Talk:Government trifecta
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Second paragraph doesn't work edit
"Most countries and all democracies have some degree of separation of powers into separate and independent branches of government consisting of an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch, but the term government trifecta is only applied to countries in which the executive is not elected by the legislature. (In parliamentary systems, the executive [or part of it] is elected by the legislature and must have the support of the majority of the Members of Parliament but is otherwise separate and independent.)"
Except that the term is used in Australia and Italy. 2600:1012:B047:F452:0:52:472E:E01 (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Australia & Parliamentary systems edit
I agree with the above, I'm not sure how this would apply to Australia or parliamentary systems considering that the Prime Minister is of course a member of the legislature and there is no elected President. Perhaps a government duopoly would be more accurate, with majorities in both houses of parliament but yeah not sure how the trifecta idea could apply. Jacsam2 (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Trifectas in Latin American Countries edit
As a Latin American myself, I'm not sure why it's mentioned that "trifecta" is used in Latin American countries. Personally, I have never heard of the term; there are no citations in the article that refer to its use; and, especially in Brazil, Chile and Colombia, the legislatures have multi-party systems that don't really jive well with the concept of a "trifecta". I think the latter section should be removed. Ffrey42 (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)