Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #1

    Sep 4, 2007, 09:44 AM
    British vs. American Democracy
    British Democracy does not have the distinct separation of powers as American Founders of its Constitution thought imperative. The Prime Minister’s power is derived solely from the Party that placed him in office, where the President does not have to follow Party Policy. Given that Party Policy is not necessarily representative of minorities, but rather the Majority I find that American Democracy is more protective of minorities.

    What is your take on this?
    JohnSnownw's Avatar
    JohnSnownw Posts: 322, Reputation: 51
    Full Member
     
    #2

    Sep 4, 2007, 10:16 AM
    I highly doubt you could say that American democracy is representative of minorities. It is set up so that what you are saying is more likely. However, I believe recent legislation has proven that not to be the case. Remember though, it is the people who choose representatives, at least in the House of Commons, so it follows that the representatives should choose someone with the same political leanings.

    Also, until the Electoral College is eliminated, the president isn't truly elected by the majority.
    Choux's Avatar
    Choux Posts: 3,047, Reputation: 376
    Ultra Member
     
    #3

    Sep 4, 2007, 10:19 AM
    I think the problem minorities have in Britain is not legal, but rather cultural. England is a far older country than America, it has a long, long history of a homogeneous population united together. There is a tendency toward "ghetto-ization" though not as severe as Australia. I saw a British television show which used the word Paki for people from Pakistan. To me, that's like saying Jap for Japanese. A slur. And on a popular TV show!

    From what I know, England has in place progressive and fair laws concerning minorities.

    One of the problems with your idea is that it takes a huge amount of money in America to win federal elective office... that fact is anti-minority, in a sense.
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Sep 4, 2007, 01:01 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Choux
    I think the problem minorities have in Britain is not legal, but rather cultural. England is a far older country than America, it has a long, long history of a homogeneous population united together. There is a tendency toward "ghetto-ization" though not as severe as Australia. I saw a British television show which used the word Paki for people from Pakistan. To me, that's like saying Jap for Japanese. A slur. And on a popular TV show!

    From what I know, England has in place progressive and fair laws concerning minorities.

    One of the problems with your idea is that it takes a huge amount of money in America to win federal elective office....that fact is anti-minority, in a sense.
    What is done illegally [culturally] is like "cracked corn"- and has nothing to do with a distinct separation of powers. In fact the break from Britain was about minority representation. How would you like to have a “House of Lords” with lifetime tenure rather than an elected Senate?
    Curlyben's Avatar
    Curlyben Posts: 18,514, Reputation: 1860
    BossMan
     
    #5

    Sep 4, 2007, 01:25 PM
    Dark Crow, the House of Lords has changed greatly over the last five years and is no longer a "born to"/hereditary position.
    There is a small number of hereditary peers, but the bulk are now elected and "promoted" from the house of commons.

    Now as a Brit I have great difficulty understanding the workings of the American College system, and from recent results so do the American public.

    The "fairest" system currently in use is proportional representation, as used in the European elections, rather than the more usual "first past the post" system. Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Sep 4, 2007, 02:12 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlyben
    Dark Crow, the House of Lords has changed greatly over the last five years and is no longer a "born to"/hereditary position.
    There is a small number of hereditary peers, but the bulk are now elected and "promoted" from the house of commons.

    Now as a Brit I have great difficulty understanding the workings of the American College system, and from recent results so do the American public.

    The "fairest" system currently in use is proportional representation, as used in the European elections, rather than the more usual "first past the post" system. Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In our electoral college system the Presidential election is decided by the combined results of 51 State elections as opposed to nationwide popular vote.

    We will probably argue the pros and cons of this system from here on out, but I favor it as it forces a widespread popular support across the country as opposed to a candidate being able to win by focusing on population centers. It allows South Dakota, Nevada and Rhode Island to remain relevant. A candidate can't just win New York, California and Florida, he/she may need those 3 votes from Alaska, too. I know if I lived in Alaska I would hate for the president to be elected by people in a few states every 4 years, and thankfully our constitution requires a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states to change it.
    JohnSnownw's Avatar
    JohnSnownw Posts: 322, Reputation: 51
    Full Member
     
    #7

    Sep 4, 2007, 02:17 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    In our electoral college system the Presidential election is decided by the combined results of 51 State elections as opposed to nationwide popular vote.

    We will probably argue the pros and cons of this system from here on out, but I favor it as it forces a widespread popular support across the country as opposed to a candidate being able to win by focusing on population centers. It allows South Dakota, Nevada and Rhode Island to remain relevant. A candidate can't just win New York, California and Florida, he/she may need those 3 votes from Alaska, too. I know if I lived in Alaska I would hate for the president to be elected by people in a few states every 4 years, and thankfully our constitution requires a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states to change it.

    If the electoral college was forced to vote with the majority, I would agree with you. As it stands now, they could simply cast the vote as they wish. Obviously, there are reasons they would not do that, but it is an option nonetheless.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Sep 4, 2007, 02:38 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnSnownw
    If the electoral college was forced to vote with the majority, I would agree with you. As it stands now, they could simply cast the vote as they wish. Obviously, there are reasons they would not do that, but it is an option nonetheless.
    That's up to the states to decide. Most states do require electors to vote with the majority in that state.

    There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes.

    Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes.
    Additionally, Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged. It seems to work fine to me.

    .
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Sep 4, 2007, 02:49 PM
    It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
    Federalist 68

    The founders wanted a buffer between the electorate and the President. The College was also a compromise to make the franchise of the small state relevant .

    The one thing that is not specified in the Constitution is the winner take all method most states employ . It appears there is a movement in some states like California to make the elector selection proportional . I do not know if that will gain traction or if it is desirable . But it would be consistent with our method of the States running the elections... a method I continue to support regardless of the election outcome.

    What was never intended was for the courts to decide elections . That was an abomination in 2000 and I blame both parties for dragging the courts into the process.


    All this of course does not address the question DC asked . I defer opinion because I am not familiar enough with the British system . I expect that they are more advanced in their nanny state but as I suspect that doesn't translate into results. The poor generally fare pretty well in the USA .
    Skell's Avatar
    Skell Posts: 1,863, Reputation: 514
    Ultra Member
     
    #10

    Sep 4, 2007, 04:15 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Choux
    There is a tendency toward "ghetto-ization" though not as severe as Australia.
    Care to explain this statement a little further please Choux? I'm interested.
    Skell's Avatar
    Skell Posts: 1,863, Reputation: 514
    Ultra Member
     
    #11

    Sep 4, 2007, 04:22 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    We will probably argue the pros and cons of this system from here on out, but I favor it as it forces a widespread popular support across the country as opposed to a candidate being able to win by focusing on population centers.
    Widespread popular support amongst those who vote don't you mean? Which at the last election was down to around 50% if I'm right. Not exactly widespread across the population is it??
    Dark_crow's Avatar
    Dark_crow Posts: 1,405, Reputation: 196
    Ultra Member
     
    #12

    Sep 4, 2007, 05:00 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Skell
    Widespread popular vote amongst those who vote don't you mean. Which at the last election was down to around 50% if i'm right. Not exactly widespread across the population is it????
    I for one did not mistake “Widespread popular vote” to mean those not voting; that would be a introducing a “Red Herring.”
    BABRAM's Avatar
    BABRAM Posts: 561, Reputation: 145
    Senior Member
     
    #13

    Sep 4, 2007, 07:00 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Curlyben
    Now as a Brit I have great difficulty understanding the workings of the American College system, and from recent results so do the American public.

    The "fairest" system currently in use is proportional representation, as used in the European elections, rather than the more usual "first past the post" system. Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Hi Curly-

    To understand the dilapidated system we use here in the states is to consider inequality as a whole. Every four years the forgotten populace is reduced to a preset number of elected representatives. In the U.S. one's vote actually is not the equivalent of one vote. We are a young stubborn nation that is overdue for changes.



    Bobby
    Choux's Avatar
    Choux Posts: 3,047, Reputation: 376
    Ultra Member
     
    #14

    Sep 4, 2007, 08:29 PM
    Skell, I have read that poor minorities, such as Pakistanis and Muslims, are not well integrated into the general population, but rather, that there is a tendency for them to live in their own neighborhoods, hence ghettoized. The situation is more severe in Australia with the Muslim immigrants.

    The riots in France a couple of years ago were directly blamed on Muslims being ghettoized and that fed their anger.

    It is more healthy for a society to have various populations integrated. It is more so like that in America a country used to severe racial and ethnic injustice in the past, but doing quite well in our urban areas(don't know about rural areas).
    Choux's Avatar
    Choux Posts: 3,047, Reputation: 376
    Ultra Member
     
    #15

    Sep 4, 2007, 08:38 PM
    On problem holding America back is that the states each have 2 senators... states like Idaho, Wyoming and Rhode Island, and others like North and South Dakota each have two senators and they represent less than a million people each, I think, anyway, very few people. Terrible!

    I live in an area with 8-9 million people and that doesn't include the rest of my state!

    California is a giant of a state, hugely important to the American economy as are other states that have large urban areas.

    These sparsely populated states are really not worth anything much as far as the health of our country is concerned. For example, as far as Homeland Security funds are concerned, these states got huge grants while super targets such as (NewYork City) NewYork state had a paultry sum considering the potential need!

    This problem with the Senate is the major problem why America will go down the tubes for not being able to prepare for the future against serious competetion from China and Europe.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #16

    Sep 5, 2007, 02:32 AM
    The Senate was a result of compromise during the Constitutional Convention . It is popularly called the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise

    Connecticut Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The House of Representatives was intended to be the people's house if you will. The Senate was supposed to represent the States ;appointed through their respective legislatures ,and the States were to have equal representation. It worked fine as designed .

    Since the 17th Amendment changed the selection of the Senators to popular vote it has not functioned as well in my view. The image of the Senate being the sober deliberative body is a reflection of the Senate as it was prior to 1914. Generally today it is a house of pompous idiots who get reelected over and over again. It is amazing to me that in this election cycle so many Senators are getting serious consideration as President . I think it is to the credit of the country that so few have been elected to the Presidency before .
    iAMfromHuntersBar's Avatar
    iAMfromHuntersBar Posts: 943, Reputation: 146
    Senior Member
     
    #17

    Sep 5, 2007, 03:20 AM
    I think that British Parliament is fairly well representative of minorities, in that any member of a constituancy can ask their Member of Parliament to raise a question in the House of Commons, thus directly going to the government.

    Also, I've always thought that our Prime Minister has to have a majority vote from the whole House to pass any action, even against party policy (such as the wars on Iraq / Afghanistan / Terror)?

    Can someone explain how US Government is more representative of minorities please, I'm not up to speed on the American way of going about it!
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #18

    Sep 5, 2007, 06:45 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark_crow
    British Democracy does not have the distinct separation of powers as American Founders of its Constitution thought imperative. The Prime Minister's power is derived solely from the Party that placed him in office, where the President does not have to follow Party Policy. Given that Party Policy is not necessarily representative of minorities, but rather the Majority I find that American Democracy is more protective of minorities.

    What is your take on this?
    There is a certain truth to your statement. The system we have in place allows for greater minority representation than the British system. But I question whether you are correct that there is no sepparation of powers in the British system. The House of Lords and the House of Commons clearly have different duties and responsibilities, and one House may not infringe upon the rights of the other.

    The British system has an advantage over ours: it is set up so that half of the government is elected to office, taking away the power of the aristocrats to control the entire government, while the other half is born into power, which means they don't have to pander for votes and can vote their conscience. The American system doesn't have that protection, and the result is that many politicians break campaign promises, vote for a popular (but not necessarily good) piece of legislation, make popular statements, etc. in order to retain power for the next election. In the UK system, half of the government doesn't have that problem. Which means that at least half of the government can stick to their guns on an issue without having to worry about what's popular. That's an important protection that we lack.

    The electoral system of the USA, and Senate Representation have been bought into question in this string.

    In defense of the Senatoral representation system of 2 senators per state, I would ask why a small state should have less of a say in legislation that will affect that state than a large state? What makes the size of a state a determinant of representation? Why should California have more of a say on interstate trade issues than Iowa? Doesn't such legislation affect both states equally? THAT is the reason that every state, regardless of size, was granted TWO SENATE SEATS to represent that state. At the same time, the Founding Fathers also understood popular voting as well. So they created a second house, the House of Representatives, which has representation based on state population. In essence, the Senate can be seen as the body that represents the States, while the House of Representatives can be seen as the body that represents the PEOPLE. All states are equal, so they all have equal representation in the Senate. But some state populations are larger than others, so those populations receive representation in the House of Representawtives based on population level.

    Now... as far as the electoral college system is concerned, we do not live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic. We don't vote for President, we vote for the representatives that vote for President. The Founding Fathers understood that if we allowed a popular vote for president, the result would be that urban dwellers would vote against the interests of suburban and rural dwellers over and over again, and win every time. They wanted urban, suburban and rural dwellers to be equally represented in the voting sysem. The electoral college system was designed for that specific purpose. "Majorities" are not always right, and do not always have EVERYONE'S best interests at heart. The Founders understood that, and created a system that equalizes everyone's representation in the vote for president. The electoral college takes state populations into consideration by giving larger numbers of electors to the more populous states. But the system still allows the smaller states to have a say in the matter in a level that is equal to their population. I'd say that the system works as a great equalizer. I also think that changing the system would be a bad idea.

    Elliot
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #19

    Sep 5, 2007, 06:48 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    No there is not 51 states. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia are actually choosing Electors from their state when they vote for President and Vice President.
    We both know there aren't 51 states, but what I said was a quote from the National Archives and Records Administration, the administrator of the Electoral College. Sorry, I was not quite as thorough as I usually am. Here is the quote in context with the link to the FAQ:

    Is my vote for President and Vice President meaningful in the Electoral College system?

    Yes, within your State your vote has a great deal of significance. Under the Electoral College system, we do not elect the President and Vice President through a direct nation-wide vote. The Presidential election is decided by the combined results of 51 State elections (in this context, the term "State" includes DC). It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes.

    The founders of the nation devised the Electoral College system as part of their plan to share power between the States and the national government. Under the Federal system adopted in the U.S. Constitution, the nation-wide popular vote has no legal significance. As a result, it is possible that the electoral votes awarded on the basis of State elections could produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote. Nevertheless, the individual citizen's vote is important to the outcome of each State election.
    Yes, we are choosing electors, electors pledged to vote for who we've chosen as a state. The system works just as intended in my opinion, and as a federation of states I believe the electoral college system is brilliant. As tom said, "The electoral college forces them to hold their noses and visit red states like Utah . The founders were smart dudes."

    But on the other hand, tom is a Giants fan... :D
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #20

    Sep 5, 2007, 07:14 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Skell
    Widespread popular support amongst those who vote don't you mean? Which at the last election was down to around 50% if i'm right. Not exactly widespread across the population is it????
    Now Skell, if people don't vote that's their problem.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Republic or democracy [ 2 Answers ]

Are we a Republic or Democracy, I seems are should be a Republic, as stated in the Pledge of Allegiance. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Does anyone...


View more questions Search