Parliamentary vs Presidential

[donald at mich.com]

Mike wrote on Fri 25 Oct 1996
>Because Parliamentary govt seems by far the most difficult election
>reform to get--

Dear Mike,

I do not consider Parliamentary government as a reform - it is a throwback.

The parliamentary form of government is an example of a government not
having any seperation between the legislative and executive branches. The
parliament was a evolutionary step for democracy. But that step has been
taken and countries should have left the parliamentary form and gone on to
a better form of government - the separate branches and the separate levels
of the checkerboard government. The parliament has the evil of having the
same persons enforce the laws that make the laws.

The parliament form of government will compromise the laws of the land to
appease some party of the coalition that forms the same government. In
current history in Germany, laws are not enforced concerning street
violence in order to appease a party of the coalition.

Another flaw of this form of government is that a person or group can gain
control of the country through the coalition without prior approval of a
majority of the voters. It must always be remembered that in past Germany,
Hilter's party only received about twenty-seven percent of the vote but
gained control of the country by way of the coalition.

The following is a quote from one of DEMOREP1 post that appeared on this
same day - very fitting. The subject is about the New Zealand election.

"No party got a majority of the seats so the predictable party back room deal
making will take place regarding the formation of the executive part of the
government".

It is a conflict of interest for the same person or persons to both make
the laws and enforce the laws. A dictator would do this.

Donald