5 ms·

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or

I honestly don't understand why countries require a head of state, or even two houses. This just seems to be an historical artefact. A head of state being, or being analogous to, a king or queen, and a lower and upper house being analogous to representation of the nobility and the commoners. If someone would care to explain to me, I'd be happy to listen.

PostOnce 5y ago
Sometimes, you need some one to make a decision, and not have a really life-or-death, time-sensitive decision in the hands of a vacillating committee that fails to act until it is too late.
- MarcScott 5y ago
  But in the UK we seem to have no issue with that. The Queen rubber stamps everything, and our upper house can be easily overruled. We've had no problems implementing emergency legislation during the pandemic, or past wars. So I just don't see the point of anything above and beyond a simple parliamentary democracy.
  - stordoff 5y ago
    In principle, the UK's upper House acts as a house of scrutiny, both in that members can be appointed for having expertise in a particular area and because, as life appointees, they are not beholden to fickle political whims. The Parliament Acts allow it to be overruled, but not immediately - this generally forces a compromise between the two Houses. This recognises the democratic superiority of the Commons, whilst still giving the Lords opportunity for meaningful review and scrutiny. How well this works in practice is a matter of endless debate.
shasheene 5y ago
Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population. This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York. This arguably undemocratic over-representation gives the smaller states much more power in certain areas, but this is by design. It provides incentive to keep large rural states part of a single nation. Compromises like that makes a country as a whole stronger. Another interesting aspect is US Senate terms are long (6 years), with a third of members up for reelection happening every TWO years. Compared to the House of Representatives which has 4 year terms, and half up for reelection every 2 years. The net effect is it requires several election cycles to have a big impact on the passage of laws. This contributes to stability.
- techsupporter 5y ago
  > Compared to the House of Representatives which has 4 year terms, and half up for reelection every 2 years. BTW, terms for Representatives are two years; the entire House stands for election every even-numbered year.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  unfortunately such situations often degenerate into a tyranny of the minority, the UK house of lords as a mechanism for the aristocracy to keep holding power with a veneer of democracy is a good example, which is why it has steadily lost political legitimacy through time. I don't think there is good evidence that the senate has in fact made the USA stronger as a nation, the only thing I have ever seen on the topic is how it theoretically might be the case, but history has shown it to long be a blocker of reforms that end up happening anyways, with a great deal more political bullshit than necessary.
  - shasheene 5y ago
    I'd argue Joe Manchin (Democratic Senator of West Virginia) has single-handedly changed an eye-watering $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill into what appears to be a slightly less eye-watering $1.5 trillion package. The lower number (and thus lower taxes) makes it much more acceptable to a broader fraction of US society. Assuming the bill passes, it's an example of compromise working (but within negotiations of a single party). The key thing is if one party wants to be able to pass the larger number without that pivotal vote, they need to appeal to a greater fraction of society and win more seats so they don't require that particular vote.
    - _ph_ 5y ago
      Well, that first of all depends on whetehr the budget cut is a good thing for the US and the world. From what I understand, this package is about fighting the climate change and investing into infrastructure and economy. Yes, government spending always bears the risk of taxes, but the idea behind government spending is to get neccessary things done. As an outsider, it is not obvious to me, that this resistance was a good thing. Neither for the US nor the world, as we are facing an existential crisis. Also, as the sums are spent over many years, the numbers appear higher than they might be. Like people calculating how much money it costs to replace every single car in a country with an electric car. That numer is eye-watering too. What often isn't told, is that this amount of money is spent on new cars in the same time frame anyway. Choosing an electric instead of a combustion engine car the next time you buy a new car has actually little extra cost. And you should sum up just the military budget in the same time frame :)
myrion 5y ago
Having two houses of parliament can be used to balance out regional representation with population-based representation. That way, population centers don't completely overshadow more rural areas. That can be overdone, like in the US, where rural areas can completely overshadow the population centers but the idea isn't terrible.
- MarcScott 5y ago
  I live in an rural area where we elect a single MP, with a population of around 90,000. There are London districts with populations 3 times that number, that also elect a single MP. So maybe you are right, and in the UK we often get rural areas over represented vs metropolitan centres. An obvious explanation for why Brexit occurred. However, our second house is basically useless. I've had no say in their placement, and I rarely hear about them in the news unless the issue is about murdering foxes.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > That way, population centers don't completely overshadow more rural areas. So ((one person) ≠ (one vote))? Why should people in rural areas get more representation than non-rural areas?
afarrell 5y ago
The head of state, (as opposed to a head of government) acts as a symbolic center for belief in the “civic religion” of a country. Having them be separate allows for a sense of continuity, stability, and security —- that the entire world is not about to collapse into corruption and chaos —- to be maintained whilst the head of government can change in response to more rational needs for changes in policy.
hvusslax 5y ago
It is simply an historical artifact and by no means a constitutional necessity. Sweden is an interesting case, a constitutional monarchy in theory but where the monarch has been explicitly stripped of all powers, whereas many other European monarchies maintain a legal fiction of constitutional relevance for their royal families. Sweden could abolish the monarchy completely today and it would not affect anything about how the country runs. They also have a unicameral parliament. Switzerland also doesn't have a traditional head of state, that role is held collectively by a seven-member council.

PostOnce 5y ago

Sometimes, you need some one to make a decision, and not have a really life-or-death, time-sensitive decision in the hands of a vacillating committee that fails to act until it is too late.

MarcScott 5y ago
But in the UK we seem to have no issue with that. The Queen rubber stamps everything, and our upper house can be easily overruled. We've had no problems implementing emergency legislation during the pandemic, or past wars. So I just don't see the point of anything above and beyond a simple parliamentary democracy.
- stordoff 5y ago
  In principle, the UK's upper House acts as a house of scrutiny, both in that members can be appointed for having expertise in a particular area and because, as life appointees, they are not beholden to fickle political whims. The Parliament Acts allow it to be overruled, but not immediately - this generally forces a compromise between the two Houses. This recognises the democratic superiority of the Commons, whilst still giving the Lords opportunity for meaningful review and scrutiny. How well this works in practice is a matter of endless debate.

shasheene 5y ago

Two houses helps prevent tyranny of the majority. Consider the United States. Each state gets 2 senators no matter what, but the proportion of House of Representatives seats each state gets is calculated based on the state's population. This quirk means that even small states like Wyoming have equal Senate representation as the populous states like California, Texas or New York. This arguably undemocratic over-representation gives the smaller states much more power in certain areas, but this is by design. It provides incentive to keep large rural states part of a single nation. Compromises like that makes a country as a whole stronger. Another interesting aspect is US Senate terms are long (6 years), with a third of members up for reelection happening every TWO years. Compared to the House of Representatives which has 4 year terms, and half up for reelection every 2 years. The net effect is it requires several election cycles to have a big impact on the passage of laws. This contributes to stability.

techsupporter 5y ago
> Compared to the House of Representatives which has 4 year terms, and half up for reelection every 2 years. BTW, terms for Representatives are two years; the entire House stands for election every even-numbered year.
throwaway2048 5y ago
unfortunately such situations often degenerate into a tyranny of the minority, the UK house of lords as a mechanism for the aristocracy to keep holding power with a veneer of democracy is a good example, which is why it has steadily lost political legitimacy through time. I don't think there is good evidence that the senate has in fact made the USA stronger as a nation, the only thing I have ever seen on the topic is how it theoretically might be the case, but history has shown it to long be a blocker of reforms that end up happening anyways, with a great deal more political bullshit than necessary.
- shasheene 5y ago
  I'd argue Joe Manchin (Democratic Senator of West Virginia) has single-handedly changed an eye-watering $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill into what appears to be a slightly less eye-watering $1.5 trillion package. The lower number (and thus lower taxes) makes it much more acceptable to a broader fraction of US society. Assuming the bill passes, it's an example of compromise working (but within negotiations of a single party). The key thing is if one party wants to be able to pass the larger number without that pivotal vote, they need to appeal to a greater fraction of society and win more seats so they don't require that particular vote.
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    Well, that first of all depends on whetehr the budget cut is a good thing for the US and the world. From what I understand, this package is about fighting the climate change and investing into infrastructure and economy. Yes, government spending always bears the risk of taxes, but the idea behind government spending is to get neccessary things done. As an outsider, it is not obvious to me, that this resistance was a good thing. Neither for the US nor the world, as we are facing an existential crisis. Also, as the sums are spent over many years, the numbers appear higher than they might be. Like people calculating how much money it costs to replace every single car in a country with an electric car. That numer is eye-watering too. What often isn't told, is that this amount of money is spent on new cars in the same time frame anyway. Choosing an electric instead of a combustion engine car the next time you buy a new car has actually little extra cost. And you should sum up just the military budget in the same time frame :)

myrion 5y ago

Having two houses of parliament can be used to balance out regional representation with population-based representation. That way, population centers don't completely overshadow more rural areas. That can be overdone, like in the US, where rural areas can completely overshadow the population centers but the idea isn't terrible.

MarcScott 5y ago
I live in an rural area where we elect a single MP, with a population of around 90,000. There are London districts with populations 3 times that number, that also elect a single MP. So maybe you are right, and in the UK we often get rural areas over represented vs metropolitan centres. An obvious explanation for why Brexit occurred. However, our second house is basically useless. I've had no say in their placement, and I rarely hear about them in the news unless the issue is about murdering foxes.
throw0101a 5y ago
> That way, population centers don't completely overshadow more rural areas. So ((one person) ≠ (one vote))? Why should people in rural areas get more representation than non-rural areas?

afarrell 5y ago

The head of state, (as opposed to a head of government) acts as a symbolic center for belief in the “civic religion” of a country. Having them be separate allows for a sense of continuity, stability, and security —- that the entire world is not about to collapse into corruption and chaos —- to be maintained whilst the head of government can change in response to more rational needs for changes in policy.

hvusslax 5y ago

It is simply an historical artifact and by no means a constitutional necessity. Sweden is an interesting case, a constitutional monarchy in theory but where the monarch has been explicitly stripped of all powers, whereas many other European monarchies maintain a legal fiction of constitutional relevance for their royal families. Sweden could abolish the monarchy completely today and it would not affect anything about how the country runs. They also have a unicameral parliament. Switzerland also doesn't have a traditional head of state, that role is held collectively by a seven-member council.