The idea is, but the exectutive and legislative branches immediately break up into a twisting mass of sub-bodies, all changing at different times. It makes it hard to see where any continuity could come from.
By sub-bodies, do you mean the House and Senate in the legislative and the departments in the executive? Or the committees further down the food chain? (I think the committees are more or less the same as in a Parliamentary system. Or at least that's the assumption I operate on.)
Continuity in the legislative branch comes in part from the fact that senators and representatives regularly serve multiple consecutive terms. The staggered terms of the Senate also contribute: unless somebody leaves office early, you never have both Senate seats for a given state open at once. Having things change at different times helps create the continuity you're looking for. The Senate, like the Lords, are supposed to be the more conservative body, in the sense that change comes less rapidly to them. I have little idea, though, of what the Lords' power is these days; the answer seems to be "not a whole lot." Which means that your system is kind of but not really bicameral, and that confuses me.
Open admission: if you ask me about the relative authority and roles of the House versus the Senate, that's when I shrug and say, hell if I know. <g> They both have the power to draft and pass laws, and they need cooperation from the other body; that's all I know.
Continuity in the executive was deliberately broken up by the limitation of a president to two terms. There's arguments over whether term limits are a good idea, though; if we have a president who's still popular and supported after eight years, why shouldn't people be allowed to elect him again? Which is why you often get the incumbent's vice president running as his successor. But our system is designed to make sure nobody can consolidate too much permanent or even long-term power. Does it have its downside? Sure. No question about it. There's a reason people kept electing FDR.
To my mind, having a Prime Minister and Cabinet who aren't also Members of Parliament is the strange thing, since it makes them impersonal.
Whereas on this side of the ocean, the idea that you don't elect the guy in charge of your country is the weird, impersonal thing. I can think of plenty of Democrats I'm happy to see in the House or Senate, but I wouldn't want them elevated to the presidency. And while at times I envy the fact that you can chuck a party out of power as soon as you decide they suck -- man, I wish we could do the same to Bush -- that seems a lot more uncertain than knowing elections will come like regularly scheduled clockwork.
no subject
By sub-bodies, do you mean the House and Senate in the legislative and the departments in the executive? Or the committees further down the food chain? (I think the committees are more or less the same as in a Parliamentary system. Or at least that's the assumption I operate on.)
Continuity in the legislative branch comes in part from the fact that senators and representatives regularly serve multiple consecutive terms. The staggered terms of the Senate also contribute: unless somebody leaves office early, you never have both Senate seats for a given state open at once. Having things change at different times helps create the continuity you're looking for. The Senate, like the Lords, are supposed to be the more conservative body, in the sense that change comes less rapidly to them. I have little idea, though, of what the Lords' power is these days; the answer seems to be "not a whole lot." Which means that your system is kind of but not really bicameral, and that confuses me.
Open admission: if you ask me about the relative authority and roles of the House versus the Senate, that's when I shrug and say, hell if I know. <g> They both have the power to draft and pass laws, and they need cooperation from the other body; that's all I know.
Continuity in the executive was deliberately broken up by the limitation of a president to two terms. There's arguments over whether term limits are a good idea, though; if we have a president who's still popular and supported after eight years, why shouldn't people be allowed to elect him again? Which is why you often get the incumbent's vice president running as his successor. But our system is designed to make sure nobody can consolidate too much permanent or even long-term power. Does it have its downside? Sure. No question about it. There's a reason people kept electing FDR.
To my mind, having a Prime Minister and Cabinet who aren't also Members of Parliament is the strange thing, since it makes them impersonal.
Whereas on this side of the ocean, the idea that you don't elect the guy in charge of your country is the weird, impersonal thing. I can think of plenty of Democrats I'm happy to see in the House or Senate, but I wouldn't want them elevated to the presidency. And while at times I envy the fact that you can chuck a party out of power as soon as you decide they suck -- man, I wish we could do the same to Bush -- that seems a lot more uncertain than knowing elections will come like regularly scheduled clockwork.