Pops wrote:
Parliamentary systems seem much more representative. My views could be in the minority but it might still get a voice in a parliament.
A lot of people point to the (former) success of the US as evidence the presidential system is the best, but in reality the success was due to the abundant oil and mineral base. If Japan or Germany had such a natural bounty within their borders they would no doubt have won WW2 in their theaters of operation, nuclear weapons aside. Logistics won WWII, Millions of tons of steel, powered by oil.
Timing also aided in the success of the US. What luck to have come out on top after the war with the sea lanes under their control, with bases established all over Europe and Asia, and the only competition left being the tired old empires of Europe that lay in ruins. It was a perfect setup really. They had control from the West coast all the way around and up to the Franco-German border.
But that was then and the US has squandered it's incredible luck, it's just a husk now, a dilapidated shopping mall. To keep the facade going they blow the tops off mountains for coal, pollute the ground water with fracking chemicals, turn their farmlands into franken-food factories. When you look at each element by itself it's a hair raiser, when you add them all together it's an unmitigated disaster! If you set out to deliberately destroy an entire continent by conventional means I doubt you could come up with a more efficient method than using the reserves of fossil fuels to power the destruction.
A cursory look at the old established nations like Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, even England still, shows a different story. These nations actively resist the American model of national destruction. They push back against GMO foods, against fracking, against turning their nations into concrete paved shopping malls. The living standards as well point to the success of these parliamentary systems. They are corrupt for sure, but the system lends itself less to corruption than all the presidential systems around the globe it seems. Perhaps with some it's the Monarchy sitting at the top of the pyramid of power? True they are a figurehead, but here in Australia the Governor General retains the power to dismiss a federal government if it gets too out of line. This power was exercised back in the 1970's when the opposition blocked supply (money) and there was no effective way around the problem unless the opposition caved in to the Sitting governments demands. In America you don't have that problem. There all the politicians in power from either side of the floor work in concert to ensure the money gets printed and their masters are served. They have no higher authority to answer to except the bankers.
Other examples of Presidential systems are Mexico; Venezuela, Brazil, Philippians, Russia, South Africa... If anyone can find an example of one that is not actually corrupt to the core and on the brink of collapse I'd be interested to know? The Presidential system was an interesting experiment, but the results are in, it's a failure in the short term even.