Within the ideology of democracy there are different views as to how a government should be run. A perfect example of this is presented in North America. Although both Canada and the United States are democracies, the way in which they govern there nations is very different. Canada puts more emphasis on responsible principles. The Unites States on the other hand emphasizes liberal ideals. This difference within democracy often leads to one question. Should a system emphasize liberal or responsible principles? It is often looked at as a complex question to answer. However after looking at all of the facts it becomes simple to see that the responsible principles of a Parliamentary government work much more efficiently than the liberal ideals of a presidential government.
Many people will argue that the liberal ideals of a presidential government are better than the responsible principles of a parliamentary government. These people will argue that checks and balances limit the power of a government. An example of these checks and balances is seen in the United States Senate. In Senates legislative role it is given the power to amend legislation passed by the House of Representatives. It can also smother legislation in the committee stage. This provides a check on the power of the House of Representatives. Another argument from this vantage point is that the separation of power discourages centralization of power. Examples of this separation are the three branches of government, executive, legislative and judicial. The executive branch is simply the president. To prevent him from gaining too much power there is the House of Representatives. Everything the president decides from declaring war and signing treaties right down to appointing judges and ambassadors must be checked by the House of Representatives. The judicial branch is also checked over by the other two branches. Before any law or bill is passed both the House of Representatives and the President must approve it.