Compare and Contrast the UK and US forms of government.

[Claydon]

Lets discuss all aspects of both forms of government. How are they similar, how are they different? Which do you prefer and why? What would you change about said systems.

[Morfin]

Ours (US) is good; theirs (UK) is bad. Nuff said. Close this thread. Everyone cheer and sneer at Arch, fuld, and Axel.

[Pax Britannia]

One thing both our systems do is produce strong governments.

However the whole congress, senate thing does seem to just undermine an administrations attempts to do what it wants.

[Morfin]

I like being able to choose my leader, as opposed to having to vote for a local MP and then have that party choose whomever they want. For instance, I am going to vote for Obama, but vote for a Republican congressperson.

Also, I like having set periods for elections, as opposed to the ruling party being able to call an election whenever they want to or are forced to.

[Pax Britannia]

I like being able to choose my leader, as opposed to having to vote for a local MP and then have that party choose whomever they want. For instance, I am going to vote for Obama, but vote for a Republican congressperson.

Also, I like having set periods for elections, as opposed to the ruling party being able to call an election whenever they want to or are forced to.

I think the first point you make is good. I'd like to vote for the PM and not just my local MP. However it all works out the same in the end because you basically vote for the party you support and by proxy whoever is standing in your area. Elections arent won by MP's, their won by party leaders.

As for calling an election thats done every 4 years. Technically the term for a government is 5 years but we call one every 4 for some reason. I like the fact the government can call an election at any time, it provides flexibility. Obviously they need a good reason to do so.

[Morfin]

I had Canada in mind, which has had something like 230 elections in the past five years. (I exaggerate, though not by much.)

[Stax]

The true executive in the British system, the Prime Minister, is essentially just the leader of the majority in the legislature right? As evidenced by the US people are perfectly happy to, at times, make different legislative and executive decisions. States routinely elect Congressional delegations from one district but vote presidentially another. Wilson, Eisenhower, Reagan, all perfectly good (or is Reagan's case often considered truly great) presidents elected with a different majority in the legislature. The executive and legislative are not the same, you should not be forced to 'elect' an executive THROUGH your legislative vote.

Also, and this is the aspect of the British system I'm unclear on, isn't the system somewhat party-based proportional representation? In other words, when you go to a voting booth in Aberavon (just to pick the first area listed on the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPs_elected_in_the_UK_general_election,_2005)) do you vote "Labour" or "Hywel Francis"? If you vote for the party (and then the party doles out the seats it wins) I've never liked that system as no matter how ideologically aligned you don't really know WHO you are electing.

[Pax Britannia]

I had Canada in mind, which has had something like 230 elections in the past five years. (I exaggerate, though not by much.)

Well I cant speak for them. In Britain we havent had any erratic elections since the 70's.

[Stax]

One thing both our systems do is produce strong governments.

However the whole congress, senate thing does seem to just undermine an administrations attempts to do what it wants.

That's the purpose of the system, as explained in Federalist #10 and #51. The slower and more difficult the change is the more unlikely the system is to collapse.

[Morfin]

This is a slight digression, but does the UK have rules regarding when campaigning can begin, unlike our presidential election that has been going on for two years?

[Pax Britannia]

That's the purpose of the system, as explained in Federalist #10 and #51. The slower and more difficult the change is the more unlikely the system is to collapse.

Theoretically. It's deffinetly not a bad system, i just think its overly cumbersome.

Our systems been going longer than your country has even existed and hasnt collapsed yet.

[Mustard]

http://i33.tinypic.com/2sb4yug.jpg

[Pax Britannia]

This is a slight digression, but does the UK have rules regarding when campaigning can begin, unlike our presidential election that has been going on for two years?

Not really. We dont have the epic campaign adverts that you guys have. Each party gets a time slot called a "party political broadcast" so all three parties have the same coverage (theoretically).

Most indirect campaigning is done on the news and through politics programmes.

[Morfin]

Funny wigs. FTW

[Pax Britannia]

I want a wig like that some day.

[Stax]

Theoretically. It's deffinetly not a bad system, i just think its overly cumbersome.

Our systems been going longer than your country has even existed and hasnt collapsed yet.

Right but for 700+ years of that history it was a bunch of pretty conservative wealthy guys who, while maybe not a one-party system, likely had pretty similar interests.

[Pax Britannia]

Right but for 700+ years of that history it was a bunch of pretty conservative wealthy guys who, while maybe not a one-party system, likely had pretty similar interests.

Ahhh yes. The golden age.

[Axel]

About the topic: they both suck, move on

http://i33.tinypic.com/2sb4yug.jpgUmmm excusez mon anglais, but I cun't rememba' ze name for ze men wearing wigs?

Les faques?

[Mustard]

I have no idea what you just said?

[Stax]

I'll translate:

I'M A FAGGOT I LIKE MEN ESPECIALLY WHEN THEIR PREFERABLY LARGE MANMEAT IS SQUEEZED BETWEEN MY CHEEKS (EITHER SET)

[Mustard]

I'm pretty sure that isn't right.

[Axel]

Stax had to make a statement, even if disguised in a failed attempt of wittiness.

[Stax]

Stax had to make a statement, even if disguised in a failed attempt of wittiness.

<3