text:
Talk:List of countries by system of government

Angola
Looking at Angola's system of governance, it seems to me to more closely resemble South Africa's, Guyana's, or Bostwana's system of government than other countries listed as "Presidential Republics", like the USA or Turkey. Reading about the 2022 Angolan general election or the page about the politics of the country seems to me to point towards it being a "green" republic with a head of state directly or indirectly elected by the legislature. What are people's thoughts on this? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Angolan president isn't elected by legislature but simultaneously elected with legislature.
 * Therefore it's presidential republic, not a parliamentary one. Svito3 (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually it's the same as Guyana, where largest party's designated candidate for president wins. Svito3 (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There 3 systems combining heads of state and heads of government (executive presidency):
 * Presidential republics: president elected independently from legislature, government doesn't need confidence of parliament.
 * Parliamentary republics with an executive presidency: government needs confidence of parliament to remain in office.
 * Assembly-independent republics: president elected by legislature, government doesn't need confidence of parliament.
 * But there is also double simultaneous vote which links presidential and parliamentary candidates in elections, which is used by some presidential republics (Angola, Bolivia, Uruguay) and parliamentary republics with an executive presidency (Botswana, Guyana).
 * I have fixed an article by adding notes. Hopefully it's more clear now. Svito3 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that Angola is a assembly-independent republic.
 * The President serves as both head of state and head of government.
 * The direct election of the President was abolished in the 2010 constitution. My source is here where it says "Angola's parliament has approved a new constitution which abolishes direct presidential elections. The head of state will now automatically be the leader of the party with the parliamentary majority." From the constitution: "The individual heading the national list of the political party or coalition of political parties which receives the most votes in general elections held under the terms of Article 142 onwards of this Constitution shall be elected President of the Republic and Head of the Executive." I don't see a mention of a vote of no confidence which can remove the President however.
 * Aficionado538 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. For assembly-independent republic executive president isn't required, there simply isn't assembly-independent republic with ceremonial president. What is stated in description of the section simply describes which characteristics states that are listed there have.
 * 2. Parties or coalition state their presidential candidate on the ballot and they win automatically by whatever list achieves relative majority. They aren't elected by parliament. It's double simultaneous vote, not election by parliament. You can't claim same happens in Botswana, even though there isn't any parliamentary vote for president there. You're just clutching straws now claiming vote for president happens by parliament even though clearly people elect both with a single vote. Svito3 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. I thought that was the case. Aficionado538 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Green republic category
I moved green republics out of "Parliamentary republics" category, because they're not all parliamentary, but new category "Republics with an executive head of state" should include presidential republics.

For comparison with Duverger's systems: https://doi.org/10.1057%2Fpalgrave.fp.8200087

Highlighted cells, top left and bottom right are pure systems. Non-highlighted cells are true hybrids.

All these systems are single executive systems. Distinction between red, orange, and green is whether ceremonial head of state is elected ceremonial, unelected ceremonial, or parliamentary executive. This seems to be less important distinction than origin and survival of chief executive. Instead I think categories could be following (note 2 new colors for true hybrids split from green):

Parliamentary systems: {{Legend|#E85252|Constitutional monarchy}} {{Legend|#FF9B30|Parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president}} {{Legend|#66BC66|Parliamentary republic with an executive president}} Presidential system: {{Legend|#3054DE|Presidential republic}} Hybrid systems: {{Legend|#F0E945|Semi-presidential republic}} {{Legend|#EF13F9|Semi-constitutional monarchy}} {{Legend|#66CCEE|Assembly-independent republic}} {{Legend|#CCBB44|Elected prime-ministerial republic}} Other systems: {{Legend|#AC7030|One-party state}} {{Legend|#811381|Absolute monarchy}} {{Legend|#6B8E23|Military junta}} {{Legend|#818181|Provisional government}} Svito3 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I think this is a nice change, but I think some of the colors as a little too similar. Especially on the list, where the prime ministerial republic and the provisional government look almost identical. Is there another possible color we could use for it? ICommandeth (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think we should drop the table. Its size of more than half an article and repeats same thing said in the article but multiple times and generally eye sore with all the colors. Svito3 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have posted colorblind version at Template talk:Systems of government. Svito3 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Iran as a "monarchy" and elected prime-ministerial republics
I've spotted many, many sweeping changes to this page lately.

I take genuine issue with the description of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a de facto monarchy. The Supreme Leader, while elected for life by a council of experts, does not use any monarchial titles or styles. This description ignores the fact that Iran explicitly describes itself as a republic and has an elected President. We don't refer to Taliban Afghanistan as a monarchy either, even though that country is similarly led by religious leaders who serve for life. I would personally argue in favour of removing this passage entirely.

I'm also curious which sources corroborate the existence of the "elected prime-ministerial republic" that you categorize Guyana and Botswana as (personally I think that "elected prime-ministerial republic" is an oxymoronic and misleading title, since prime ministers, if they even exist in such states, are politicially irrelevant, unlike in actual prime-ministerial systems like pre-2001 Israel), and why we should separate them from parliamentary republics with an executive presidency – especially since we don't make a genuine distinction in regular parliamentary republics either. The ceremonial president of Finland is elected and the one of Germany is not, but we still categorize both of them simply as parliamentary republics.

Overall, while I appreciate the effort that went into reworking this page and map (even if unilaterally), I feel that much of it might not be constructive. LVDP01 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 * A monarch is defined as a head of state for life or until abdication, and therefore the head of state of a monarchy. Iran fits this definition perfectly with its Supreme Leader. Supreme Leader is the head of state(not the president) and has considerable powers, although he personally may not use them (both characteristic of semi-constitutional monarchs). Even though president is elected, Supreme Leader has the power to dismiss president. If we dive even further Supreme Leader is elected by and can be dismissed by separate elected chamber, this doesn't ivalidate my claim it's a monarchy though as many monarchies can be theoretically dismissed by an elected body. Only reason Taliban isn't classified as a monarchy yet is because it's a provisional government, monarchy or republic being irrelevant distinction, tho these categories don't seem to be mutually exclusive, exhaustive, or useful anymore.
 * On the issue of an elected prime-ministerial republic (also described as semi-parliamentary system), is described on https://doi.org/10.1057%2Fpalgrave.fp.8200087 page 3 figure 1. I recreated the table and discussed it in the section above and don't feel like repeating myself. Parliamentary republics with an executive president, assembly-independent and elected-prime-ministerial systems function exactly like equivalent systems with ceremonial head of state, you can think of them as having no head of state at all, but their function to be carried by functionally-prime-minister-named-president. Classification is primarily concerned where head of government(chief executive) power originates from. And it's only parliamentary system if chief executive is both elected by legislature and is accountable to legislature(meaning legislature can remove them with a simple majority). Assembly-independent and elected prime-ministerial only satisfy one of these criteria. In parliamentary republics with ceremonial presidency both are satisfied, and method of election of head of state is irrelevant as they aren't chief executive, unlike in parliamentary republics with an executive president. Svito3 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Botswana is NOT a semi-parliamentary republic. We do not directly elect our President, in any way shape or form. The chief executive (president) is elected by the National Assembly and the chief executive's survival is fused with the assembly majority, and can therfore be removed through a motion of no confidence; the president is elected by the legislature AND their survival depends on whether or not the legislature has confidence in the president's government. The President of Botswana is unusual among heads of state of countries with a parliamentary system in that they are also the head of government, with executive powers. Making Botswana a parliamentary republic with an executive presidency. Until you provide (the phantasmic) proof that Botswana is a semi-parliamentary republic, your edits will stand reverted.
 * As for Guyana, the President of Guyana is not directly elected by the citizenry as well. A characteristic of Duverger's semi-parliamentarism is that the chief-executive is elected by the electorate. Guyana's president, like Botswana's is elected by the National Assembly and serves as both head of state and of government. A motion of no confidence against the President comes at the expense of the legislature's survival i.e., once the National Assembly has no confidence in the government (President and Cabinet), snap elections must be held soon after as was the case with the 2020 Guyanese general election after the motion of no confidence against David A. Granger. From the Guyanese constitution:"6. The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence. 7. Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine, and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election."

- CHAPTER X. THE EXECUTIVE,§ 106 parts 6 & 7.

 * This makes both Guyana and Botswana parliamentary republics with an executive presidency i.e., countries with a combined head of state and head of government in the form of an executive president who is elected by the legislature who must maintain the confidence of the legislature to remain in office (though in Guyana's case snap elections are mandated after a vote of no confidence). Guyana was also weirdly categorised as an assembly-independent republic on Wikipedia not so long ago but that isn't true either for the sole reason that the executive and its chief depends on the legislature's confidence in it. As @LVDP01 correctly pointed out, there has been only one country with Duverger's semi-parliamentarism and that was Israel for a brief period of time before they abolished it in 2001.
 * Aficionado538 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. Thank you for your taking the time to type all this out.
 * I also disagree with referring to Guyana and Botswana as semi-parliamentary because I regard such terminology confusing. I understand semi-parliamentarianism to primarily refer to systems where only part of the legislature can vote no confidence against the government, such as Australia's Washminster system; or the more hypothetical subtype (which to my knowledge has never been used before) where voting no confidence is reserved for a confidence chamber that is separate/independent from the legislature, and cannot pass legislation in return. The other sub-type, where the head of government is directly elected, is also known as the prime-ministerial system, which I far prefer as it avoids any ambiguity with the system where the government only depends on part of the legislature to remain in office.
 * I do have a question. While I fully agree with most of what you have said, I do remember reading that the presidents of Botswana and Guyana are elected simultaneously with the legislature through double simultaneous vote, which I understand means that the president and legislature are simultaneously elected by voters through a single vote cast on a party. But according to you, the president of Botswana is not directly elected. As you live in Botswana, I was wondering if you could explain to me how Botswana's DSV works, so that I can obtain a more complete (and accurate) picture of the situation. Thank you! LVDP01 (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Contrary to what Wikipedia says, we actually don't have DSV at all. At the polling booth, voters are given two ballot papers: one for their local Member of Parliament and one for their local councillor. As in every parliamentary system, the party leader who receives a majority of support from the elected MPs in Botswana's case, starting from this year's elections, 31 MPs, wins. You can see an example of a ballot paper for the Mochudi West parliamentary constituency here with just one option for one office. Frustratingly, the names of the parliamentary candidates are not written on the ballot paper, but they are displayed on the outside of the booth. LOL.
 * Oh, and by the way, I'm not a fan of Duverger's semi-parliamentarism, or a prime-ministerial system, as you said. I am an ardent fan of Ganghof's version, where only part of the legislature (elected by a majoritarian system) can vote out the government, and the other part serves as a "house of laws," which is more proportional in nature. There are two subtypes of his semi-parliamentarism: one where the different parts are separated from each other (Australia and some of its states come close to this), and the other where the two parts coexist in one chamber (which I prefer). In both cases, the "confidence chamber" can still pass legislation; it's just that it lacks absolute veto power over legislation but of course, this lack is there to balance its unique power of being able to remove the government of the day. Anyway, my preference is obviously subjective, haha and that's an argument for another day. I hope I've answered your question. Have a great Sunday! Aficionado538 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That explains it quite well. We should probably update the DSV page then lol.
 * Also, I did not mean to indicate political preference for prime-ministerial government; that's poor wording on my end. I wanted to say that, regardless of political preference, I prefer to use the name "prime-ministerial" for Duverger's semi-parliamentarianism. Even though we call both models "semi-parliamentary", they don't have a whole lot in common. By calling one "semi-parliamentary" and another "prime-ministerial", we avoid what I personally perceive as ambiguity ("Why is this country semi-parliamentary? Is it because only one part of the legislature can sack the government, or is it because you directly elect the prime minister?"). My bad, lol.
 * As for Ganghof's semi-parliamentarism, I stand corrected; I personally interpreted it as meaning that the confidence chamber was entirely independent from the legislature (or could be in hypothetical countries, as this is not the case in either Australia or Japan). Thank you for the clarification, and have a great Sunday too! LVDP01 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries ❤. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have removed DSV tag from both Botswana and Guyana.
 * Guyana clearly has DSV and so does Botswana, according to President of Botswana. They are elected by endorsements automatically, unless there isn't majority of pre-election endorsements (never happens?). Only relative majority of endorsements is needed in Guyana, therefore parliament never elects the president. Given that ruling party of Botswana always has majority it's a moot point that president is elected by legislature. Svito3 (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is edited by human beings and is prone to errors and sometimes it's no fault of their own. It might be confusion or something else. Point is, just because Wikipedia says we use DSV, it doesn't me we do. The references used don't even have the mention of DSV in them. I have no idea where this came from. No, it's not a moot point at all. How about you read § 32 of the constitution if you have any doubts about my word? Thanks for bringing that erroneous section to light. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean because you didn't directly respond to my claims. If you only care to win because this is nieche topic with no research to back up every claim, you already won.
 * Just deleting every claim you don't like because you disagree with it is fine with me. I don't have stomach to fight with every angry entrenched wikipedian. Svito3 (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe I thoroughly responded to them. As I said, feel free to bring forward solid proof of Botswana using DSV. It's not only a claim "I don't like", it's also one that's false. The fact that it's not true at all means I had to remove it. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just provide the evidence and I'll stand corrected. That's all I'm asking you. Aficionado538 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The source you linked, § 32 point 3 of Botswana's constitution clearly defines that nominations for president create linked ballot (3a-c) and that one receiving majority of pre-election endorsements of elected members is elected president (3d).
 * This confuses me because you claim this isn't DSV. Svito3 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess it all doesn't matter because any synthesis is WP:OR. If we can't find 2 sources claiming a state is exactly that system or exactly other system using exactly same words it's WP:OR. Svito3 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Here's a direct quotation of Section 32 from the constitution, for easier reference:
 * "(3) The following provisions shall then apply-
 * (a) a person nominated as a Parliamentary candidate may, at the time of his or her
 * nomination and subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), declare in such
 * manner as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament which of the
 * candidates in the election of President he or she supports, but the nomination of
 * a Parliamentary candidate shall be valid notwithstanding that the nomination
 * paper does not contain such a declaration;
 * (b) such a declaration shall not be made in relation to any Presidential candidate
 * unless that candidate has signified, in such manner as may be prescribed by or
 * under an Act of Parliament, his or her consent to the making of a declaration in
 * his or her favour by that Parliamentary candidate;
 * (c) where the Parliamentary election is contested in any constituency a poll shall be
 * taken in that constituency at which the votes shall be given by ballot, and for the
 * purposes of that poll any Parliamentary candidate who declared support in
 * accordance with paragraph (a) for a particular Presidential candidate shall use
 * the same voting colour and symbol, if any, as may have been allocated under
 * any law for the time being in force in Botswana to that Presidential candidate for
 * the purposes of the Presidential election;
 * (d) the returning officer shall declare to be elected as President any candidate for
 * whom support has been declared in accordance with paragraph (a) above by
 * not less than such number of persons elected as Members of the National
 * Assembly in the Parliamentary election as corresponds to more than half the
 * total number of seats for Elected Members in the Assembly, and if there is no
 * such person the returning officer shall declare that no candidate has been
 * elected.
 * [...]
 * (11) In this section- "Parliamentary candidate" means a candidate in the Parliamentary election; "the Parliamentary election" means the general election to elect those Members of the National Assembly who are referred to in section 58(2)(a) of this Constitution following any dissolution of Parliament; "Presidential candidate" means a candidate for the office of President; "the returning officer" means the returning officer specified in section 58 of this Constitution."

- Section 32: Election of President after dissolution of Parliament part (3)(a)-(d) & (11) ''
 * 2. Quote of Section 58 as aforementioned:
 * "(1) The President shall be ex-officio a member of the National Assembly, and
 * shall be entitled to speak and to vote in all proceedings of the National Assembly.
 * (2) In addition to the President the National Assembly shall consist of-
 * (a) 57 Elected Members who shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of
 * this Constitution and subject thereto in accordance with the provisions of any
 * Act of Parliament; and
 * (b) four Specially Elected Members who shall be elected in accordance with the
 * First Schedule to this Constitution and subject thereto in accordance with the
 * provisions of any Act of Parliament."

- Section 58: Composition of National Assembly parts (a)-(b)

 * 3. Now, let me breakdown what each part of Section 32 stipulates for you:
 * (a) This part outlines that a person nominated as a Parliamentary candidate (in layman's terms, a Member of Parliament see Section 32 (11) and Section 58 (b)) has the option to declare support for a specific Presidential candidate at the time of their nomination. However, it's not mandatory for the nomination of the Parliamentary candidate to include such a declaration. So, while they have the option to declare support, it's not a requirement for their nomination to be valid.
 * (b) This part stipulates that a Parliamentary candidate can only declare support for a Presidential candidate if the Presidential candidate has consented to such a declaration. In other words, a Parliamentary candidate cannot declare support for a Presidential candidate without the explicit approval of that Presidential candidate.
 * (c) Here, it's mentioned that in constituencies where the Parliamentary election (in other words the general election as defined by Section 32 (11)) is contested, a poll will be conducted using a ballot system (this simply means votes cast in the general election are to be cast through the use of ballots (juxtaposed to the "disc sysytem" Botswana used to have). If a Parliamentary candidate has declared support for a specific Presidential candidate (after the general election is held) as per section (a), they must use the same voting colour and symbol allocated to that Presidential candidate for the Presidential election, as per the laws of Botswana. What this means is, if any MP wants to nominate Dumelang Saleshando as President, for example, they must use the symbol or voting colour allocated to the Presidential candidate in this case, the Botswana Congress Party. Using a different party than that of the candidate is not permitted.
 * (d) This section deals with the declaration of the elected President. It states that the returning officer will declare a candidate as elected President if they have received support from a number of elected Members of the National Assembly that exceeds half of the total number of seats for Elected Members in the Assembly (31 seats) as of the latest redistribution cycle. If no candidate meets this criterion, the returning officer will declare that no candidate has been elected as President.
 * These sections collectively outline the procedures and requirements regarding the declaration of support for Presidential candidates by Parliamentary candidates and in no way or shape mention (or describe) the use of a double-simultaneous vote, which is described as "an electoral system in which multiple offices – such as the president and members of a legislature – are elected through a single vote cast for a party".
 * Like every parliamentary system, after a general election is held, Members of Parliament elect whomever they want to elect as head of government. It is that simple. Aficionado538 (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how you exactly described how double simultaneous vote works while this completely went over your head. Svito3 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not going anywhere it seems. I provided proof on two separate occasions, yet you failed to produce proof that Botswana uses DSV. There's no linked ballot (whatever that means) at all. An MP can vote for whomever they want, it doesn't have to be from their same party. Aficionado538 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Difference in order. If MP candidates nominate presidential candidates before actual voting by people and their nominations are available as information to the voter (this is clearly the case as ballots have to use same voting colors and symbols as their presidential candidate), when parliamentary majority results in automatic election using their nomination, it is DSV. If it doesn't result in a winner, parliament vote happens.
 * You can think of it as presidential election happening in two rounds, first round is DSV, second round is election by parliament if DSV fails to have a winner. Of course MPs can vote for whoever they want in second round if it even happens. That's "elected by parliament" part. But first part, nomination system I argue is DSV. Unless you claim this part of system isn't used and no president is elected such way. You argue that parliament is electing president while using voting data from the past and before it was even composed is totally normal election by parliament, where they don't even hold a vote about it. If presidential nominations were completely irrelevant and ignored in law, not resulting in automatic election of president, and parliamentary vote was always required, it would mean there is no DSV.
 * DSV exists because people can elect president simply by voting candidates with certain presidential nomination. And parliamentary vote isn't required for that presidential candidate to be elected. It happens automatically whether MPs changed their mind or not. They can vote president out but if president does not resign it results in dissolution of parliament and new elections. That's because like typical semi-parliamentary system survival of executive is tied to survival of legislature. It prevents parliament from keeping president in check by design. One can argue this makes it similar assembly-independent system, as parliament can't elect new president without resignation of old president. It's catch-22 situation where parliament has power to dismiss president but that is illusory power because it also removes themselves dear from office. Svito3 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "If MP candidates nominate presidential candidates before actual voting by people…"–except MP candidates don't nominate the president. They can if they want to. How about you actually read the Laws of Botswana as mentioned in Section 32 (3)(c) of the constitution? It specifically states that a presidential nominee is nominated by at least 998 persons who are registered as voters for the purpose of elections to the National Assembly. The "proposers and seconders" can be any member of society as long as they are registered to vote in the upcoming elections to the National Assembly. I await your response. Aficionado538 (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because it's not mandatory to nominate a presidential candidate doesn't mean it's not part of an election system. Svito3 (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And is whatever results from all this discussion between WP editors verifiable and supportable by a citeable source? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have been following the discussion. As far as I understand, dsv occurs when the voter votes for MPs and the candidate of the party with the most votes is elected president regardless of whether or not there is a majority. Instead, in Botswana's constitution, Parliament elects the president. The electoral system adapts to the characteristics of the party system, but I don't believe that Parliament cannot overthrow a president who does not enjoy its confidence (even if his party had the most votes). When it comes to defining the political and electoral system of a country, what matters is not what Aficionado538 says or what Svito3 says or what I say. What matters is what the constitution and laws of that country say, and (perhaps, carefully) the de facto interpretation that political analysts can make of it. Does the constitution say "double simultaneous voting"? I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Do you have any academic work that supports the term "simultaneous double voting"? If you have it, I would appreciate it if you left it here. I guess that's the "evidence" that Aficionado asks for and I think it's reasonable.--FelipeRev (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "in Botswana's constitution, Parliament elects the president". This is false. Parliament only elects president if they aren't elected normally through securing nominations. So it's de facto DSV(let's ignore for a moment even this claim is WP:OR) used for first round, and parliament elects president directly for second round if first round fails to elect one.
 * You already restated what I stated in my last comment about this article not meeting Wikipedia's WP:OR standard. Svito3 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the President is directly elected by the people then explain this article and why there were many proposals from members of the public to directly elect the President if that's mysteriously the case already??? Look, I don't want to be smug, but I literally live in the country. Aficionado538 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There multiple issues with using this system:
 * Party loyality: MP candidates have to secure party support to have better chances of winning, so they always nominate presidential candidate of that party.
 * People are limited in their choices by the system and need to be informed and cooperate to game the system by using tactical voting. Technically people can vote for different president by voting for different MP knowing which presidential candidate they nominated. As Botswana uses FPTP system, both MPs and the president don't need an absolute majority (50%+1 vote) of votes to win but a relative majority. Voters have to be informed which MP candidates have a chance of winning in their constituency and cooperate by voting as a single block for the same candidate. It may not be their favorite combination of MP+president, and results of such election may not be representative of what would be their choice under different electoral system.
 * Svito3 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Botswana compared to other double simultaneous vote systems:
 * Angola/Guyana system is slightly different because parliament winners are calculated according to proportional representation, president winner is still calculated using FPTP. There is no second round like in Botswana, in Botswana second round for president is election by parliament.
 * Bolivia/Uruguay system provides for second round direct election for president.
 * Svito3 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Table was removed
I have removed the table because it doesn't conform to MOS:TABLES. There are other issues like table being pre-filled with templates where you need to specify a color to fill the table columns. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than just having a table in the article for the sake of it. Svito3 (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 * In my opinion the old table was better. Could you clarify which part of MOS:TABLES it didn't conform to? Thanks.  (talk | contribs) 12:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reasons:
 * Tables should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs or as an embedded list. Tables can also make a page much more complicated and difficult to edit, especially if some of the more complex forms of table coding are used;
 * MOS:COLOR: avoid creating accessibility problems for color-blind as well as normal-vision readers.
 * In my opinion information on this page can't be appropriately presented as a table without repeating the same information that is already presented in appropriate and recommended form. Table needlessly takes more than half of vertical space of the actual article doubling its size and making it hard to read. Svito3 (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I agree with your removal of the table. Thank you for explaining!  (talk | contribs) 13:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Peru
I've seen that Peru is listed as a semi-presidential republic, complete with academic sources that corroborate this being the case. So I won't make any attempts to dispute this.

However, what confuses me is that the pages Peru, Government of Peru and Politics of Peru all describe the President both as head of state and as head of government – which, by definition, would make Peru a fully presidential republic. I've looked into the Peruvian constitution and no reference is made to the President being HoG in art. 110, which otherwise describes them as HoS.

I was wondering if someone could explain Peru's exact system of governance to me? LVDP01 (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I did some research into the matter. I discovered a a Reddit post (not a reliable source, I know, but bear with me for a second) that points out that Peru functions as a semi-presidential republic in practice, though de jure it is indeed a fully presidential regime.
 * Since this article indexes countries by de jure system of governance to my knowledge, I figure that Peru should likely be moved back to the presidential republic list. LVDP01 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I don't think countries specify their system specifically as "presidential system/republic" directly in those terms in the constitution and laws. Usually they describe the system itself not how it's categorized academically. Then this article attempts to classify those countries by using those statements and matching them with classifications.
 * First we need to have reliable definitions of what our categorization is based on.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! ! colspan=3 | Does the executive's survival depend on the legislature? ! Is the executive (partly or wholly) popularly elected? ! Wholly ! Partly ! No ! Yes ! No
 * + A typology of executive-legislative systems
 * Prime-ministerial
 * Semi-presidential
 * Presidential
 * Parliamentary
 * Semi-parliamentary
 * Assembly-independent
 * }
 * What's executive of Peru? Constitution defines in Article 118.3: It is the duty of the President of the Republic … To manage the general policy of the government. Article 122: The Cabinet has its own President. The President of the Republic presides over the Cabinet when he convenes it or when he attends its meetings.
 * So let's answer first question. Is the executive (partly or wholly) popularly elected? Clearly Yes. Article 111
 * Then second question. Does the executive's survival depend on the legislature? Partly (not the president). A censured Cabinet or minister must resign. Article 132
 * You can clearly see on Semi-presidential republic lead that is well-sourced that it doesn't mention at all head of state and head of government separation unlike lead of semi-presidential section of this article, which is unsourced and wrong. Only thing required for system to be semi-presidential is prime minister and cabinet being responsible to legislature.
 * Peru is not de facto semi-presidential republic and de jure presidential. It's misunderstanding of what presidential republic is. Otherwise every parliamentary republic with an executive presidency would need to be classified as de jure presidential. But neither of them are. -- Svito3 (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Chad
Chad's just had an election, should it be returned to its de jure Semi-Presidential status or should we wait for the upcoming parliamentary election to go through and the National Transitional Council gets replaced by the National Assembly? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Nation v State v Country
I am going to change the terminology used in this article. Nation/s will be changed to country. CicolasMoon (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Is the supreme leader of Iran democratically elected?
If not it probably can't be called a presidential system. 2A02:A44A:5C96:1:40B:2426:37FF:8A5C (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 * From this article's lead: "This list does not measure degree of democracy, political corruption, or state capacity of governments." Clyde H. Mapping (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not really an answer to the question though, it seems to confuse the office of president with the office of leadership. I see the claim that 'de jure, Iran is a presidential system' repeated several times in several discussions about this, but that does not follow from the Iranian constitution, which states (article 113):
 * "After the office of Leadership, the President is the highest official in the country. His is the responsibility for implementing the Constitution and acting as the head of the executive, except in matters directly concerned with (the office of) the Leadership."
 * The question that follows is, what does 'matters directly concerned with (the office of) the Leadership' mean? That's defined in article 110, which gives the leader de jure executive power, which the leader also exercises de facto.
 * So, following the letter of the Iranian constitution, Iran does not have a popularly elected independently acting head of government. 2A02:A44A:5C96:1:959F:27F7:5B53:86E1 (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This article says, "In presidential systems a president is the head of government,". So, getting away from the "popularly elected" distinction there, the question seems to be, "Is the Iranian president the head of governeent?" The Head of government article says, "In the executive branch, the head of government is the highest or the second-highest official of a sovereign state, a federated state, or a self-governing colony, autonomous region, or other government who often presides over a cabinet, a group of ministers or secretaries who lead executive departments." The Head of government article also says, "Not to be confused with Head of state." and the Head of state article says, "[I]n presidential systems, the head of state is also the head of government.", though it then goes on about specifics re Communist governments and the communist parties there. it seems that lack of clarity about this extends outside of this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


text:
Dorothy Loudon

Dorothy Loudon (September 17, 1925 – November 15, 2003) was an American actress and singer. She won the Tony Award for Best Lead Actress in a Musical in 1977 for her performance as Miss Hannigan in Annie. Loudon was also nominated for Tony Awards for her lead performances in the musicals The Fig Leaves Are Falling and Ballroom, as well as a Golden Globe award for her appearances on The Garry Moore Show.

Early life and career
Loudon was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1925 (she later shaved eight years off her age), to James Edwin Loudon and Dorothy Helen Loudon (née Shaw). She was raised in Claremont, New Hampshire, and Indianapolis, Indiana. She attended Syracuse University on a drama scholarship but did not graduate, and moved to New York City to study at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts. She began singing in night clubs, one such being New York's Blue Angel, mingling song with ad-libbed comedy patter, and was featured on television on The Perry Como Show and The Ed Sullivan Show.

Loudon made her stage debut in 1962 in The World of Jules Feiffer, a play with incidental music by Stephen Sondheim, under the direction of Mike Nichols. That same year she made her Broadway debut in Nowhere to Go but Up, which ran only two weeks but earned her good reviews and the Theatre World Award. In 1969, The Fig Leaves Are Falling ran for only four performances, although it won her the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Performance and a nomination for the Tony Award for Best Lead Actress in a Musical. She followed this with a revival of Three Men on a Horse directed by George Abbott; Lolita, My Love, which closed out-of-town during its pre-Broadway tryout; and a revival of the Clare Boothe Luce comedy The Women.

Broadway
Loudon's performance as the evil orphanage administrator Miss Hannigan in Annie won her the Tony Award and the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Featured Actress in a Musical in 1977. In the show she introduced the seminal showtunes "Little Girls" and "Easy Street." Of her portrayal, Clive Barnes wrote, "As the wicked Miss Hannigan, Dorothy Loudon, eyes bulging with envy, face sagging with hatred, is deliciously and deliriously horrid. She never puts a sneer, a leer, or even a scream in the wrong place, and her singing has just the right brassy bounce to it." Loudon later revisited the character of Miss Hannigan in the ill-fated 1990 sequel, Annie 2: Miss Hannigan's Revenge, which closed quickly after a dismal pre-Broadway engagement in Washington D.C.

In 1979, Michael Bennett cast Loudon as Bea Asher, a widow who becomes romantically involved with a mail carrier she meets at the local dance hall, in Ballroom. She was nominated for the Tony Award for Best Leading Actress in a Musical and the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Actress in a Musical. She performed the number "Fifty Percent" from the musical during that year's Tony Awards ceremony. During her rendition of George Gershwin's "Vodka" at the 1983 Tony Awards ceremony while resplendent in a blue sequined gown, she ad-libbed "I'm too good for this room. I'm too good for this song...but I'm not too good for this dress!" At the 38th Annual Tony Awards ceremony in 1984, Loudon performed "Broadway Baby" from Follies. In The New York Times, John O'Connor said of her performance, "Miss Loudon has developed the art of mugging into something of a hyperactive disease."

In 1980, Loudon succeeded Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Lovett in Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd. In reviewing her performance for The Christian Science Monitor, David Sterritt said, "Her body sways like a reed in the emotional storms of her own scatter-brained creation, and her off-hand manner becomes still more off-handed when the most explosive matters are at stake ... Loudon gives a comic characterization in the most classical tradition." The following year she co-starred with Katharine Hepburn and Julia Barr in the play The West Side Waltz. In 1982 she won the Sarah Siddons Award for her work in Chicago theatre. She appeared in the 1983 Jerry Herman revue Jerry's Girls and later the same year she played the role of the miserable middle-aged actress Dotty Otley on Broadway in Michael Frayn's farce Noises Off.

She was cast as Carlotta Vance in the Lincoln Center Theater production of Dinner at Eight but was replaced by Marian Seldes in November 2002 when Loudon left the play because of illness.

Television and film
Loudon was chosen as the replacement for Carol Burnett when Burnett left The Garry Moore Show in 1962. Although that collaboration was not altogether successful, the excellent reviews she received the same year for her Broadway debut in Nowhere to Go but Up proved prophetic. Coincidentally, the two roles Loudon later played so successfully on Broadway stage —Miss Hannigan and Dotty Otley — were both played by Burnett onscreen. She also was a frequent guest star on many New York based comedy and game shows. In 1979, Loudon starred in the television series Dorothy, in which she portrayed a former showgirl teaching music and drama at a boarding school for girls. It lasted only one season. She appeared in only two films, playing a photography agent in Garbo Talks (1984) and as Southern eccentric Serena Dawes in Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997). She also appeared in the book version of the latter.

Personal life
Loudon was married to composer Norman Paris (born Norman Thaddeus Paris; 1925–1977) from 1971 to his death. Together they had no children and Loudon never remarried. She died in Manhattan, age 78, from cancer on November 15, 2003. Loudon was interred in Kensico Cemetery in Westchester County, New York. She left no immediate survivors except for two step-children from her marriage to Paris.

Discography

 * Dorothy Loudon at the Blue Angel
 * Saloon
 * Broadway Baby

Theatre credits

 * New Faces of 1959 (1959) (closed before opening)
 * The World of Jules Feiffer (1962)
 * Nowhere to Go but Up (1962)
 * Anything Goes (1962) (replacement for Eileen Rodgers)
 * The Unsinkable Molly Brown (1963)
 * The Apple Tree (1967)
 * Noël Coward's Sweet Potato (1968)
 * The Fig Leaves Are Falling (1969)
 * Three Men on a Horse (1969)
 * Lolita, My Love (1971) (closed on the road)
 * The Women (1973)
 * Annie (1977)
 * Ballroom (1980)
 * Sweeney Todd (1980) (replacement for Angela Lansbury)
 * The West Side Waltz (1981)
 * Noises Off (1983)
 * Jerry's Girls (1985)
 * Annie 2: Miss Hannigan's Revenge (1990) (closed on the road in Washington, DC)
 * Comedy Tonight (1994)
 * Show Boat (1996)
 * Sweet Adeline (1997)
 * Over and Over (1999) (Signature Theatre, Arlington, Virginia)
 * Dinner at Eight (2002)

Film

 * Garbo Talks (1984) - Sonya Apollinar
 * Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997) - Serena Dawes (final film role)

Television

 * It's a Business (1952) - Secretary
 * The Garry Moore Show (1962–1964) - Herself
 * All My Children (1970) - Veronica Mullens (1993)
 * Dorothy (1979) - Dorothy Banks
 * Magnum, P.I. (1986)
 * Murder, She Wrote (1986)
 * Performance at the White House: Showstoppers (1988) - Herself
 * A Salute to Broadway: Showstoppers (1988, TV Movie) - Herself
 * Sondheim: A Celebration at Carnegie Hall (1993) - Herself
 * My Favorite Broadway: The Leading Ladies (1999) - Herself

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Dorothy Loudon


text:
Washington Missourian

The Washington Missourian is the Franklin County newspaper based in Washington, Missouri. The paper is owned by Missourian Publishing Company, a family-owned company. James L. Miller, Sr. purchased the paper in 1937. In addition to news stories in Washington, the paper covers the nearby cities of Union, St. Clair, and Pacific, as well as local stories from the surrounding areas. It is the most read local paper inside Franklin County and is available and read in many St. Louis County cities, such as Eureka. The paper contains obituaries from as far back as 1939.

History
The Washington Missourian started in 1860 as the Franklin County-Gazette and received its name change in 1926. The Miller Family has owned the company since purchasing it in 1937 and delivers the newspaper bi-weekly. The combined circulation of the local newspaper is over 26,000, and the Missourian employs 135 part and full-time workers. John, Thomas, and William Miller own the Missourian Publishing Co., which prints the newspaper. William, the editor since 1957, has been at the helm for more than 40 years. The Washington Missourian has won awards, including first place awards in National Newspaper Association contests, the 1994 Missouri Gold cup award, and a General Excellence Award.

July 2012 was the 75th anniversary of ownership of the Washington Missourian by members of the James L. Miller Sr. family. The Missourian dates back to 1860. It began as the Franklin County Gazette on January 5, 1860. In April 1861, the name was changed to the Franklin County News. In April 1867, it became the Franklin County Observer. That name lasted until August 1926 when it was changed to the Washington Missourian.

Sections
The Missourian features various sections such as Local News, Regional News, Sports, Opinion, Features, Obituaries, eMarket, Classifieds, and Business.

For their sports section, along with national and regional stories, the Washington Missourian picks a high school male and female athlete of the week(s) to feature both online and in their print newspapers.

The Miller Family
Son Bill Sr. joined the newspaper full time in November 1953 when he returned from military duty with the Army in Korea. Before that, he had graduated from the University of Missouri with a degree in history and a minor in political science. He began as a sports editor, then became a news editor. Tom Miller joined the company in the late 1950s after college and after serving in the Army in Korea. He began in the circulation and classified ad department, then sold display ads before becoming the advertising director.

John E. Miller, another son of James L. Sr., came to the company in 1961 after college and after working at a paper company in St. Louis. He also served in the Army Reserve. He later became the commercial printing manager. Jim Miller Jr. joined The Missourian in the 1960s as the photo editor. After college and military service in Korea, he worked in classified advertising for the Kansas City Star and Times. He left the Star to sell advertising for a radio station, then for a television station. He also sold television advertising in Dallas, Texas, Buffalo, N.Y., and Indianapolis, Ind. During those years, he also worked as a freelance photographer. Jim, Jr., died in 1987.

Jim Jr.'s son, Bill Miller Sr., ran the newspaper until June 10, 2020, when he stepped down after facing backlash for publishing a racially insensitive political cartoon by Tom Stiglich. His daughters, Susan Miller Warden and Jeanne Miller Wood had resigned as owners of the company in protest earlier that day.

title: Washington Missourian


text:
User talk:IIR

Hi IIR :) I hope you like the place and choose to stay.

Some links that may be of use:
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * How to edit a page
 * Village pump - ask questions you may have here, or leave a message on my talk page

Please don't add nonsense such as "thaddeophoby" to the Wikipedia though - it's a bit inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Thanks Dysprosia 04:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It was just a joke ;)
 * Ok :) It's just we get many adding silly stuff here, so it's good to know you weren't being malicious about it :) Dysprosia 07:46, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:IIR


text:
Uplink (video game)

Uplink (also known in North America as Uplink: Hacker Elite) is a simulation video game released in 2001 by the British company Introversion Software. The player takes charge of a freelance computer hacker in a fictional futuristic 2010, and must break into foreign computers, complete contracts and purchase new hardware to hack into increasingly harder computer systems.

The game, which was Introversion's first release, was generally well received in Europe, and was released in North America by the publisher Strategy First as Uplink: Hacker Elite in 2003. Uplink was later ported to Android and iOS systems in 2012.

Plot
In the game, the player assumes the role of a hacker in the year 2010, who begins work for the Uplink Corporation, a worldwide company providing work for hackers. The player amasses money, software, gateway hardware and skill in the course of performing jobs for various clients, and hacking servers of global corporations for profit.

The storyline of the game typically begins with the player receiving a delayed e-mail from a deceased top ranking Uplink agent concerning the research done by a faction within the Andromeda Research Corporation (ARC), described as an "anti-capitalist, techno-anarchist" group. The agent was contracted to aid in engineering a destructive computer virus known as Revelation in an attempt to destroy the Internet. A rival company, Arunmor, attempts to counter ARC's plans by developing Faith, a counter virus that can purge Revelation.

The player can choose to side with ARC or Arunmor or even ignore the plot in its entirety, concentrating on freelance hacking, in which case the storyline plays out without the player's participation with Arunmor untimely stopping Revelation, though not before some in-game servers and computer systems are infected and destroyed by the virus.

During the missions Andromeda contracts a hacker to steal files from "The Darwin Project," digital lifeforms that exist and reproduce on the internet. The sophisticated artificial intelligence technology is used to improve Revelation, helping it spread quickly and autonomously. Numerous attacks on ARC and Arunmor systems also occur in the storyline, including a mission leading the chief technical director of Arunmor being framed for bank fraud. The government is also helping fund Arunmor's Faith project, and is closely monitoring ARC, though they lack concrete evidence to warrant raiding the site or arresting any employees.

Regardless of the player's choices, Revelation will eventually be completed and unleashed upon the world, thus beginning the endgame. If the player has supported Arunmor, they are tasked with running a counter-operation, hacking into infected systems and using Faith to restore them before they are destroyed. Revelation is wiped out completely, and the damning evidence against Andromeda leads to a federal raid and the subsequent arrest of suspected staff members in the company, along with a number of Uplink agents. The leader of Andromeda then issues a statement, making no apologies for releasing Revelation; he argues that the internet has become a mere extension of Western capitalism to serve the interest of elites, rather than the bastion of free speech and anonymity it once was. He claims that people will never be safe on the web – their entire lives are on file and anyone can tamper with their personal information at will. The leader denounces Arunmor, claiming they are simply profiteering off the crisis and are a yet another symptom of capitalist overreach. He is sentenced to 8 years in prison, and ARC shuts down operations.

In contrast, if the player supports Andromeda, the group instructs them to unleash Revelation on the world, infecting as many systems as they can to overwhelm Faith and render every computer in the world inoperable. If the player is successful, the virus claims their own Uplink gateway, ending the game immediately and implying Andromeda have succeeded in their goal. If the player fails to cause enough infections within fifteen minutes, federal agents seize their equipment and arrest them, dooming the Revelation project to a premature end.

Style
Uplink focuses on emulating highly stylized, Hollywood-esque hacking, as seen in movies such as Hackers, Sneakers, WarGames and Swordfish. References to these movies can be found throughout the game, including joke servers for companies such as Steve Jackson Games (which in 1990 was raided by the Secret Service) and a nuclear missile control system from WarGames. It also features at least three references to the movie Sneakers, including one which can be found in the first version of the game (and was later removed in an update released by Introversion) which is a cheat code in which the user has to enter "TooManySecrets" (an anagram to the phrase "Setec Astronomy") as the username thus allowing them to access a cheat menu. Another reference to the anagram is the password "MySocratesNote", sent to the player in an e-mail which starts the plotline. In addition, the voice print sections use the phrase "Hello. I am the system administrator. My voice is my passport. Verify me." which is similar to the one Sneakers used.

Most of the 'hacking' is of the form: "there is a security system of type X, level Y that is stopping me from accessing or changing something I need to access or change, so I need to have an anti-X program of level Y+". There is some need for rapid selection of programs to run, but there is no actual difficulty in running them (provided that one can afford them).

The game has a certain number of unusual features, including an in-game IRC client and in earlier versions a multi-monitor feature requiring another copy of the game running on a second computer. The latter was removed in later versions due to lack of stability and popularity and, as it was called "Network", was often confused with multiplayer gaming (that the game does not offer).

Soundtrack
The game uses several songs originally made in S3M, mod and xm format. The original song files are included on the bonus CD-ROM of the game, a disc that was originally given as a free addition to those who referred the game to others. The disc also includes several songs which were not used in the final game.

 * The Blue Valley by Karsten Koch
 * Deep in Her Eyes by Peter 'Skaven' Hajba
 * Mystique Parts 1 and 2 by Robert 'Timelord' Gergely
 * Symphonic by Simon 'Hollywood' Carless

Release
Uplink was first released in October 2001, and was initially sold digitally and distributed by mail. The game was released for Microsoft Windows and Linux (2012) directly by Introversion, and ported to and released for Mac by Contraband and Ambrosia Software respectively. Chris Delay stated in an interview with PC Gamer UK that they did not pay for advertising of the game at all — it became known purely by word of mouth. A version released in the US was published and distributed by Strategy First under the title Uplink: Hacker Elite. Legal proceedings were undertaken when Strategy First filed for bankruptcy and ceased paying Introversion royalties, but the Hacker Elite version remains available from various sources. The game is now also available via Valve's Steam online distribution service, via GOG.com, as well as via the Ubuntu Software Center. Uplink was also released for iOS on 7 June 2012. An Android version debuted as part of The Humble Bundle for Android 3, on 15 August 2012.

Hacker Elite royalties
A version released in the US was published and distributed by Strategy First under the title Uplink: Hacker Elite. Strategy First ran into financial difficulties, and ceased paying royalties to Introversion shortly before filing for bankruptcy protection, but continued to sell the game in competition with Introversion.

On 20 January 2006, Introversion announced they were taking legal action against all retailers of Uplink: Hacker Elite, except Stardock. It transpired that, while filing for bankruptcy would have caused a breach of contract, Strategy First persuaded Canadian courts to grant a moratorium preventing termination of the contract. Strategy First has resumed paying limited royalties.

Stores and services currently reselling Hacker Elite in North America include:
 * Direct2Drive, IGN's digital distribution service (as of July 2006).
 * Strategy First's online store.

As some versions of Uplink: Hacker Elite have been modified, many game mods and patches will not run with the Hacker Elite version.

Reception
The iOS and PC versions received "generally favorable reviews" according to the review aggregation website Metacritic.

The editors of Computer Gaming World presented Uplink: Hacker Elite with their 2003 "Adventure Game of the Year" award. They summarized it as "an immersive, original, and suspenseful little game."

title: Uplink (video game)