What country has a form of government closest in function to that of the United States?
96055
Actually, the U.K has a prime minister...We have a president. Mexico is like us in this respect and they also have three branches of government just like us too. It is a federal republic meaning it is made of states and not provinces like the U.K.. The 5th of Feburary is when the Mexican contitution was signed btw. \n\nThe Mexican government was based on our constitiution and that is why I say it's most like ours.
231430
umm... well, theres a democratic republic.. that IS our government, we dont really have more than one government in America. but, each states has its own government, though not as powerful in some areas as the national government, and you also have county, city, and community governments
445276
Our government is a Republic, which in the U.S. is a representative Democracy.  We elect our Congressional delegates, our representatives, to pass laws by which we will govern ourselves.
464159
Since it's (IMO) a comparative judgement, it's the best one out there - by far.\n\nI speak of our own unique system of government, not of the characters currently occupying the Executive Branch - they come and go every four to eight years, whether they like it or not!\n\nStill, there are LOTS of problems and issues with the Federal government but, hey, without those little things, life would be awfully booorrrrriing, no?\n\nAnd besides, who in this country would opt for, say, Japanese, French, Singaporean or even British-style government?  Nothing really wrong with any those countries' systems of government but the average American, given a choice and a list of pros and cons vis-a-vis what they've come to understand and expect of our government and what they'd get from any of those countries' governments, would not wish to live under any of those countries' systems of government.
1100328
Government is a system of social control under which the right to make laws, and the right to enforce them, is vested in a particular group in society. \n\nGovernments are distinguished by whether power is held by one man, a few, or a majority. Today, it is common to distinguish between types of government on the basis of institutional organization and the degree of control exercised over the society.\n\nOrganizationally, governments may be classified into parliamentary or presidential systems, depending on the relationship between executive and legislature. Government may also be classified according to the distribution of power at different levels. \n\nThe basic law determining the form of government is called the constitution and may be written, as in the United States, or largely unwritten, as in Great Britain. Modern governments perform many functions besides the traditional ones of providing internal and external security, order, and justice; most are involved in providing welfare services, regulating the economy, and establishing educational systems. The extreme case of governmental regulation of every aspect of people's lives is totalitarianism.
1167357
Similar governments have similar effects, and similar control by the public.  Both Canada and the US have an elected representative form of government, just like England.  The people elect those politicians that most closely represent their point of view.  We then trust those politicians to vote, as we would want them to.  It doesn't always happen in that way though.\n\nOne difference between our government and the Parliamentary form of government is how the leadership is determined and who is government’s leader (the President or the Prime Minister).  A Prime Minister is elected from the ruling party, but a coalition (some sort of agreement) has to be made with the other parties.  If a majority of the Parliament no long wants the Prime Minister to rule (like after and election and a change in ruling parties) then a new vote can be called for and the Prime Minister can be replaced.\n\nIn the United States the only way the President can be changed is when there is an election (once every four years) or when the President performs an illegal act and is convicted in an impeachment trial.\n\nIf the United States had a Parliamentary form of government then the two houses would elect the President and he (or she) would only be in power as long as his party held the majority of power in both houses.  When President Reagan was in his second term the Democrats held power in both Houses of Congress.  This caused some difficulty between the Executive Branch and the Legal Branch.  If the US used a Parliamentary system then President Reagan would have been forced out of power and a new, and Democratic President (who would have to come from one of the Houses of Congress) would have been elected.\n\nOur founding fathers decided that it was more important to have a strong and independent President so they made his election directly responsible to the people, and gave him strength to resist a strong Congress.  Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.  Ronald Reagan was one of our best presidents, especially in his second term when he made the Democratic controlled Congress tow the line and submit a balanced budget.  He couldn’t have done this in a Parliamentary form of government, because the Democrats would have removed him.
45570
Here's a really great list... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government
568550
the Government resides.
330756
If you travel abroad you soon learn that control of the media and privacy invasion are realities worldwide.  The U.S. remains by far one of the least controlled societies, even if you restrict your list to the so-called Western democracies.\nAnd the U.S. government for all its failings continues to be one of the least corrupt and most open.
42134
If the entire world were ruled by one country whose government was fast and efficient.\nPrime example: China.
1095495
Every country has the government and political system it deserves. That includes the electoral rules and systems.\n\nSo if things are not right (and I agree that they are not right), the people will have to act accordingly.\n\nNo country can be ruled or controlled against the will of the people. However, if the people are too dumb, ignorant or lazy to care for their own future, you get a country like the USA.\n\nThose who don't care will be taken care of.
315601
The United States has a representative democracy....\n\nThe citizens of the United States choose who will represent them in the government. Voting rights are established by the U.S. and state constitutions...Everyone is not allowed to vote in America....for example...in many states...convicted felons can never vote again.
429582
I must answer this from the perspective of an actual government, not just the hypothetical one, so things may vary somewhat (functions and powers may be differently distributed).  But I believe the basic approach is sound for those operating under a representative system of government other than the U.S. Constitution.\n\nSeveral want to suggest all three of these 'branches' are "equally important". \n\nI may agree with what I THINK they mean, but I also think they misunderstand the question, and perhaps the American system of government.\n\nI would agre that all three functions ARE important (even necessary) to a properly functioning state.\n\nI would also agree that there should be a  healthy 'balance' in which each has its own sphere (not trampling on the others) and even has the ability to act as a check on the others (what Americans call 'checks and balances').\n\nBut that is not the same thing as saying all three have "equal" powers or importance.   \n\nKeeping all that in view, I believe the LEGISLATIVE (or what you call the "parlimentarian") is the most important.  It is  THE branch most directly respresntative of and accountable to the people.  It is also THE source of laws, and what is more central to governing that the system of LAWS?\n\nYes, the other branches have important functions in seeing that laws are effectively and fairly carried out, and may even have some authority to prevent (by exective veto) or rescind (by judicial decision) at least some laws, within limits (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court can declare that a law is void because it violates the Constitution, which takes precedence as THE foundational law).  But neither of these branches can MAKE the laws (at least they are not SUPPOSED to!!)   In particular, the courts --as important as their role is in assuring that our laws are upheld-- COULD not be 'the most important in the POLITICAL systm' when (as in the U.S. design) the judges do not stand for election and so are to some extent OUTSIDE "politics".\n\nA bit of support for this understanding may be found in the 2nd definition of "political" in Webster's--\n  "of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" --   From this perspective, clearly the legislative branch, and secondarily the executive, have the primacy.\n\nThe much greater detail of Article II of U.S. Constitution --that concerning the legislature -- is one evidence of the importance the founding fathers placed on this branch.  (Their writings back this up.)
1168683
Trinidad and Tobago is a unitary state, with a parliamentary democracy modeled after that of the U.K. Trinidad has a parliament elected president but the general direction and control of the government rests with the cabinet, led by a prime minister and answerable to the bicameral parliament.
79667
The structure of federal governments vary from institution to institution based on a broad definition of federation. Students of federal governments will note that within a basic federal political system, there are two or more levels of government that exist within an established territory and govern through common institutions with overlapping or shared powers as prescribed by a constitution.\n\nThe United States is considered the first modern federation. After gaining independance from Britain, the U.S. adopted its first constitution, Articles of Confederation in 1781. This was the first step towards federalism by establishing the federal congress. Yet, congress was limited as to its ability to pursue, economic, military, and judiciary reform. In 1787, federal congress participated in what is known as the Philadelphia Convention and by 1789, the U.S. was officially a federation.\n\nOther nation-states followed suit in establishing federal governments: Switzerland (1848); Canada (1867); Germany (1871 and again 1949); Australia (1901); Austria (1920) and again 1945
494354
Great Britain (although held up as a paragon of democracy we still have an UNELECTED second chamber)\n\nCuba\n\nZimbabwe\n\nWhy say France???? They have two democratically elected chambers and the President is Conservative!
301618
run government under u.s.a