Reply #10: I likes ours better too because there could be a case

[karynnj]

where you would almost be forced to vote party - even if the incumbent is awful.

The bigger problem is that the President would be chosen by the winning party - eliminating even a very charismatic, talented non-favorite from having a chance. Not to mention the Prime Minister always was previously a member of the legislature.

In terms of what party would have won the Presidency, I think that 2000 might be the only change. 2008 was going to be a Democratic year and it would have taken a lot to mess that up, similarly 2004 was before the country wanted change - unfortunately.

Another interesting year would have been 1992. Imagine it was a parliamentary system. This would have made it more likely that any party with two (or more) parts that disagree strongly on some important things might have led to more splits. Could the DLC and the other Democrats have been two, usually allied parties? Perot would have had to engineer a new coalition of Democrats and Republicans who agreed with him - mostly on trade and helped fund their effort to win more seats - and to stand himself. I suspect that party status might be more changeable than now. (It is difficult to think which states might have gone to that party.)