '44, We shall Pierce you in '52.

Hoo but Hoover?

In Your Heart, You Know He's Right.

In Your Guts, You Know He's Nuts.

It's Time to Change America.

Kinder, Gentler Nation