Talk:Presidential system

message: What about South Sudan in the map?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvadorcases (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Sudan 

message: Obviously this is false.  Each branch of American gov't is accountable to each other branch in at least one way.  It's been a while since I had a civics or government class, but two checks/balances of the legislature on the executive immediately come to my mind:  (1) impeachemnt and (2) the sole right of congress to declare war (which puts a check on the President in his role as Chief Commander of the A.F.).
The point is, this sounds like a borderline-vandalism comment by someone who doesn't like our current executive--but it is not good information.
:No, it really doesn't. The article mentions impeachment, which really is the only way the President is directly accountable to Congress. Although Congress posesses powers the President does not and vice versa, Congress cannot hold the President accountable for his actions in any eay except to impeach him. Contrast this to other systems of government, when a legislative body can simply hold a vote to throw out the head of state. --joeOnSunset 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the president is accountable to Congress. The argument that the President cannot be removed in the face of impeachment as a fact of the matter is unreasonable. The president is also accountable to the people through elections. In the US, the president is also accountable to his party - which will lose elections in Congress every two years under an unpopular president.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence: "president is not accountable to the legislature" 

message: I note that Congressional system is a redirect to Presidential system: should it be? There is a (rather unsatisfactory) "article" at Congress: it currently looks like a (very incomplete) disambiguation page. --Mais oui! 08:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Congressional system" redirects here 

message: The introduction to this article seems to have a discernable bias in favor of the British parilamentary form of government and against the American model of separation of powers. It seems historically ill-informed and misleading, possibly deliberately so, and would do well to be rewritten almost entirely to remove the unnecessary comparisons with Britain and focus on introducing the topic in an objective tone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.124.235 (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with introduction 

message: I noticed that on the assertion that presidential systems tend to have less ideological parties, someone put the tag "citation needed", and yet that tag shows up very rarely in the remainder of the page.  I am thus compelled to concluded that this is an abuse of policy for the purposes of enforcing bias.
This is an excellent illustration of why I have historically experienced a very strong negative emotional reaction to Wikipedia's policies more or less in general, if I am honest.  Hypocrisy and the enforcement of bias, in the name of supposedly maintaining neutrality, are made far too easy.
Petrus4 (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent use of policy to enforce bias 

message: Why not have a system with both a president (as head of government and state), a queen just to be traditional, and a legislature (like congress) to make the laws. I think australia should have a system like that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Monarchy 

message: REFERENCES.
I was hoping to get some help finding a site not wikipedia to cite for a paper. Found the info I want, but I need a citation that can withstand criticisms. I dont see a single reference in this article.205.250.62.216 (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the... 

message: It's not really a democratie!84.134.57.73 (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belarus 

message: I'm concerned about the passage:
"A prime minister is usually chosen by a few individuals of the legislature, while a president is usually chosen by the people. According to supporters of the presidential system, a popularly elected leadership is inherently more democratic than a leadership chosen by a legislative body, even if the legislative body was itself elected, to rule."
It sounds a little junior-high-school-ish. In the British parliamentary system, the electorate votes for a House of Commons which, in turn, selects a prime minister. In the American presidential system, the electorate votes for an electoral college which, in turn, selects a president. The two seem equivalent. Why does this author think the prime minister is chosen by just "a few individuals of the legislature"? Nothing is offered to support that view.
There are many differences in power, accountability and such between the two officers once they are elected, but that's a separate topic.
--Kjb (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to disagree with saying that there is no difference between legislators and an electoral college in electing a country's head of state and/or head of government. When the Founding Fathers of the United States established the current system of government at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (AKA the Philadelphia Convention), they feared having United States Congress elect the president because of the fact that the legislators might put the narrow interests of their constituents above the common good of the nation as a whole and on top of that could be more susceptible to manipulation (via bribery or requests for political favors (or "favours" for those who speak the Queen's English lol). An electoral college that is seperate from the legislature, on the other hand, is far less susceptible to the manipulation of interest groups and politicians being that they are generally sheilded from such groups and individuals (that and the fact that the electors are not chosen until after the commencement of the Presidential election, as opposed to members of Congress of which 90% on average are re-elected to Congress, thus further weakening the grip of politicians and interest groups in deciding who will become President once the Popular vote is complete). They also will be more likely to vote for a president based on what is best for the nation as a whole due to the fact that they do not face the pressure of re-election to serve a constituency that may put more or less importance on certain issues (such as healthcare, abortion, religious issues, and etc.) than what the nation as a whole would. I hope that explains the reasoning of why some countries (the United States in particular in this case) would favor an electoral college to elect a head of state and/or head of government than a legislature. Fuelsaver (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Democratic? 

message: Particularly because it wrongly associates a great deal of nations that all have executive Presidencies and then attempts to describe their systems with a very poor history and interpretation of the American system.  Furthermore, the associated image would have you believe that the US and Iran have the same system of government, which is ridiculous--Iran has a Supreme Leader who is above the President, and a very complex system of entrenched councils that make the system very undemocratic.  The article should be subdivided into articles about the American Presidential System and countries that use it (the US, et al) or some derived variation (Brazil, et al), as well as dictatorships with nominal legislatures whose dictators call themselves "President" (Cuba, et al).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.32.75 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article contains almost no references and represents individual opinion. It presents a POV starting with the very term being used - a propaganda term. In describing the US - its basis is ignorance of the underlying political ideals - especially "a nation of laws and not of people." I note people arguing in support of this article comparing the "Presidential system" in the US to older European monarchies, etc. - in exact opposition to the nature sought by the designers of the US system. A clear distinction between the two is that in the US, the president is bound by the laws and the laws are directly checked for abuse of power (at least in the absense of corruption). Also notably, the US Constitution defines the Legislative Branch first, not the Executive; as they regarded the Legislative as being the most important. They also defined this federal part of overall government as having a very limited role in the affairs of the country. Thus, at least in intent and by definition - this article presents an invalid POV, no references are given to support the POV (only a couple of quotes in support of the POV, perhaps taken out of context), and no light is shown on the fact that the term "Presidential system" is used by a limited number of people and is generally contraversial. I believe that the article should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be replaced with several others. 

message: Presidential rotation system has been added based on the following
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22presidential+rotation+system%22&btnG=Search
--222.64.211.94 (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic of ..... 

message: :Presidential system → Civil government presidential political system — This system is only used in civil government, not in politics (eg religiuos politics, ...) as a whole User:91.176.13.181 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Politician which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  RFC bot (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in process

message: While I agree that the article needs more references, it seems to be a rather balanced article, so I don't understand Tocino's POV tag. Tocino, can you give some examples of non-neutral statements or undue weight on particular points of view? rspεεr (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: No credit to the inventor.  No progression.  No...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.14.249 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No History

message: This article cites gridlock as a criticism of the presidential system. It doesn't seem to state that for many Gridlock is a very desirable result. This is because anything that can be done quickly will likely be done poorly and having congress and the president too friendly will result in things being passed to quickly to be properly debated and not give constituents time to mount an opposition. A prime example of this would be the recent passage of Obamacare which only passed because of the lack of gridlock and polls have shown a strong preference for repeal ever since.Drewder (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gridlock is a bad thing? 

message: There's a certain shade of Green that represents Thailand. Why is it being excluded as a legend color with this specific Green? It's description for this color's representation should be like all of the others. If you take a good look at the map, there's one more color missing within it's equation since their's no description to describe Thailand that's shaded in a specific type of Green. There's basically no color legend for Thailand's representation within this subject matter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cod1337 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thailand's inclusion within Color legend displayed on World map 

message: Opening sentence reads "presidential system is a system of government where a head of government is also head of state and leads an executive branch", but the "Presidential systems with a prime minister" section contains examples to the contrary. (e.g. Azerbaijan's head of government (prime minister) is not the head of state.) Either those countries should be removed or the definition should be corrected.--209.6.192.134 (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the case of Namibia in, which, despite the President is both the head of state and government, according to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia, all the government members are individually and collectively responsible to the legislature, thus making Namibia not to have a full and strict separation of powers and as well the ministry are being subject to parliamentary confidence. And I guess Mozambique has a similar case to this one. --B.Lameira (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Peru has the same case that of Namibia, President is both head of state and government, but the government members are responsible to the legislature according to the articles in Chapter VI of the Peruvian Constitution. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in the definition 

message: "Cabinet ministers or executive departmental chiefs are not members of the legislature."
:I don't know about presidential systems in general, but this is true of the US system in particular. Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." --Khajidha (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation needed" 

message: Can i add Suriname, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Botswana and Kiribati can i add this country to Presidential system because they have Presidents and Vice Presidents and the President is the head of both state and government.
:Are you sure about this? The politics pages on Suriname, Nauru, Botswana and Kiribati do say that the President is head of state and government rolled into one, but they still describe these countries as parliamentary. The Marshall Islands page says the country is mixed parliamentary-presidential. Might be an edge case, idk. I can't tell what the deal with the Federated States of Micronesia is. Might be an edge case too. Damvile (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suriname, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Botswana and Kiribati 

message: Pls redact our map! Because Garabagh is not a part of any country. This is our region! Ordu Khan (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Azerbaijan's map 

message: 186.188.238.66 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the comparison between a Presidential Republic and a Parliamentary one 

message: Maurice Duverger defined semi-presidentialism as a system where:
1) The president is popularly elected;
2) The president has considerable power;
3) The president shares executives power with a prime minister responsible to the parliament.
Belarus and Kazakhstan use a semi-presidential system. The popularly-elected president is chairperson of the executive branch and possesses considerable discretionary power. The Cabinet's term in office depends on the parliament, meeting the third conditions. Furthermore, bills can be drafted by the president's Cabinet or the president directly, a common feature of semi-presidential countries (such as France), but antithetical of the "checks and balances" of a presidential system.
Would anyone object that I move Belarus and Kazakhstan to the page semi-presidential system? If any other countries belong there as well, let me know (I suspect it's the entire list of these countries with prime ministers, but this might be too radical).--Idlem (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, just remember to also amend their corresponding articles, List of countries by system of government and preferably also the :File:Forms of government.svg (beware you'll likely have to do it through the talk page, as it's edit-protected). Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 06:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list of presidential systems with a prime minister includes semi-presidential countries 

message: Peru is really a presidential system? The parliament could sack the government, and some source call it semi-presidential (example).--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peru? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I've made several changes to restructure the article. In its previous state, the information was mostly sorted into a pros and cons style, lacked any sort of sourcing, and was generally disorganized. I've moved most of the content into the "Characteristics" section and sorted it by different aspects of the system to better comply with style guidelines. I've done what I can to source the information, and I've rewritten portions of the article to be more concise or better comply with sources. The only section I removed outright was "Impediments to leadership change," which was a large section that consisted of a back-and-forth tangent with original research. I've also added a history section and generously applied citation needed tags where necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure 

message: "Following the pattern of other Spanish colonies, the Philippines established the first presidential system in Asia in 1898" is NOT accurate. The 1899 Malolos Constitution was Parliamentary in form rather than a "single executive system" as defined by the Wikipedia entry.
See Malolos Constitution - Wikipedia and https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1899-malolos-constitution/ Obed.ello (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Philippine Constitution of 1899 

message: The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka is a unitary semi-presidential republic, according to the Constitution. The executive power is vested in the government. The President is the head of state and is also head of government and head of the executive. But the President is not the sole executive and shares power with the Prime Minister. The President appoints the Prime Minister, who is a Member of Parliament that commands the confidence of the house. Ministers are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. Hence the Prime Minister and the Ministers derive their powers from the Parliament, and are dually accountable to both the President and the Parliament, much like in the parliamentary system. Parliament has the power to remove the Prime Minister by a motion of no confidence. Hence, Sri Lanka is a semi-presidential republic 
In the Presidential system the government is independent of the legislature, but the power of the Government of Sri Lanka depends on Parliament, unlike in the presidential system.
https://www.parliament.lk/files/pdf/constitution.pdf The Sri Lanka (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @The Sri Lanka: The constitution of Sri Lanka is a primary source. Using a primary source for this information is considered original research, and is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. If you have a reliable secondary source to support this, then the changes can be reconsidered. For now, Wikipedia:No original research requires your change to be reverted, but once you have a secondary source, then the article can be corrected. For now, it complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability, even if it isn't true. I know this seems frustrating, but we are all here to build an encyclopaedia, and this isn't an adversarial system. I will add a  template to the entry though, to make it clear that this may not be correct, even though it is "verifiable". Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to thank you for raising this though, there are some major issues with sourcing on the topic of what system of government various countries use. I am actually inclined to belive that your version is correct here, but verifiability is one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri Lanka is a semi-presidential republic 

message: There should be consensus regarding the inclusion of countries with limited recognition. It would be better to include only countries which are recognised by at least one UN member state. Please share your thoughts and ideas in this regard. The Sri Lanka (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries with limited recognition 

message: HudecEmil (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Section Presidentialism metrics into Article Presidentialism metrics 

message: In the UK, the monarch can dissolve or prorogue parliament, dismiss and appoint the prime minister and to veto any act passed by parliament. These powers have not been used recently, but the caption states that "this chart represent de jure systems of government, not the de facto degree of democracy" and these de jure powers border on absolute monarchy, so perhaps the UK should be coloured in as a semi-constitutional monarchy? Edward Jocob Philip Smith (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: While there is obviously overlap, the UK is much closer to a parliamentary democracy that a constitutional monarchy - the king’s powers are mostly notional. KJP1 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Monarch has significant power