NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you people think?

From Great Britain, America seems very polarised....Bush was re-elected, but he seems so heavily disliked by so many. Would the USA be better governed if congress played a bigger role like parliament does in British politics (although less so with Blair)?

By the way...I'm not trying to say the whole 'we're better than you' style misguided over-patriotism that often appears in this forum.....I'm genuinely curious, as it seems to me that a nation that prides itself on its democracy is somewhat undemocratic in many ways....can one man truly represent?

Uh, does Congress not play a huge role?

Checks and Balances:
President can veto any bill passed by Congress
Congress can override Presidential veto with a 2/3 majority


Plus we have a bicameral legislature. One for population representation to favour bigger states, and one for 2-seat legislature in favour of smaller states.

British Parliamentary System.

EDIT: Make a poll.

I think the position of President itself should be destroyed.

They both have good and bad points. From what I know the UK Parlimentary system is better, since the cabinet is made of elected MPs (usually), as opposed to appointed by the president, and seems a bit less authoraitarian.

Parliament can pass a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, but congress can't remove the president. But then, the USA can consider itself lucky it doesn't have Ruth Kelly...

The President creates an important factor to keep the Senate and the House in check. Without him and the rest of the executive branch, Congress would be able to essentially proceed as they like, without any oversight function, only to be stopped by the courts, back and forth it would play.

Secondly the President serves an important role as CinC. Without that, there is a major concern about the military executing decisions that are in the best interest's of the country, even when ordered to.

*shrug*

The office is an important one for a number of reasons. There is no real reason to disband it, especially not due to the influence of one disliked man who happens to be serving in it.

I think that the big problem with the US presidential system is that the President is both head of state and head of government, which gives him much more power and authority than he really should have as an executive. This also is the cause for a lot of the excessive, IMO, idolatry of the US flag. The US flag takes the place of what many other countries have in the form of monarchs - a powerful public symbol of the state. I think if the US had a president as head of state and a PM or chancellor as head of government, things would be more balanced. Heck, even Iraq has that. We're trying to instill democratic virtues in Iraq's government, but we don't even have as much power splitting as they do between head of state and head of gov?

No one system is perfect, obviously, but for a country that touts democracy and freedom as much as we do, I think our system has quite a ways to go.

I think for a relatively small and homogeneous country like the UK, a Parliamentary system's the best because it's easy to make laws (and avoid gridlock) but also easy to repeal them.

In a country the size of and as diverse as the US (and possibly the future EU), a law broad enough to please everyone or even a majority takes a lot of consideration so the slower Congressional/Presidential system would be better.

The US system is what we need for the EU. :cool:

I am aware that Congress does indeed play a huge role, and am not entirely ignorant of the US system...but it does seem inbalanced that 290 votes are required to overturn the veto of just one person.

I do, however concede that the power of party politics in Britain is more than problematic, and admire the way that issues can often be debated with far more cross party support in the US...although ones party affiliations are less important in our upper chamber, the House of Lords.

There is also the fact that your head of government is also your Head of State.

The President creates an important factor to keep the Senate and the House in check. Without him and the rest of the executive branch, Congress would be able to essentially proceed as they like, without any oversight function, only to be stopped by the courts, back and forth it would play.

Secondly the President serves an important role as CinC. Without that, there is a major concern about the military executing decisions that are in the best interest's of the country, even when ordered to.

*shrug*

The office is an important one for a number of reasons. There is no real reason to disband it, especially not due to the influence of one disliked man who happens to be serving in it.


In the British system, the legislative and executive parts of the government are essentially the same thing, so all legilation is proposed by the Cabinet meaning there is no back and forth between the two. (And there's no Supreme Court since we have no constitution)

It would be better if the Prime Minister was comander-in-chief, since the miltary does basically run itself. I think the government is slowly wising up to that after a couple of fishy suicides in the barracks in Surrey. Like I said, nothing's perfect.

Well the United States is a federal state whereas the United Kingdom is a unitary state. Both systems of government are designed to best suit these states. I believe however that the UK parliamentary system is far more accountable to MPs and to the electorate than the US presidential system, so it is far less dictatorial (using that in its lightest sense!). So in conclusion...i much prefer the UK system. Oh, and does anyone know whether France is a federal or unitary state? Thanks!

France is a unitary state I think, but this is bearing in mind that France has had more constitutions than Henry the 8th has had wives (that's a lie actually, they're on their 5th).

I agree with whoever mentioned the unitary-vs-federal state, in a federal state there's a greater diversity of opinion to take in to consideration.

What do you people think?

From Great Britain, America seems very polarised....Bush was re-elected, but he seems so heavily disliked by so many. Would the USA be better governed if congress played a bigger role like parliament does in British politics (although less so with Blair)?

By the way...I'm not trying to say the whole 'we're better than you' style misguided over-patriotism that often appears in this forum.....I'm genuinely curious, as it seems to me that a nation that prides itself on its democracy is somewhat undemocratic in many ways....can one man truly represent?

The picture you get of the government in the US is completely distorted by a totally dominated leftist media, and the fact that conservatives tend to whine, cry, rant and rave much less than liberals do. The democratic party is no longer made up of the middle class, but of a dozen or so special interest groups who think yelling the loudest is all that matters.
Don't you find it the least bit strange that the people doing all the talking are the people that can even steal an election anymore?

I very much agree with Windleheim with regards the head of state/head of government point. The monarchy system seems to work for us and other european states (in my opinion).

I disagree with Kilgour's statement that we are a homogenous state...the UK is made up of four nations...indeed Scotland and Wales have their Parliament and Assembly. Not only this, but withing the nations of the Kingdom diversity exists on a huge scale....and we're the richer for it!

The uk is sort of federal and sort of unitary since Scotland has a Parliament, Wales has an elected Assembily and in N.I. there's an Assembily and Council, although they have no right to exist constitutionally.

Personally I think the house of lords should be replaced with something like the U.S. senate with a few other senators (since theres only 4 states) elected by P.R.

I like the parlimentary system. The Prime Minister is still an ordinary man, as he must be elected the same way as all other representatives. His powers are more limited than those of a President. In fact, when you're in the parlimentary system, you don't elect a Prime Minister but a whole government.

Besides, what's the official title for despotic self-elected tyrants?
"El Presidente"?
or
"El Primero Ministario"?

LOL

I disagree with Kilgour's statement that we are a homogenous state...the UK is made up of four nations...indeed Scotland and Wales have their Parliament and Assembly. Not only this, but withing the nations of the Kingdom diversity exists on a huge scale....and we're the richer for it![/QUOTE]

I take your point, I meant in comparison with a country like the US.

I agree with the idea of reforming the Lords, some kind of system like the US Senate would be good and PR would be good although an elected Lords would mean we'd have to give both houses equal powers and that'd mean having to directly elect the Prime Minister to allow him/her to speak in both houses.

And to respond to Sarkasis, the Prime Minister (depending on size of majority, popularity and personality) is much more powerful than the US President. It varies with each incumbent but the best way of putting it is that Prime Ministerial power can be anywhere from very weak/lame duck to elected dictator whereas a US President is fairly locked in.

Liverbreath']The picture you get of the government in the US is completely distorted by a totally dominated leftist media

The media in the UK is NO WAY leftist at all. Just read the Daily Wail (oops, Mail) and see what I mean. Most media in the UK is right-wing, but fairly unbiased.

Even Labour is just another conservative government...

Most media in the UK is right-wing, but fairly unbiased.

Same with our media, except ours is quite biased. Hahaha, yesterday, NBC closed its evening news with a fucking religious song. They got a qoir to sing it!

Ugh.

in reply to New Burmesia....not all legislation is proposed by the cabinet...indeed some (although a very small amount) is proposed by individual MP's...in '5 minute bills'...these bills aren't exactly going to change the fabric of our nation though.

Indeed, the electing of a whole cabinet is good...although the PM can change it all around of course...and there are cretins like Lord Faulkner who nobody elected! Not too keen on Blair being Commander in Chief though. A political CoC scares me.... let the Queen have the power...i expect that the risk of her using the army to govern as an absolute monarch is somewhat small! Hehe

I also think the UK has a better political system. But the fact that quite a few European countries are monarchies, shows that these countries are established democracies. The monarch has no (or not much) power. These monarchs servived because of a political system with a head of state (king) and a head of government (prime minister).
Germany, which is a republic, had the same steady system of a head of state (president) and a head of government (prime minister).

The uk is sort of federal and sort of unitary since Scotland has a Parliament, Wales has an elected Assembily and in N.I. there's an Assembily and Council, although they have no right to exist constitutionally.

Personally I think the house of lords should be replaced with something like the U.S. senate with a few other senators (since theres only 4 states) elected by P.R.

No, the UK is a unitary as Westminster has ultimate control over the scottish parliament and welsh and northern ireland assemblies with overriding powers, whereas in the states local federal governments can have differing laws/interperations of laws that congress passes as long as it is not in conflict with the constitution. I see you point about it becoming more federal though with more devolved power and talk of a north east assembly etc, and on the lords point i believe that it should be part elected/part appointed, although they should not be appointed by the Prime Minister, as Blair has just filled it with 'Tony Croonies', but by an unbiased body such as a parliamentary commitee made up of all parties giving advice to the Queen who hands them the title. It need to act as more of a check for parliamentary legislature, although it has greatly diminished in stature since the changes by Lloyd George in 1911.

Belgian system owns both.

Belgian system owns both.

Does it work?

Kilgour...I see your point with the House of Lords....a lot going on with them. I'm personally in favour of an independant commission appointing Lords and there being no political parties in the upper chamber. I am gonna raise eyebrows by saying that i think democracy can be very inhibitory to a good political system....Keep the House of Commons as it is...and have an appointed House of Lords where the individuals can debate on what they think is right as opposed to what they think will get them reelected!

There are true legends in thr House of Lords like the Earl Russell or the Duke of Montrose that would never be elected...because noone knows who they are....if Ernie from Sesame street stood against the Duke of Montrose...Ernie would probably win!

in reply to New Burmesia....not all legislation is proposed by the cabinet...indeed some (although a very small amount) is proposed by individual MP's...in '5 minute bills'...these bills aren't exactly going to change the fabric of our nation though.

I'll remember that, perhaps I can bribe an MP to pass a bill making the compulsory eating of pies at breakfast :)
What's the Belgish system like then?

LLoyd-George's changes did indeed vastly reduce the power of the Lords...but they were all aristocrats then. The chamber is now made up of a diverse group of individuals that could not self-serve as a bloc...therefore give them back their veto!

Kilgour...I see your point with the House of Lords....a lot going on with them. I'm personally in favour of an independant commission appointing Lords and there being no political parties in the upper chamber. I am gonna raise eyebrows by saying that i think democracy can be very inhibitory to a good political system....Keep the House of Commons as it is...and have an appointed House of Lords where the individuals can debate on what they think is right as opposed to what they think will get them reelected!

I like the idea of removing the party structure in the Lords although there's got to be some elected presence there. Whoever it was that said "partly appointed, partly elected" had the right idea...and let's get the church out of there once and for all. People who read the Independent are always going on about electoral reform in the Commons. Personally I say keep the Commons because it's nice and simple and we have a huge blank canvas in the shape of Lords reform

Perhaps we could just abolish the House of Lords altogether and have a Proportional House of Commons. Without a federal structure, do we really need a second house?

A democrarically elected Lower House should only need a Constitutional Court and a constitution to keep it in check.

Again i'm gonna stick myself out there by saying that i don't think all of the hereditary peers should be removed...bear with me! Obviously, their progeny should not inherit their seat in the House of Lords...but kicking them out purely because they are hereditary is the same as 300 years ago when people were not allowed into the Lords purely because they were not hereditary!

I'm really not a fan of the elected Lords... voter turnout is low enough as it is...we souldn't push more democracy until the population wants to elect more representatives. If voter turnout at the last general election was 80%...then i'd be saying 'bring on an elected upper chamber.'

defo not loving the one-chamber plan... surely the more people reading and debating legislation...and the more opportunity for ammendment, the more likely it is to be good legislation.

Perhaps we could just abolish the House of Lords altogether and have a Proportional House of Commons. Without a federal structure, do we really need a second house?

A democrarically elected Lower House should only need a Constitutional Court and a constitution to keep it in check.

The problem with a Constitutional court is that the British Constitution is basically; The Magna Carta, all existing (and future) statutes and the conventions (for instance, a PM should resign after losing an election, otherwise it's just not cricket).

The House of Lords being able to delay bills is good because it slows the whole process down and prevents any ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction bills (like the USA PATRIOT Act)

I'm really not a fan of the elected Lords... voter turnout is low enough as it is...we souldn't push more democracy until the population wants to elect more representatives. If voter turnout at the last general election was 80%...then i'd be saying 'bring on an elected upper chamber.'

I'd say that we need a change to get voter interest again (and perhaps other political parties apart from Conservative Tory, Blairist Tory and Liberal Tory) and get rid of all of the sleaze and fat cats in there. Even leaving aside my republican communist ideals, I think that the house of lords is a bit of a mess.

If you were starting a new country and you were deciding on the legislative structure, would you go with an unelected chamber? :confused:

indeed Kingour...the Patriot Act....even its name shows how it is bad. It shouts at you...'support this piece of legislation or you're not a patriotic American. :eek:

Again i'm gonna stick myself out there by saying that i don't think all of the hereditary peers should be removed...bear with me! Obviously, their progeny should not inherit their seat in the House of Lords...but kicking them out purely because they are hereditary is the same as 300 years ago when people were not allowed into the Lords purely because they were not hereditary!

I'm really not a fan of the elected Lords... voter turnout is low enough as it is...we souldn't push more democracy until the population wants to elect more representatives. If voter turnout at the last general election was 80%...then i'd be saying 'bring on an elected upper chamber.'

completely agree

I'd have an elected chamber that provided the head of government and an appointed upper chamber....appointed by a cross party commission from the lower chamber. The upper chamber would perform the functions that the House of Lords does in Britain at present.

That would be my plan.

I'd have an elected chamber that provided the head of government and an appointed upper chamber....appointed by a cross party commission from the lower chamber. The upper chamber would perform the functions that the House of Lords does in Britain at present.

That would be my plan.

Both chambers being elected would give them equal claim to power.... the lower chamber needs the power, and the upper chamber can moderate it.

The House of Lords being able to delay bills is good because it slows the whole process down and prevents any ridiculous, knee-jerk reaction bills (like the USA PATRIOT Act)

'gree wit dat.

Perhaps we should have a constitution and have an unelected senate made of a certain amount of seats appointed by the Prime Minister, some by the Leader of the two biggest parties in opposition and the rest appointed by the Speaker who is (apparently) apolitical?

I'd also keep the Law Lords, which are not hireditary (i think)

What do you people think?

The British system is better for the British and the American system is better for the Americans. Neither system is better than the other, just different. :eek:

I think for a relatively small and homogeneous country like the UK, a Parliamentary system's the best because it's easy to make laws (and avoid gridlock) but also easy to repeal them.

In a country the size of and as diverse as the US (and possibly the future EU), a law broad enough to please everyone or even a majority takes a lot of consideration so the slower Congressional/Presidential system would be better.

The US system is what we need for the EU. :cool:

You seem to forget that the British Parliamentary system ruled over the British Empire, a huge expanse of the land that streched from Canada in the West to Australia in the East. The British Parliamentary system can certainly cope with handling large amounts of land as well as the American Presidency.

It is also worth mentioning that the American system is heavily influenced by the British system and as such there are not that many differences. The main one is that the monarch has been removed in favour of a President and that there is a written constitution in the USA.

in reply to New Burmesia....not all legislation is proposed by the cabinet...indeed some (although a very small amount) is proposed by individual MP's...in '5 minute bills'...these bills aren't exactly going to change the fabric of our nation though.

Indeed, the electing of a whole cabinet is good...although the PM can change it all around of course...and there are cretins like Lord Faulkner who nobody elected! Not too keen on Blair being Commander in Chief though. A political CoC scares me.... let the Queen have the power...i expect that the risk of her using the army to govern as an absolute monarch is somewhat small! Hehe

One small point - I think the Abortion Act 1967 was a private Members Bill. They actually do bring in major points when they are passed because for any private members Bill to pass it needs government support.

Not sure that I agree with New British Glory. The American system is very different...and yes, Britain did rule a quater of the world at some point...but we were very self serving and most people felt we didn't rule it that well...hence us not ruling a quater of the world anymore. When i started this thread, i was aiming at the whole 'which system represents people better and provides the best government' vein.

The Current US system of government is, in my opinion, a concession to the power of the contemporary British Empire. After Independence had been won, the first US government was the Articles of Confederation, which had virtually no Federal powers of control or oversight over the very influential governments of the 13 colonies. This placed the new nation in the situation where New York would not accept North Carolina Printed currency. The issue was that the people of the newly freed colonies looked to their governors for leadership, rather than any one man in office. To enact a more powerful Federal government, the concession to the states was that any power not held by the Constitution would be held by the states. Thus Delaware can have very favorable Business laws, allowing most companies to incorporate there; while Texas and Alabama have capital punishment laws and Washington state does not (I think). The office of the President, however, was intentionally quite powerful. He is the CIC , head of state and head of government......for a maximum of 14 years (as with FDR), but normally for no more than 8. The office of the President was designed to be the unifying force for a vastly diverse, and often divided, nation. It is intentionally powerful, but short lived, for that very unifying force. The attitudes of presidents reflect (or, at least, they used to)the prevailing attitudes of the nation. The president is the leader, the top of the political scene in the united states. The nation is run, however, By Congress. And the Supreme Court gets the ultimate "yes, you can" or "no, you can't"

Does it always work? nah. But it does work for us.

that being said......I would like to see the President go before congress and be obligated to respond to any and all questions they posed to him, as the PM does before Parliament. To see Dubyah go up there, sans speechwriters and handlers........my popcorn is popped and my couch is comfy, I'll be waiting. Until then, C-SPAN is my friend.

Cheers Hinsari...makes sense. Indeed you learn a new thing every day. I can now see how such a powerful office came into being with the need to consolidate a nation. Your argument is strong, but do you think the strength of the office of President is still needed in modern America?

getting hime to answer to congress would make great television.... being an avid follower of Prime Minister's Questions...I would predict that you would be very dissappointed though Hinsari.....I have never actually seen Tony Blair adequately answer a question. John Major burbled meek answers which also didn't answer the questions...and Thatcher scared the living daylights out of everyone!

The british House of Lords needs reform. Current gov't plan is to make it a 550 member house with 80 elected representatives. I'd prefer 200-300 myself. Don't give them veto (foxhunting anyone?) but they do need a proper Supreme Court for backup.

Alas the judiciary is proving obstinate to say the least.

The other thing that needs doing is AV+. PR will not work and FPTP is self-evidently not the best system.

The US seems to concentrate too much power into one individual. His veto allows for too much IMO, especially with the 51/49 split currently in evidence. One nutter gets in and BOOM!

I prefer the British system. Whatever it may fail to do it does work and has done for over a millenium, mostly through the ability to change easily.

Wurzelmania...I see your point in many ways. However, on the whole foxhunting issue...the Lords weren't voting to keep foxhunting...they were voting against the way the legislation was being decided on. Their point (forgive my generalisation) was that how can so many MP's who's constituents are completely unaffected by foxhunting have a say in its demise as a custom... an MP for a London seat playing a part in hunting legislation. How many have been to the great Islington Hunt?

Not democratic.....incidentally, I don't believe fox hunting should be legal....but agree with the Lords that it should be decided in a truly democratic way.

FPTP is an inherently flawed system and isn't truly representative (obviously) however with PR...we'd have a sequence of ineffective minority or coalition governments...ce n'est pas bon. It's bad, but the best we've got.

Auldova, I know that getting a straight answer out of any politician is like hitting five bulls-eye's in succession: Rare, difficult to achieve, and often unintended. It's not that I expect him to give straight answers (God forbid someone in government actually risk being offensive to groups with money......arg) But I like the fact that whatever your beef with Blair, by law or tradition (I honestly don't know witch), the PM still has to go before his friends and foes in parliament and field direct and sometimes difficult questions. Not a Press Secretary, not a senior white-house aid, Him. It's a telling requirement of the job, and gives weekly reminder to the British head of government that not everyone agrees with you and that your opposition has s segment of your population behind it. Something I think all modern presidents have forgotten at some point.

Is the strength of the Presidency needed in Modern America? Wow, how do I even start answering that one? I guess the best way is to imagine if the office were split between two persons: One head os state and another head of government. The Senate would become very powerful, now most likely with the power to declare war and command the armed forces, as well as nominate and confirm Supreme Court Justices. This reduces the head of state to merely the figurehead of the senate, tasked only to enforce the treaties the senate creates, molds on signs into law. This, I think, would create a diffusion of power into individual congressmen and senators. What is to stop the Senate from voting out Freedom of speech from the Constitution? or the need for a Supreme court in the first place? What stops that from happening is that the Congress does not have the power to nominate a Justice, and while the senate does pay for the armed forces, they do not command them. In fact, all US armed personnel swear allegiance to the Constitution, and the senate is nowhere in the chain of command, which means that no branch of government has any greater influence over the historical catalyst for insurrection: the nation's army.

What I conclude is this: The power given to the American President is most definitely needed in modern america, because mankind still desires power, and power still corrupts. the system set forth in the constitution makes sure no area of government is ever too powerful. this can be the cause of political stalling, partisan nonsense, and more. It has guaranteed a stable system for over 100 years, and allows for the ability to change with each generation. I carry hope for my country, and faith in it's people. Will we be most powerful nation always? I hope not. Our governing system was never designed, or intended for world leadership, merely the government of our own nation. And part of the American condition is that one person always makes the descision, and is ultimately accountable for it. It's what's in the American spirit, and how America governs itself. Make of it what you will, for it is what we are.

What do you people think?

From Great Britain, America seems very polarised....Bush was re-elected, but he seems so heavily disliked by so many. Would the USA be better governed if congress played a bigger role like parliament does in British politics (although less so with Blair)?

By the way...I'm not trying to say the whole 'we're better than you' style misguided over-patriotism that often appears in this forum.....I'm genuinely curious, as it seems to me that a nation that prides itself on its democracy is somewhat undemocratic in many ways....can one man truly represent?

I think that is a very well thought and FAIR question. Originally, the Congress and the Senate were supposed to be the most powerful and important branch. Things only became how they are today because of presidents like Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and Ike consolidated a great deal of power over time. Many people, including me, believe that it should go back more to the way it was in order to prevent the country's political minority from being overrun. Not necessarily because I dislike Bush, because I do rather like him.

by law or tradition (I honestly don't know witch), the PM still has to go before his friends and foes in parliament and field direct and sometimes difficult questions.

As with most things of this nature it's all tradition. He could choose to break that but it's a dangerous move to say the least.

I quite like the Swedish system:

A unicameral, directly elected parliament before whom the indirectly elected PM and government, who are dependant on continual support by the parliament for their survival, are directly responsible. Add to that an independent judiciary and supreme court, a monarchical (figure) head of state with no political power what so ever to fill the minor roll of representation, and a military directly subordinate to the government, and you're all set.

A Parlaimentary system would work better on a state-level if it were imposed on the U.S., our federal system was designed to be self-limiting (hence the written constitution, Judicial Review, and teh Veto).
One of hte main drivers for the Presidential Veto power, is to prevent the head of state from claiming to be victimized by Congressional pressure when he screws things up. Nobody bought it under Bush 1, or Clinton, or Bush 2, and that's because we are able to, if we as a nation choose to, hold the Cheif Executve responsible. Ever notice that American Presidents age like crazy in the white house? Check out how Bill looked in 1990, versus how he looked in 1994, or 1998, or 2000. Or look at Dubya's pics from 2000 to the present. I don't think PM's have nearly the amount of raw stress imposed that Presidents do.

Still, a Parlaimentary system at the State level, british style, would probably be good in most of the American states that currently try to mimic the Federal model, because MP's are more vulnerable to removal on the legislative side, and Cabinet Members are also more vulnerable-there's no such thing as a "Safe seat" in Parlaiment unless the MP actually serves the folks he represents.

Does it work?
Not really.