What other Countries are modelled after our Government?

[sventvkg]

I see a lot of Democracies with a parlementary system like England or a Diet like Japan, but I can't think of any that are modeled after Jeffersonian Democracy like ours, with a Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch, etc.....Please enlighten me...And even if there are, there surely are few...And why is that? Aren't we the standard to be measured against? Aren't we The Greatest Country on Earth?? Are we brainwashed into thinking this? This has been a question on my mind for quite some time.

[Alerter_]

1. the United Nations is modeled after the United States

It's a sort of a "federated constitutional republic". Each nation (like each of our 50 states) is theoretically soverign and independent. The General Assembly is set up like our Senate, one nation/state, one vote. It has a Charter like our Constitution.

Vietnam's Communist government was heavily influenced by the US. They even quoted Jefferson and our Declaration of Indepdence I've heard. Which makes the war so ironic.

[EdGy]

2. yes you are brainwashed into thinking that...

The "mother of all democracies" was Great Britain, which has a parliamentary system.

The overwhelming majority of democracies have parliamentary systems. Every single newly democratized country has adopted a parliamentary system.

One country that has a strong presidency is France, though it too has a parliamentary system. Russia's system is a modification of the French system.

There are no major countries that have US-type systems. For the simple reason that the US system was designed by guys in the 18th century, in part to ensure the "rights" and political power of those who owned slaves as property, and as a way to maintain some level of individual sovereignty for 13 of the 16 the British colonies of North America that wanted to break with London.

[NewHampshireDem]

5. I'm not sure that I'd agree with your assertion about GB

It wasn't until the Reform Act of 1832 that Britain had anything close to a democracy in their system, and even that "reform" left about 80% of men without the vote. The unelected Lords retained a great deal of power in Parliament until 1911!

Even today, folks in GB are "subjects," not "citizens."

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. No, we are "citizens"

that's what it says in my passport. There are very few "subjects" left - the inhabitants of Hong Kong were, till it returned to China. "Citizens" have the right of abode, and "the Crown in Parliament" holds sovereignty, so now that all adults get to vote, you can truly describe us as citizens. Native born Britons never have to swear allegiance until they join the armed forces or police.

[AmericanErrorist]

3. Australia has an elected senate

Although the executive is the leader of the majority party in the house of commons.

France has an elected president, but he pretty much has to cede executive powers to the prime minister (altough he is appointed by the president, the PM is generally the leader of the majority party in both houses, or something)

[rooboy]

4. No country has copied your constitution...

that I am aware of. The Westminster system was adopted by most of the commonwealth countries (which was still quite large at the turn of last century).

The biggest single problem in the American constitution (as I see it) is that you have a "first past the post" voting system, which allows people like Ralph Nader to get the least popular candidate elected.

In our system, Nader's arrival on the scene would actually make life tougher for Bush, because voters' second, third etc choices are taken into consideration when the vote is counted.

[unblock]

6. but third parties can play kingmaker in parliamentary systems

with near-majorities for two major parties, third parties are the key for forming majority coalitions. they can therefore wield power far beyond their meager numbers.

not to say either system is better, just that the nader effect is not unique to the u.s.

[rooboy]

10. They can play kingmaker in yours as well.

Once everybody takes their seat in the chamber, preferences don't count.

[scisyhp]

7. Liberia certainly was.

Well, that worked out well for them, didn't it?

[GCP]

9. While the US model seems to be designed toward stability

In effect, it can make the country ungovernable IMHO. As there are 3 equal branches of government, there is nearly always a conflict between the 3 branches - unless - we get what we've got now, which is dominance by one party of all 3 branches, and look where that's got us.
A parliamentary system allows a vote of no confidence when the country has simply had enough of the leader in power. No such luck here, we have to wait 4 years in order to have the chance of voting the bastard out.
Edited for clarity.

[starroute]

11. Systems modeled on the US tend to become dictatorships

I don't have any links to back this up -- it was just a well-known fact when I was in school in the 1960's. There was a fair amount of discussion at the time about how the US had retained its democratic nature only because people expected it and not because of any actual sageguards in the Constitution. In countries without a democratic tradition, systems with a strong, autonomous president almost always slid into tyranny.

I believe the Philippines was one of those. Possibly also some of the Latin American countries.

[sventvkg]

12. exactly, so my original question stands...

Why are we told we are the model of Democracy when clearly we are not. We are an enigma..We MUST NOT have the best form of Government since nearly no one else has modeled after us...Lies lies and more lies told to us..