My question is how do you think has more power- prime ministers or presidents and why? I`m not sure myself cause I'm in favour for presidential government yet still in favour for parilamentary government. Please help

I'm not sure it's cut and dried as to which has "more power". Check out this article about the differences:

http://answerbag.com/q_view.php/17162

Its really six of one half a dozen of the other. In both cases, the office is the chief executive for that government. The main difference is in how they are elected. A Prime minister is elected by a legislative body. A President is generally elected by the populace.

Who has more power is largely dependent on the constitution that outlines the powers of the office.

In many ways the Prime Minister may get more done because since he is voted in power by the legislative he will normally be of the same party that is in power in the legislative body.

Since a President can often be of the non power party in the legislative, he may have a hard time getting what he wants passed and can veto what the leislative passes.

In both cases there does not appear to be that much difference in power

Who gets more done? The Prime Minister.

As long as the Prime Minister has a majority (which often happens, see Canada and the UK), the PM pretty much has a dictatorship for 4 or so years that he is in power (it ranges from 3-5, he can call the election whenever he wants).

Australia though only has minority governments, but they make it work…good for them.

The President can veto any one bill, but typically doesn't control the congress. Look at President Clinton and the republican congress.

I would say that a Prime Minister has far more power than a President.

Here in Canada, every Prime Minister during majority years has had a virtual dictatorship on the province.

Can President Bush get his immigration bill passed? Well, he is having troubles. If this was Canada, the bill would have been passed long ago. (again, assuming a majority, right now we are in a minority, but in a few years, we will be back to a majority government)

What do you mean by Australia only has minority governments?

http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/minority.html

Australia however certainly has majority governments. Im not sure, it may not be right at this point (I think it depends on preferences from smaller parties when votes are taken i.e. which side the Greens will take).

But as said, if a prime minister wants a certain law, then he will most likely get it passed through parliament due to him having the majority. However it then must be past through the Upper House (Senate) as well.

At present in Australia the Coalition (Liberals and Nationals) are in power. However should a Labour government win the next election they will become a majority government.

But a Prime Minister certainly has ways of making theings happen that he wants. However he must please his party colleagues as they are the ones who elect him to lead the party, and then should the people not be happy then they will not vote for the member in their area that represents that party at the next election and power will be lost. So you certainly can't just become dictatorial or you will find yourself not in power.

I apologize Skell,

I meant in recent years, Australia has only had minority governments, since 1998.

I should have checked back further.

That is not to say that Australia has not made minority governments work. They formed coalitions and all. As they do in Israel. There has never been a majority government there.

Here in Canada, our Upper House is a joke. Our Senate is appointed by the Queen (via the PM) and those blow hearts will pass whatever law the House of Commons tells them to.

Yeah, Sorry I didn't mean to come off that I was arguing. I was more horrified with myself that I might not have known that we only had Minority Governemnts here. I quickly realised it wasn't the case.

It generally happens here too as far as the upper house passing everything the PM tells them too.
However I think recently the Government has had a lot of trouble passing laws and bills through the Upper House. Mianly privatisation of our Telecommunications etc. Which is good. It shows our Parliamentry System is working. I for one think it is a better system than the US.

Im not overyl familiar with the US system so I won't comment. However I do like the fact that I elect a member to represent me, who in turn represents a party and that party is responsible for electing the leader, who in turn will be the PM and run the country.
It gives me a say basically.

Also in Australia it is compulsory voting.

Is it so in Cannda? I know it isn't in the US!

Overall, I think the British Parliamentary system is a bit superior to the US system. Granted though there are some problems, nothing is perfect.

No, voting is not mandatory in Canada.

After the 1997 or 2000 federal election (can't remember which), then PM Jean Chrétien talked about bringing in mandatory voting, but was met with such opposition to it, he dropped the idea.

I think it might have been 1997.

Anyway, mandatory voting has both its pros and cons.

I would like to see mandatory voting tried out here in Canada. I think it would be a better way than the current way.

If people have to vote, maybe they will actually get involved. But the problem, is that they might then vote for non major parties, as a protest vote. And since 40% do not vote, that could be a problem.

I would like Canada to try it out in 1 election, see what happens and then judge from there.