4 ms·

There's no such thing, or it doesn't mean anything, legally speaking. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If a majority of one of the house's seats belong to peo

There's no such thing, or it doesn't mean anything, legally speaking. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If a majority of one of the house's seats belong to people who identify with party A, then they're more likely to vote with party A, but they don't have any special privileges like choosing the head of state (e.g. Prime Minister). More practically, to vote in a specific PM in a country with a normal parliamentary system, you need to vote for local representives that belong to their party, then hope that the party keeps them as the PM. Meanwhile, you end up with local representatives you may not want in the course of supporting the party. A president, in contrast, is just voted on more directly (yes, electoral college inefficiencies aside). As far as I can tell, a parliamentary system lends itself to having more parties because they can form coalitions to maintain a majority and elect a new "government" or administration. While that isn't possible in the US, it also isn't directly needed because the President is elected.

chrisseaton 8y ago
Almost none of what you're talking about means anything legally speaking in either system - it's all convention and de facto powers. MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of the house to pass legislation may be invited by the Queen to form a government. But talking practically in both systems, and especially in the current political climate, a party majority in the house and senate means everything, as we saw with Obama's inability to pass almost anything from his agenda. Also there is one curious place where the US party system is enshrined in law unlike elsewhere - for some reason your party leadership elections (primaries etc) are run by the government! And in some cases they legally allow non-party members to vote in them (open primaries.) I think that's absolutely bonkers from the UK perspective. Who the party wants to lead them as a candidate is their business alone.
- vinay427 8y ago
  > MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of the house to pass legislation may be invited by the Queen to form a government. Yes. My point stands that the PM is inherently different from a President. The President's party can have no representatives in either body and still be elected by the people. Local elections have no bearing on their election, as you're aware. > for some reason your party leadership elections (primaries etc) are run by the government The US doesn't have party leadership elections, which is kind of my point. The primaries are for an elected position, not a party leader. My ideal is a California or France-style runoff. Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be?
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    I think one benefit of electing a set of representatives who then elect a leader amongst themselves or with party members is that they should be able to get along together to get things done. If you elect a set of representatives who want one thing, a higher house of representatives who want another, and a premier who wants something else, nothing gets done. > Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be? People's final choices are whoever applies to be on the ballot and meets the requirements such as signatures in support. If a group of people (a political party) choose to get behind one candidate, and other candidates in the party agree not to run after that choice, then that's the parties' business - the government shouldn't be involved in running that vote and shouldn't force the party to accept non-members in that decision.

chrisseaton 8y ago

Almost none of what you're talking about means anything legally speaking in either system - it's all convention and de facto powers. MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of the house to pass legislation may be invited by the Queen to form a government. But talking practically in both systems, and especially in the current political climate, a party majority in the house and senate means everything, as we saw with Obama's inability to pass almost anything from his agenda. Also there is one curious place where the US party system is enshrined in law unlike elsewhere - for some reason your party leadership elections (primaries etc) are run by the government! And in some cases they legally allow non-party members to vote in them (open primaries.) I think that's absolutely bonkers from the UK perspective. Who the party wants to lead them as a candidate is their business alone.

vinay427 8y ago
> MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of the house to pass legislation may be invited by the Queen to form a government. Yes. My point stands that the PM is inherently different from a President. The President's party can have no representatives in either body and still be elected by the people. Local elections have no bearing on their election, as you're aware. > for some reason your party leadership elections (primaries etc) are run by the government The US doesn't have party leadership elections, which is kind of my point. The primaries are for an elected position, not a party leader. My ideal is a California or France-style runoff. Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be?
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  I think one benefit of electing a set of representatives who then elect a leader amongst themselves or with party members is that they should be able to get along together to get things done. If you elect a set of representatives who want one thing, a higher house of representatives who want another, and a premier who wants something else, nothing gets done. > Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be? People's final choices are whoever applies to be on the ballot and meets the requirements such as signatures in support. If a group of people (a political party) choose to get behind one candidate, and other candidates in the party agree not to run after that choice, then that's the parties' business - the government shouldn't be involved in running that vote and shouldn't force the party to accept non-members in that decision.