• Mr_WorldlyWiseman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I know what you mean, but I’d argue that the balance of powers principle in the US giving the president so much power has done the opposite of what it’s supposed to do. Instead of the executive being restrained by the other branches, it has completely taken over them because the other branches are worried that they would lose too much by resisting.

    Whereas in a PR parliamentary system, it is extremely rare for any one party to have a majority, so they need to compromise with other parties to elect a prime minister. Even during war time, it’s common practice to use a unity cabinet that includes all major parties. The judiciary seems to be more independent and can enforce the basic law. Also, 50% of MPs or the president/king can call an election at any time if the PM is getting too spicy.

    Tyranny of the majority is tricky though. Most of the responses to that seem to be devolution or international cooperation.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Whereas in a PR parliamentary system, it is extremely rare for any one party to have a majority

      I don’t think that’s true. In Canadian elections majority governments are more common than non-majority governments. In Australia it looks like every government has been a majority government since the non-labour parties merged in 1910.