US Political System Vs. British Parlimentary System

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Do they really move about a bit? I know that they are changed based on population but I never really thought of that as common.

I think you are right Wildy. I remember when Bob Hawke was "parachuted" into Wills, while living in Brighton or Sandringham or something, there was a lot of controversy.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Do they really move about a bit? I know that they are changed based on population but I never really thought of that as common.

It seems that there is a re-distribution of seats every 7 years or less. I understand that they try to keep electorates stable wherever possible but that isn't possible if one part of the state is growing faster than another or if the state is growing faster than the national average. State electorates and local government wards (not all local governments have wards) also move around from time to time.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by lionking

I think you are right Wildy.

http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countri...ivisions.shtml

Lists the suburbs that each division has included over the years.

[paximperium]

So to the issue with redistribution and changes of seats and changes in districts/electorate.

Who decides how the electoral map is drawn?

The main issue here in the US is that electoral maps are usually redrawn by State Assemblies/senates etc. to their party's advantage. Texas being the most dramatic example where they redrew the electoral map to water down Democratic votes which led to a funny episode where Democrats ran from the State to prevent a vote on the bill.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Do the British have to have an election after a certain period of time? I know that the Constitution requires the government to call an election after a certain amount of time.

Usually our elections are called earlier then that mark because we don't really like to vote around Christmas.



No we don't vote for the Head of State.

If I remember correctly the PM is the leader of the ruling party. But I don't know what exactly would happen if the leader of the party isn't elected in to the House of Representatives but his party wins anyway.

The party would have to select a new leader. Hypothetically, if next election Labor retained government but Rudd lost his seat Labor would have to elect a new leader, as the PM has to be a member of the house.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by lionking

I'm not sure the two systems are that different. In theory in Australia, people vote for a local candidate who, if elected, selects a Prime Minister from within the party. In practice, our elections have long been "presidental" with people voting for a party and it's leader and neither knowing nor caring who their local member is (with a few exceptions of course). If you ask people who they voted for last year they will say "Rudd" or "Howard".

And the concept of an independent civil service providing advice freely and fearlessly is a myth now (and probably always was).

Agreed. FTR, I voted for Fran Bailey. Anyone here other than Lionking is unlikely to have any idea who she is.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by gtc

For those who are unfamiliar with the Westminster System:

The situation is quite a bit different in Australia where the constitution is more explicity about the powers of the Prime Minister and Parliament. Australia also has a Senate which is elected, is effectively independent of the House of Representatives and is quite an effective check on the actions of the Prime Minister.

In the UK, the Prime Minister can appoint new people to the House of Lords if he or she needs to get a piece of legislation passed. In Australia they would need to trigger a double dissolution election in which all the Senate seats and all the House of Representative seats are up for election. Afterwards both houses sit together as one to debate the legislation.



Why is that?




I guess in theory you could ask someone from a safe seat to resign so that they could be 'parachuted' into parliament but I couldn't imagine they would have much credibility even if they won the by-election.

I seem to remember a few cases of Australian Senators who were wanting to become PM resigning their Senate seat to contest a hastily vacated House of Reps seat.

Incorrect. The constitution of the commonwealth of australia makes no mention of the prime minister at all in any way, shape or form.

The closest it comes is:

section 62. There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general...tion/index.htm

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by paximperium

So to the issue with redistribution and changes of seats and changes in districts/electorate.

Who decides how the electoral map is drawn?

The main issue here in the US is that electoral maps are usually redrawn by State Assemblies/senates etc. to their party's advantage. Texas being the most dramatic example where they redrew the electoral map to water down Democratic votes which led to a funny episode where Democrats ran from the State to prevent a vote on the bill.

The Australian Electoral Commission. http://aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/index.htm

Anyone trying to gerrymander over here has another thing coming.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Do they really move about a bit? I know that they are changed based on population but I never really thought of that as common.

It's not that uncommon. In the last 40 years my place has been in 3 or 4 electorates.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Do they really move about a bit? I know that they are changed based on population but I never really thought of that as common.

In New Zealand, following every 5-yearly census, a Representation Commission is established to update electorate numbers and boundaries based on the country's population. The preexisting boundaries have to be taken into account, but essentially our electorate boundaries are redrawn every five years.

[PhantomWolf]

One thing I thing Gumboot missed (thought he did a pretty impressive job) is that the heads of Government Departments are not appointed by the PM, but by the State Services Commission, in fact any meddling in the State sector employment by members of Parliment is seen as a huge no, no and there were a number of scandles with the last Government where there were claims that members had influenced the selection of State Sector employees. This is quite different to the US where the President (or at least the Executive) will select the heads of about 700 departments who then are traditionally expected to vacate the position on the election of an opposite party President at a later date.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by gumboot

In New Zealand, following every 5-yearly census, a Representation Commission is established to update electorate numbers and boundaries based on the country's population. The preexisting boundaries have to be taken into account, but essentially our electorate boundaries are redrawn every five years.

Yeah, I was in the Taranaki Electorate prior to MMP, but now I'm in the New Plymouth one.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by paximperium

So to the issue with redistribution and changes of seats and changes in districts/electorate.

Who decides how the electoral map is drawn?

The main issue here in the US is that electoral maps are usually redrawn by State Assemblies/senates etc. to their party's advantage. Texas being the most dramatic example where they redrew the electoral map to water down Democratic votes which led to a funny episode where Democrats ran from the State to prevent a vote on the bill.

Damien beat me to it, but the AEC does it.

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

Incorrect. The constitution of the commonwealth of australia makes no mention of the prime minister at all in any way, shape or form.

The closest it comes is:

section 62. There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general...tion/index.htm

I believe that the PM is basically the head of that Council.

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

The party would have to select a new leader. Hypothetically, if next election Labor retained government but Rudd lost his seat Labor would have to elect a new leader, as the PM has to be a member of the house.

Thought so.

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

The Australian Electoral Commission. http://aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/index.htm

Anyone trying to gerrymander over here has another thing coming.

Would be interesting though.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

One thing I thing Gumboot missed (thought he did a pretty impressive job) is that the heads of Government Departments are not appointed by the PM, but by the State Services Commission, in fact any meddling in the State sector employment by members of Parliment is seen as a huge no, no and there were a number of scandles with the last Government where there were claims that members had influenced the selection of State Sector employees. This is quite different to the US where the President (or at least the Executive) will select the heads of about 700 departments who then are traditionally expected to vacate the position on the election of an opposite party President at a later date.

Yes, very good point. Although the very top of each department - the Minister - is appointed by the PM. But yes, New Zealand is one of the least corrupt nations in the world, and it's measures like that which ensure it.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by gtc

The situation is quite a bit different in Australia where the constitution is more explicity about the powers of the Prime Minister and Parliament.

The Australian Constitution makes no mention of a prime minister. It was written at a time when no such position existed and remains unchanged. The position of prime minister exists by convention.....one of those highly effective things we get from the westminster system where great chunks of what we do are regulated by the fact that this is just "the way we do such things" because thats the way we do it. If we need to know if something is according to how it should be we have a great big chinwag about how it should be and how its been in the past and......oh well....who knows, just keep talking, it works.

[Phaedrus74]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

I wouldn't call it especially pro or anti the democratic principle as such, but it does have a significant effect on politics. It allows an otherwise unpopular government to cash in on sudden popularity - for instance Bush could have called an election a month or so after 911 when his popularity was at an all time high. You risk the public seeing through it, but Thatcher's big win in 1983 after a largely unpopular few years was widely said to be a result of the "Falklands factor", for instance.

Conversely, if a government knows that the economy is in the process of tanking and next year will be a bad one, they may sneak an election in early. Gordon Brown was widely rumoured to be planning to have an election earlier this year, but backed off it when his party sank in the polls. So it clearly does give the party in power a very significant advantage over the opposition.

Thanks for the response, the curtness of my initial post was primarily inspired by the insipid non-sense spouted by the person I was responding to.

Similar discussions also occur over here with respect to the supposed disproportional power a junior member of a three party coalition has...

Quote:

Another thing it does, along with other factors, is reduce the length of the election process hugely. British elections are brutually fast affairs compared to American ones; from calling the election to going to the polls typically takes a month or so, but can take less. And once held, the changeover is immediate; the former PM vacates Number 10 literally the morning after the election. We have nothing like the year long campaign of the American system, and that's at least in part due to the fact that often nobody knows they are going to happen until shortly before they do.

The huge run-up to US presidential elections is definitely fascinating from an outside perspective, especially given the crescendo of partisan bickering towards the end

The UK system in comparison is brutally efficient in comparison to both the US situation as well as the Dutch one, it succeeds in cutting both the pre- and the post-election non-sense...

[gtc]

Thankyou for pointing that out about the Australian constitution.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by gtc

Thankyou for pointing that out about the Australian constitution.

No worries. I figure I have to get something out of my VCE Politics course.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

The Australian Electoral Commission. http://aec.gov.au/Electorates/Redistributions/index.htm

The Canadian system for redrawing election district (commonly referred to as ridings here) boundaries is similar: Readjustment of Electoral Boundaries and Representation in the House of Commons.

[Travis]

I see we have yet to establish which system is superior in every way. What's more we have yet to see any rhetoric about how the "other" system is flawed in every respect possible.

I expect better from you people!

Where are the droll insults?

Where are the references to stereotypes?

Where's the obligatory reference to Orwell?

Where's the troll who butts in and says both systems are evil since neither is run by Libertarians?

Where's the derail about what democracy really is?

Bah! Let me get you started

The ________ system is superior in every way because everyone knows how stupid those that use the other system are. In fact the people of _________ are just plain evil on top of being stupid and their fascination with their national sport of _______ is evidence of this. My country's system is more egalitarian, equitable and promotes the well being of people better than the other system. If the people of ________ weren't always so _________ they would recognize how stupid they are and adopt our system.

[Dragon]

Patience, Travis, patience - I think people are still a little hung over from the US elections. Plus I don't think the libertarians have found this thread yet ...


Anyway the UK system is much superior in at least one way (not really a parliamentary v. presidential issue but important nevertheless).

We have few problems with voter eligibility and voter fraud. Getting on the Voters' Register is very straightforward and we have a paper ballot which takes a bit longer to count but is more transparent. The election administrators are non-partisan and candidates and their agents etc. are present at the count.
There have been a few allegations about postal voting in the recent past but they're very small beer compared to, say, what happened in Florida in 2000.

I understand that the administration of elections is largely up to the individual States but the US system does seem a bit ramshackle and open to all sorts of partisan allegations.
In short - Not Good Enough for the most powerful nation on the planet

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Dragon

I understand that the administration of elections is largely up to the individual States but the US system does seem a bit ramshackle and open to all sorts of partisan allegations.
In short - Not Good Enough for the most powerful nation on the planet

I second that opinion. Lines forming outside polling stations, with waits hours long, is soooo Third World. And when you discover that the allocation of polling stations and/or voting machines is governed by people who are politically partisan - WTF is that all about?

Of course, we do have to understand that a US ballot paper is more like an application for Council Tax Benefit than the "put a cross in the box" (or a cross in three boxes for local elections) sheet that we're used to.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Travis

In fact the people of _________ are just plain evil on top of being stupid and their fascination with their national sport of _______ is evidence of this.

You might be referring to Rugby Union there, so I will nurture a visceral hatred for you until my dying day, you _________ spawn of _________ . Why do you _________ baby _________?

[Travis]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

I second that opinion. Lines forming outside polling stations, with waits hours long, is soooo Third World. And when you discover that the allocation of polling stations and/or voting machines is governed by people who are politically partisan - WTF is that all about?

Of course, we do have to understand that a US ballot paper is more like an application for Council Tax Benefit than the "put a cross in the box" (or a cross in three boxes for local elections) sheet that we're used to.

True. Back on Nov 4th I literally had 36 things to vote on after all was said and done. That included the President, House Representative, California's various propositions, some County propositions and all the local utility and school boards. It was 4 pages long, front and back, and when I was done it got run through a scantron.