Exactly why I've always said the Westminster system is the best. There's only one person on my ballot. And if I don't like the way their party governs I can vote them out.
What I like in the Westminster system is that the executive is directly accountable through the legislative.
That part is good.
In the U.S. system the extent of 'checks and balances' is more often cover for getting little or nothing done and being able to blame 'the other guy'.
That it exists at the state level as well, where you have to get things through a House and a Senate and the Governor, and in many States the house doesn't even sit every year is really ......confounding would be the nice thing to say.
That said, what I don't like about the Westminster system is that the outcome doesn't necessarily represent the intent of the voter. While I'm personally inclined to some form of MMP (Mixed Member Proportional Representation), I could also live
with a variation on STV, were in any winning candidate has to have the support of a majority of electors.
I would prefer, in any system, that aside from the best voting system possible, and limits on donations/corruption..........that votes in the legislation require 50% plus 1 of the eligible votes....... No passing things w/ half of quorum. That to me would be a useful check on bad outcomes. Nothing is perfect, of course. The object is to to achieve sufficient flexibility to govern effectively but also compel some measure of consensus.
www.bbc.com
