UK v US political systems

Well, in UK the PM is the “first among equals”, in the US the president is the leader, the first. If the secretary of state does something wrong in the US, the president will be held responsible for that, while in Europe the minister of foreign affairs and the prime minister each have their own responsabilities. The PM is more of a coach than a real leader, exept for France that is.

In Britain, if a minister does something wrong then he/she is on their own; but if something goes right… show your appreciation for the prime minister, who obviously engineered the whole thing. – Nermal

You know Sauron, sometimes you really puzzle me. If you want to contribute something, then do so. If not, then don’t. We all know that the combination of subjects of “United States of America” and “politics” trigger some really weird defense mechanism in your psyche, but there is no reason to display that each and every single time. Sigh.

Well, in UK the PM is the “first among equals”, in the US the president is the leader, the first. If the secretary of state does something wrong in the US, the president will be held responsible for that, while in Europe the minister of foreign affairs and the prime minister each have their own responsabilities. The PM is more of a coach than a real leader, exept for France that is.

I can’t believe it! :rolleyes:

Sauron

You are so right – I thought it was butter too!
But getting beack to the threads subject… What is the Canadian system? Is it like Britains first past the post election or the American votes for all?

Flood

I can’t believe it! :rolleyes:

Sauron

Based on the number of threads on this forum during the last few years that were political in nature or context or had political overtones, I believed there was a good level of understanding about the basic election process of both the U.S. federal government and the British parliamentary systems on this forum, but now I am not so sure.

Sauron

So, enlighten us, Sauron! 😀

But keep in mind that we are trying to compare the two systems; not disect them! Breaking it down to it’s simplest form is not the goal- only describing it in such a way as so it can be compared to the other. Not an easy task, but I invite you to pick up where we have left off- You may be much better at it than any of us and I’d love to know where the differences and similarities in the two forms of “election process” reside!

Based on the number of threads on this forum during the last few years that were political in nature or context or had political overtones, I believed there was a good level of understanding about the basic election process of both the U.S. federal government and the British parliamentary systems on this forum, but now I am not so sure.

Sauron

See, what CB just wrote, that makes sense. If you want to get into the ins-and-outs of how to get a Presidential candidate into the Oval Office, then it starts to get confusing and goes against logic.

You are so right, SOC- I was actually trying to describe the process in detail- but I couldnt for the life of me. It just becomes so murky and convoluted… “Is it like this? Or like that?”” Wait, no- don’t think it’s that.”

Logic definetly takes a flying leap from a tall building…. :rolleyes:

Well I think Flood and The Bird already Know this!!! 😉 😉 Anna 😀 😀 :diablo:

See, what CB just wrote, that makes sense. If you want to get into the ins-and-outs of how to get a Presidential candidate into the Oval Office, then it starts to get confusing and goes against logic.

You basically have so many seats per state for congress or the senate; various people decide to run for one of these seats; gain backing from a political party or run as an independent; the people vote and bring them into office. These are our state representatives in Washington- they bring bills forth to put different things into law; congress votes and approves or puts down each individual bill; and then if it’s passed it goes to the president for his signature (he can veto it if need be). I think there are plenty of instances of people voting against their party- but I don’t know that I’ve heard to much of parties dropping them for it, though I assume they could.

When the president is elected he chooses his own cabinet members; usually on the same party line but not always. The choice does have to go through confirmation in front of congress; which is usually a sure thing…even if issues are raised during the confirmation hearing. These people do not go through an election; if the president is reelected his cabinet is as well, though they might decide to step down, etc. As Colin Powell did when bush was reelected…(good for him, by the way- trying to salvage his political career; instead of staying on and going down in flames…)

I guess our systems are similar after all- though, I think the way laws are brought into being is done differently. It’s hard to compare the systems, really- without knowing all the ins and outs of each.

two crappy systems, learn to emulate the Finns!

In the US the majority of departmental staffs change along the winning party lines as well.
In the UK this would be the equivalent of the top third of the Civil Service changing from theoretical impartiality, to the political colour of the winning party when there was a change of ruling party.

In the UK the House of Lord’s thoeretically restrains the House’s of Parliament i.e. the Govenment and the Civil Service “guide” the Ministers of State with regard as to what can (or cannot) be done, giving a sort of impartial advice service based on decades of experience for want of a better phrase.

Like or loathe the British civil service for maintaining the establishment status quo, at least they are experienced in what can and can’t be done, how to ‘play the game’…. as it where.

In the US that experience base changes with every President so it’s not so much a Sir Humphrey’s sighing and condescending “yes minister” to a “YES SIR MR SENATOR !”

Actually, Flood, it is very similar over here….a bunch of candidates from all the parties (Republican, Democrat, and independent) all debate against each other until ‘favorites’ are picked by the voters and the media, the frontrunners whose policies seem to offend the fewest/impress the most….from there the debates continue until each party has its Convention, at which time the LEADING candidate with the BEST chance of getting into office is selected by his party (IE Kerry or Bush as in this past election)…after that the two of them debate and stump all over the country trying to gain votes and friends in high places until…finally….MERCIFULLY…November comes around and the good people of the US vote for whom they wish to be President….and in January that President is sworn in, having already gone through the dossiers of his rivals and his friends and selecting who he wants to fill his cabinet…and this usually means that olive branches are extended to the losing party and a few republicans are selected to cabinet positions in a largely Democratic presidency, or vice versa…and then we have the usual olive branch also extended to Minorities over here to show the world that Blacks and Hispanics and Indians and such also have a voice in US politics….and that in a nutshell covers it…..one flaw in the system…it takes about two years from the start of the campaign to taking office in January…a VERY long process that can REALLY get on one’s nerves, especially when the Telly shows nothing but campaign ads during the last two months!!

Mark