3 ms·

The thing that my wife finds most confusing (she is from the USA), we don't elect(directly) our Prime Minister. We elect the party, and the party chooses the l

The thing that my wife finds most confusing (she is from the USA), we don't elect(directly) our Prime Minister. We elect the party, and the party chooses the leader. 'Vote of no Confidence' is also a fun thing to look up. The person with the most power in the country is the Governor General. (appointed not elected)

yieldcrv 4y ago
Commonwealth countries aside, every country with a constitution newer than 1790 looked at the US system and said "mmmmmm patch this, patch that, let's not do that"
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  Including the USA...
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    those amendments are not nearly enough and pending and possible amendments lack consensus, as the consensus mechanisms are flawed
- nickff 4y ago
  There are plenty of countries with constitutions that also have presidents. Phillipines and South Korea each have both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#As_a_global_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#As_a_globa...
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    The presence of a President has nothing to do with its similarity to the US system or any other country's Prime Minister. Whether in title or as head of state. There are many more nuances. What choices does that title or office have when presented with a bill from the legislative body? Pass or veto? All or nothing? Can they have it immediately reviewed by the constitutional court or does it require passage and subsequent enforcement against a citizen who needs resources and luck for the constitutional court to look at it while being masqueraded as an adequate check and balance? Is the constitutional court simultaneously an appellate court? Should it be? All important differences that most constitutions have iterated upon and evolved on.
nickff 4y ago
>"The person with the most power in the country is the Governor General. (appointed not elected) " I believe that the sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II is the one with the most power, and that the Governor General represents her majesty, and acts on Her behalf. This has been a matter of some contention, with a previous Governor General making a big fuss about protocols.
- fatbird 4y ago
  Just to be clear: Elizabeth is (to us) Queen of Canada, and other (lesser) possessions where she also holds titles :) Since the patriation of our constitution in 1982, the PM’s office has been the central power officially, deriving the office’s power from our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Queen and her apparatus are figureheads without real power.
  - nickff 4y ago
    From Wikipedia (which seems to be concise and accurate): "executive authority remains vested in the Crown and is only entrusted by the sovereign to the government on behalf of the people."
    - PeterWhittaker 4y ago
      Well, yes and no: it would be an extraordinary event indeed were the crown or its representative, the GG, to defy the “advice” of the government. For example, the last time that happened ([1]), the laws of ALL commonwealth countries were effectively changed to grant them greater autonomy and sovereignty through the Balfour Declaration and The Statutes of Westminster, which more clearly articulated that the government’s “advice” to the Crown is to be acted upon, not merely taken into consideration. Were the GG or The Crown to attempt to wield executive power contrary to or outside that advice, the result would in all likelihood be an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, which would, in all likelihood, side with the government, and not with the GG/Crown. As it is, having executive power rest with the GG/Crown means that there is continuity in executive power, even during elections (the current PM and other ministers remain in their posts until they resign; they resign just before their replacements are sworn in). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Byng_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Byng_affair
buildbot 4y ago
Effectively, the USA does not either. Parties are free to choose who to run any way they want if I recall correctly, and then when it comes down to voting, you are really only directing the electoral college who to pick. It's sorta halfway.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
NikolaNovak 4y ago
I feel that is strictly true, but not necessarily practically true. It is exactly in the same vein that the Queen Elizabeth may hold the most power (over Canada as well, in fact), but things have to go sideways 7 ways to Sunday for that to be relevant, and my feeling is it's largely a one-shot gun: if they were to exercise their vested power in a relevant way, it'd likely be the last time they got the opportunity.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Commonwealth countries aside, every country with a constitution newer than 1790 looked at the US system and said "mmmmmm patch this, patch that, let's not do that"

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
Including the USA...
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  those amendments are not nearly enough and pending and possible amendments lack consensus, as the consensus mechanisms are flawed
nickff 4y ago
There are plenty of countries with constitutions that also have presidents. Phillipines and South Korea each have both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#As_a_global_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system#As_a_globa...
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  The presence of a President has nothing to do with its similarity to the US system or any other country's Prime Minister. Whether in title or as head of state. There are many more nuances. What choices does that title or office have when presented with a bill from the legislative body? Pass or veto? All or nothing? Can they have it immediately reviewed by the constitutional court or does it require passage and subsequent enforcement against a citizen who needs resources and luck for the constitutional court to look at it while being masqueraded as an adequate check and balance? Is the constitutional court simultaneously an appellate court? Should it be? All important differences that most constitutions have iterated upon and evolved on.

nickff 4y ago

>"The person with the most power in the country is the Governor General. (appointed not elected) " I believe that the sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II is the one with the most power, and that the Governor General represents her majesty, and acts on Her behalf. This has been a matter of some contention, with a previous Governor General making a big fuss about protocols.

fatbird 4y ago
Just to be clear: Elizabeth is (to us) Queen of Canada, and other (lesser) possessions where she also holds titles :) Since the patriation of our constitution in 1982, the PM’s office has been the central power officially, deriving the office’s power from our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Queen and her apparatus are figureheads without real power.
- nickff 4y ago
  From Wikipedia (which seems to be concise and accurate): "executive authority remains vested in the Crown and is only entrusted by the sovereign to the government on behalf of the people."
  - PeterWhittaker 4y ago
    Well, yes and no: it would be an extraordinary event indeed were the crown or its representative, the GG, to defy the “advice” of the government. For example, the last time that happened ([1]), the laws of ALL commonwealth countries were effectively changed to grant them greater autonomy and sovereignty through the Balfour Declaration and The Statutes of Westminster, which more clearly articulated that the government’s “advice” to the Crown is to be acted upon, not merely taken into consideration. Were the GG or The Crown to attempt to wield executive power contrary to or outside that advice, the result would in all likelihood be an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, which would, in all likelihood, side with the government, and not with the GG/Crown. As it is, having executive power rest with the GG/Crown means that there is continuity in executive power, even during elections (the current PM and other ministers remain in their posts until they resign; they resign just before their replacements are sworn in). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Byng_affair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King–Byng_affair

buildbot 4y ago

Effectively, the USA does not either. Parties are free to choose who to run any way they want if I recall correctly, and then when it comes down to voting, you are really only directing the electoral college who to pick. It's sorta halfway.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

NikolaNovak 4y ago

I feel that is strictly true, but not necessarily practically true. It is exactly in the same vein that the Queen Elizabeth may hold the most power (over Canada as well, in fact), but things have to go sideways 7 ways to Sunday for that to be relevant, and my feeling is it's largely a one-shot gun: if they were to exercise their vested power in a relevant way, it'd likely be the last time they got the opportunity.