Should the United States have a Prime Minister?

Posted by: bfochtman14

Do you think it would be best for the country, and the world, if the President would be elected as the head-of-state and commander in chief, but would appoint a Prime Minister who would run the domestic executive government?

  • Yes

  • No

16% 3 votes
84% 16 votes
  • Like France? No, the sharing of power between president and minister worked out terribly for them. The blame is spread more evenly, but the communication and ease of decisions calls for a lack of productivity. And we do have a prime minister, but hes called the director of the house.

  • These decisions are quite intertwined i would assume

    Posted by: 00r3d
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Tyler5362 says2014-04-22T14:31:44.8199855-05:00
... I don't know if it would be a good idea or not.
bfochtman14 says2014-04-22T14:42:03.9683855-05:00
@Tyler5362, I think it would benefit the country a lot because then the President would deal with foreign policy and international issues, while the Prime Minister would only deal with domestic government. The President himself cannot handle both foreign and domestic policy, its just to much, so it would be great to have a Prime Minister.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-22T14:42:16.3430288-05:00
In France, and other places that have PM PR shared power, people have noted an extreme lack of proper decision making. This question would be easier to answer if it was worded "Should the US have two presidents"
bfochtman14 says2014-04-22T14:45:44.4165044-05:00
@jifpop09, Yes but the PRESIDENT would be LIMITED to FOREIGN POLICY, and the PRIME MINISTER would be LIMITED to DOMESTIC POLICY. The two would not be allowed to interfere with the other.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-22T14:47:53.7421624-05:00
It doesn't matter. Do you know how many decisions the president makes daily? Even the French government is highly divided on whether to unify the head of state office. Its terribly inefficient, and the congressional system already moves slow enough.
bfochtman14 says2014-04-22T14:52:36.0647855-05:00
@Jifpop09, I don't know how you see it that way.. If the President was to act as the head-of-state and commander in chief, pretty much a ceremonial position, and deal with foreign policy, and the Prime Minister was to act as the head of government and run the executive branch, I do not know how you don't see it as proficient.
discomfiting says2014-04-22T14:53:53.3627855-05:00
I'll stick with one a$$hole at a time i don't feel like having to pick a PM and president
Jifpop09 says2014-04-22T14:55:50.4478110-05:00
Actually, the house would pick the PM. Or would it. The only countries with Prime Ministers have parliaments, and I don't agree that the house should pick our president. They would start another shut down.
bfochtman14 says2014-04-22T14:56:01.7578110-05:00
@discomfiting, you would only elect the President and he would then appoint a Prime Minister of his choosing, so you would only get to choose one 'a$$hole' at a time.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-22T14:57:07.7231855-05:00
That's not how PM's work, and that makes me like your system even less. Are you saying that the guy who will control half our government is appointed and not elected? Lol, good idea -_-
bfochtman14 says2014-04-22T15:01:31.4165686-05:00
@Jifpop09, yes if we are electing the President then surely we trust him/her enough to appoint the Prime Minister who would run the government..
Jifpop09 says2014-04-22T15:04:46.6842720-05:00
No its not. The US has a system of checks and balances, and appointing our strongest leader violates the balance. Its idiotic. By your logic, Sarah Palin was this ---> close to being the second strongest person in the US.
discomfiting says2014-04-22T15:05:22.5863855-05:00
Anything but palin please
bfochtman14 says2014-04-22T15:09:42.7631855-05:00
@Jifpop09, hows it idiotic, you would vote for the person who is the head-of-state who would most likely be a Republican or Democrat, and he would then appoint the Prime Minister, who would work at the discretion of the President, and can be dismissed by the President, and the Prime Minister would be, most likely, the same political party as the President and hold the same ideals. So we would in end be electing the Prime Minister, inadvertently, and the checks and balances would still work.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-22T15:12:28.3727855-05:00
Quit it. This is simply a terrible idea, and if people haven't picked that up from my current comments, then there really is no hope.
bfochtman14 says2014-04-22T15:18:12.8438075-05:00
@Jifpop09, Ok then.. You don't have anymore arguments then and I see no problems with the ones you stated so I still hold the same stance that it would benefit the country.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-22T16:20:26.6951604-05:00
Lolz, stupid people -_-
L.D says2014-04-22T19:50:30.7052417-05:00
The US does not have the appropriate form of government to appoint a Prime Minister. It would have to change from a federal democracy to a parliamentary democracy, followed by a change in electoral system from plurality voting system (Electoral College) to majority electoral system or proportional representation. However, given the large number of states and the size of the country, I think the federal government is the best form of government for the US. So, I do not think a Prime Minister is necessary or would do any good in this case.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.