President and power 27 replies

Please wait...

SpiderGoat

Nel mezzo del cammin

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

4,050 Posts

0 Threads

#21 15 years ago

And that is why your system is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic...




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

7th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#22 15 years ago
Großadmiral DönitzI'm still confused on how you can have both a prime-minister and president, sounds a little like double/shared work to me.
Well I understand that, but it looks pretty useless to me to have both a president and prime-minister/premier. We already have a Queen (King) to do the useless taks that don't mean that much.

Yes, it's a little bit shared & double work. But the president is elected directly by the people so she/he is their "shop steward", the trusted one. President have much more power than single member of parliament, people know exactly what kind of leader they get and the president isn't part of party politics so he doesn't have to actually make compromises in that field. President is so called "opinion leader" who can affect on people's opinions and he/she is also nation's spiritual/mental leader, a figurehead who shows example for others and brings up tough issues in the society (like certain aspect of unemployment for example).

President also takes care of all kind of ceremonies like opening of new motorway, giving state's prizes & recognitions for ministers, artists, musicians etc. but also makes important state visits and receives state visitors like other presidents. In the same time he makes state visits, he always has trade delegation with him that will make new business deals with local enterprises & businessmen, very important aspect in today's presidential institute. Furthermore, like you pointed out: when we have president, Prime Minister don't have too much power and he isn't so over-worked with all kind of ceremonies, state visits etc.

The popularity of the presidential institute can be clearly seen: whereas about 65-68 % of the people votes in parliamentary elections, some 80-85 % votes in presidential elections. President is necessary part in Finnish politics that also makes people more interested about the politics which is always a good thing.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#23 15 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't a president basically the same thing as a prime minister? The main difference I see is that a president has more authority. A prime minister can be thrown out of office by parliament three months into his term, but congress just has to wait out the president's term to end - unless they impeach him, but that's an extreme, difficult measure.




Delta Force

Revenge was here.

50 XP

23rd June 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#24 15 years ago

The US should have 2 Presidnets, one from the Republicans, and one from the Democrats. They should have to agree completly on something before they act, although, if needed, the respective department heads (who should professinal independets in their specilty) would get together and vote for what need to be done if the Presidents take to long.

I think that one Presidnet has too much power, when Bush wanted war no one in the Democrats really pressed for more evidence because they feared his powers, and look where that got us.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#25 15 years ago
Delta ForceThe US should have 2 Presidnets, one from the Republicans, and one from the Democrats. They should have to agree completly on something before they act, although, if needed, the respective department heads (who should professinal independets in their specilty) would get together and vote for what need to be done if the Presidents take to long. I think that one Presidnet has too much power, when Bush wanted war no one in the Democrats really pressed for more evidence because they feared his powers, and look where that got us.

Why should the two presidents be from different parties? Shouldn't the voters be the ones who decide which party to vote for? For example, if no one likes party A, party A shouldn't be in power at all.




nowhereman

For KAVATCH!!!

50 XP

20th April 2005

0 Uploads

1,906 Posts

0 Threads

#26 15 years ago
Machiavelli's ApprenticeWhy should the two presidents be from different parties? Shouldn't the voters be the ones who decide which party to vote for? For example, if no one likes party A, party A shouldn't be in power at all.

So you think that the millions of people in Amercia are going to want party B? Having a president from both parties does make some sense Bush had no evidance of Osoma Bin Laden attacking the WTC but he went to war to kill a few men that hide in caves. The democrates asked for more proof of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, so far none have been found. We have lost many men and women cause of the presidents power.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

7th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#27 15 years ago
Machiavelli's ApprenticeCorrect me if I'm wrong - but isn't a president basically the same thing as a prime minister?[/quote] President and Prime Minister are different persons if you read from above: President is directly or indirectly (through electorate college) chosen by the people to be the Head of State, "the trusted one" so to speak. Prime Minister on the other hand, is decided between the parties or President makes his own decision. It depends about a country if President or Prime Minister have more power.
A prime minister can be thrown out of office by parliament three months into his term, but congress just has to wait out the president's term to end - unless they impeach him, but that's an extreme, difficult measure.

Depends of the system of government.

[quote=Delta Force]The US should have 2 Presidnets, one from the Republicans, and one from the Democrats. They should have to agree completly on something before they act, although, if needed, the respective department heads (who should professinal independets in their specilty) would get together and vote for what need to be done if the Presidents take to long.

That would be a bad & ineffective system where department leaders would have a lot of power and these would quarrel, which issue belongs to which department. Presidents couldn't do almost anything before consulting the other and if they have very different views about issues, the results would be severe: there would be no real cooperation and both of them would compete against each other about people's popularity, bashing the other and trying to make unilateral decisions. There would be a lot of double/shared tasks and other nations would be confused, who is the leader of the USA. It would split up the country, not to mention double the costs of the presidential institute.

Some sort of council, made up of three elected consuls would work better, but this wouldn't be that much better either. To avoid confusion, there should still be a some sort of Head of State to keep things in order, but the Council would have most of the executive power.

I think that one Presidnet has too much power, when Bush wanted war no one in the Democrats really pressed for more evidence because they feared his powers, and look where that got us.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the Democrats believed in same way as the Republicans that Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction. Not until the truth of this issue became apparent, the Democrats have started bashing Bush & his administration.

But let's not turn this into another Iraq thread :eek:




adamma

Want some Dope,I dont have it

50 XP

7th December 2005

0 Uploads

589 Posts

0 Threads

#28 15 years ago

No one ever tells you that American and Russian is more a Dictature than a Democracy. One of the only real Democracys are in Switzerland.