British vs. American Democracy

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.

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?

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.

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.

Additionally, Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged. It seems to work fine to me.

.

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 .

Care to explain this statement a little further please Choux? I'm interested.