Maybe so, but it sure can be entertaining.
And thanks to Cunctator for the explanation and the additional facts.
I’m not sufficiently versed in the details to offer an answer but I have long noted there have been hundreds of opportunities to adopt political systems as nation states come into being or are reborn; how many of those follow the USA model?
If the comparison is with other systems, one advantage of the Parliamentary system is it’s proven to resist capitalism reasonably well - unfortunately, the USA lost out to capitalism and so isn’t a democracy any more.
I’m not sure what this means: the U.K. is as capitalist a country as any, especially after Margaret Thatcher’s term in office.
So Curtis. Enough for your term paper or do you need more?
One observation I’d make in criticizing this thread to date is that we early got bogged down in the peripheral practicalities of making a system of ‘responsible government’ work. (That phrase, an originally-British term of art, means one in which the government are answerable to the people they govern and represent by political, chiefly electoral, means.) I think it might be instructive to look, instead, to the two systems (and the “mixed” system of France and a few other nations) reduced to their basics. Both systems have as their basis the preservation of liberty and security for the individual by the effective management of the society in which he lives, recognizing that one man’s freedoms must inevitably be limited in order that another man’s may be protected to the same extent, and that extrinsic factors may impact both individual and society. A group gets into a dispute; how is this resolved? A severe storm impacts a community; how is this dealt with? The Barbarians Beyond the Pale are menacing us; how do we react?
The parliamentary system seeks to achieve consensus through custom, and puts mechanisms in place to attempt to achieve that end, and to resolve what happens when it is impossible. It concentrates power and restricts it in service of that end. The presidential system, on the other hand, is at root adversarial, achieving the same goals by placing its elements in opposition to each other. It subdivides power and requires agreement between disparate elements to wield it.
One key element that is always overlooked in the analysis of the two systems is the embodiment of sovereignty. To what do the loyal citizens of the relevant state owe their allegiance? What in their minds embodies the authority that can legitimately, within the limits for that society, tell them what they must and must not, may and may not do? For Americans, this is the Constitution (and to a much lesser extent, the flag as symbol) – not the specific parchment that provides for the Electoral College and the Interstate Commerce Clause, but to the concept of a federal presidential republic with rule of law, deriving its authority from the consent of the governed. For Britain and the Commonwealth realms, it is the Crown – not the octogenarian Mrs. Mountbatten who happens to occupy it at the moment, but to the complexus of institutions which wield authority in her name, and will do so smoothly for her son or grandson when she inevitably dies.
The problems with a parliamentary system are two: First, with power concentrated, it is relatively easy to convert such an institution, by easy stages, into an effective dictatorship via political means, as both Hitler and Mussolini did. And second, a representational system may disintegrate into shifting coalitions that are lucky to hold the confidence of their parliament for a month, as was the case in Fourth Republic France and to a lesser extent in Italy. The benefits are a system more responsive to the shifting attitudes of the people and more flexible in how it will react to them – or not – than the presidential.
It’s also important to note that the Head of State is not a figurehead in a properly structured parliamentary system, but rather someone important for what he does not ordinarily do. That is, he is the ultimate source of authority, and will not wield it directly but rather through functionaries formally responsible to him but in practice relatively free agents, whose power is limited by being so derived. Michaella Jean could within the next five minutes, while this post is still editable by me, fire Stephen Harper and call for new elections. Elizabeth A.M. Windsor could ring up Michaella and tell her to do that, or decide to do it herself. By custom, neither lady will – but both have the constitutional power to do so if needed – if, for example, Harper were to attempt to set himself up as dictator-for-life, and force this through via some emergency-powers clause. A good example of a constitutional monarch acting in the national interest was how Haakon VII dealt with the German invasion of Norway. (Note that the President of a parliamentary republic embodies the national sovereignty in much the same way as Britain’s Queen and her realms’ Governors General.)
This could go on at some length, but I trust I’ve formulated a conceptual base for discssing it without going into the specifics.
He could have just gone straight to source and read Bagehot (especially since most replies are focusing on the Westminster system, and not parliamentarianism per se)! 
I thought there was a SD Rule against using us to do homework? Especially when the OP can’t be bothered to so much as reword the question to hide its origins.
I should have added “voluntarily”
I don’t know, I think that
doesn’t sound correct, semantically speaking. In any case, it’s possible to find both benefits and disadvantages to a parliamentary system, whether or not you think it’s better than the alternatives.
Bullcrap considering oftentimes a corporation is crippled by a labour strike so while there is more corporate power here than in Europe its balanced by somewhat less labour power (although thankfully there do have some power to maintain a healthy economic bargaining system)
Anyways I’m doing this because I’m writing for my own pleasure a world constitution and have decided that any sort of world state will probably have a parliamentary government.
FWIW, I’ve long thought that, if a meaningful world government were to be formed (and I think we could use one), it almost certainly would be a variation on the American federation model. In particular, the wealthy nations aren’t going to play if their destinies will be controllled by world-wide popular vote. Also, there would be a long list of topics as to which individual nations would insist on retaining sovereignty. Indeed, between those two problems (and there are others), this can only be a theoretical exercise. Ain’t gonna happen in our lifetime. Probably never.
IMO that would be incredibly difficult. A “World Parliament” is certain to house dozens and dozens of region- or country-based parties who would have little in common with each other. How do you form a stable government that can retain the confidence of this parliament?
Right now I’m having trouble imagining what a world government could look like. I think that before asking ourselves what political form it would take, we should first figure out what its responsibilities would be.
Well lets make Obama king and then we can elect a head of government and beat the crap out of her…