Another argument made is that without party discipline members may be constituency oriented. This allows for the members to do what is best for the people within their constituency without worrying about ramifications from the government.
One argument that is often made by those who support a parliamentary government style is the way in which the leader of the nation is chose. Rather than voting for an individual the people vote for a party. Whoever may be the leader of the winning party will become Prime Minister. This is beneficial because it allows for the people of the nation to clearly see how the executive branch thinks on various issues. Also since there are so many different political parties in a parliamentary government it allows every person to vote for which they think they will benefit most from having in power. Although sometimes people in a parliamentary style of democracy do choose to vote based on the character of a candidate it is uncommon to see. By voting based on a parties views rather than a persons character it limits the likelihood of voting for someone who will run the nation differently than they claimed they would while campaigning.
Another strong argument that is commonly used to support a parliamentary government is that it does believe in checks and balances just not to the same degree as a presidential government. A parliamentary government has what is known as a vote of non-confidence. This is seen when the executive becomes irresponsible and loses the support of the House of Commons. When this occurs the House can have a vote of non-confidence and subsequently remove both cabinet and the Prime Minister from power. When this occurs since the executive branch has been vacated, any political party may try to earn the support of the House of Commons, and take over as the official government. In the event that no party is successful an election would be called and the people would once again vote to determine the nation's government.