ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th September 2020, 03:23 AM   #41
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Not the case in the UK: here's how it works here.
I don't see how that link and psionl0's post.

During Brexit collective responsibility began to break down. If a PM is tolerating ministers voting against their policy their authority is all but gone.

If we are talking about how these systems generally function, then surely psionl0 is correct?
shuttlt is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 04:04 AM   #42
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,831
My fault. I shouldn't post before I've woken up fully. I used the word "minister", when I should have used the term "MP".

But even with the term "minister" I'm still right that it depends on whether or not the whip is applied. And it's worth pointing out that if conversation were limited to cabinet ministers, then that's currently 22 out of a total of 364 Tory MPs.

It's not a free-for-all, obviously, but the idea that a party all votes as one bloc, and that "any government legislation is guaranteed a free ride in that house" if a government holds a majority isn't true.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 04:14 AM   #43
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,886
I have tried to understand the US political system and read up, but every time it just seems more bollocks.

If you can get passed giving one person that much power, then the whole college thing kicks in and it just gets a bit silly.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 04:25 AM   #44
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
My fault. I shouldn't post before I've woken up fully. I used the word "minister", when I should have used the term "MP".

But even with the term "minister" I'm still right that it depends on whether or not the whip is applied. And it's worth pointing out that if conversation were limited to cabinet ministers, then that's currently 22 out of a total of 364 Tory MPs.

It's not a free-for-all, obviously, but the idea that a party all votes as one bloc, and that "any government legislation is guaranteed a free ride in that house" if a government holds a majority isn't true.
There are votes that matter, and there are votes that don't matter, and there are rebellions that matter and ones that don't. If the government can't whip important legislation through the house then effectively it has lost the confidence of the house. If the government is too weak to force enough of their MPs to vote with them, then it needs to be replaced by a government that can.
shuttlt is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 04:34 AM   #45
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I have tried to understand the US political system and read up, but every time it just seems more bollocks.

If you can get passed giving one person that much power, then the whole college thing kicks in and it just gets a bit silly.
Does the President have that much power? It seemed like he had a hell of a time trying to get together the relative pittance that was required to build the wall that he was elected to build.

As to the electoral college, no party in the UK has won an absolute majority of the vote since 1935. Is it really so different?
shuttlt is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 07:29 AM   #46
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,594
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It's not a free-for-all, obviously, but the idea that a party all votes as one bloc, and that "any government legislation is guaranteed a free ride in that house" if a government holds a majority isn't true.
Maybe it is not "absolutely certain" but instances of a majority party failing to get their bill over the line are still pretty rare. "Crossing the floor" (voting with the opposition) is a pretty big deal and usually get a lot of publicity - especially if it results in the bill being defeated. Members who do so are more often than not on the verge of resigning from the party and will probably get kicked out (or lose pre-selection) otherwise.

BTW Australian Parliaments also have whips but I suspect you are using the term "the whip" to make a greater distinction between Australia and the UK than there actually is.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 12:26 PM   #47
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,191
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Does the President have that much power? It seemed like he had a hell of a time trying to get together the relative pittance that was required to build the wall that he was elected to build.

As to the electoral college, no party in the UK has won an absolute majority of the vote since 1935. Is it really so different?
Its hugely different

The Prime Minister cannot issue executive orders if the Parliament does not agree with what he wants to do.

The Prime Minister does not have the power to pardon anyone, least of all his personal friends and political allies.

The Prime Minister has to actually do the work of government, that is be in Parliament when it sits, as leader, involved in the debates, and voting along with his colleagues, not swanning off to play golf at his golf club.

The Prime Minister does not have the power to nominate judges to the courts so that he can politically shape the courts for years to come.

The Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament for his behaviour, and what he says and does in public.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 01:03 PM   #48
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,602
It would be tough to totally redo the Constitution to do this so it's kind of a moot point. I do like the more limited powers of the Prime Minister role and increased accountability to the party. I just don't know if those benefits are enough to outweigh the limitations and other systemic changes needed in order to make the massive effort needed to rewrite the Constitution worthwhile.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 02:39 PM   #49
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Its hugely different
The Prime Minister cannot issue executive orders if the Parliament does not agree with what he wants to do.
Is this true? Surely the Commons is only needed to pass new laws?

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Prime Minister does not have the power to pardon anyone, least of all his personal friends and political allies.
I think the issue is typically more that powerful people never get held accountable, rather than that they get pardoned. Notionally the Queen would I think be the one doing the pardoning, but the queen never says "no" to her ministers. It's just not something that has come up.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Prime Minister has to actually do the work of government, that is be in Parliament when it sits, as leader, involved in the debates, and voting along with his colleagues, not swanning off to play golf at his golf club.
Is that really the critical issue here?

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Prime Minister does not have the power to nominate judges to the courts so that he can politically shape the courts for years to come.
Sure. I do think that replacing overt politics with bureaucratic decision making isn't without it's issues though.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament for his behaviour, and what he says and does in public.
It is certainly easier for a Prime Minister to be removed. I'm struggling to think of an example where it was due to wrongdoing or bad behaviour. Every example I can think of comes down to politics. It seems like it is a choice between being accountable directly to the people, but difficult to remove by Parliament/Congress... or not directly accountable to the people, but easier to remove by Parliament/Congress.

Effectively you seem to be suggesting putting the House in charge of everything.
shuttlt is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 02:54 PM   #50
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,042
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Quote:
Not sure of all parliamentary democracies work the same way...

But in Canada, the Prime Minister has significant power, including the ability to block a particular MP from running again. The fact that the prime minister can dictate the fate of an individual MP makes any sort of rebellion a lot less likely.
Is that written into Canadian law is that just a practice of the parties?
I think it is just a practice of the parties.

(I was a bit inaccurate. Technically, an MP that is barred from running for one of the political parties can always try to get re-elected as an independent or candidate for one of the minor parties, but the chance of success is pretty low. They could also "cross the floor" to join one of the other big parties, which also is risky.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 10:06 PM   #51
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,594
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Its hugely different

The Prime Minister cannot issue executive orders if the Parliament does not agree with what he wants to do.

The Prime Minister does not have the power to pardon anyone, least of all his personal friends and political allies.

The Prime Minister has to actually do the work of government, that is be in Parliament when it sits, as leader, involved in the debates, and voting along with his colleagues, not swanning off to play golf at his golf club.

The Prime Minister does not have the power to nominate judges to the courts so that he can politically shape the courts for years to come.

The Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament for his behaviour, and what he says and does in public.
Does the NZ GG not rubber stamp "recommendations" made by the PM?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2020, 11:48 PM   #52
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,191
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Does the NZ GG not rubber stamp "recommendations" made by the PM?
For the most part, yes, but it is not a given. Were the Prime Minister make recommendations that were clearly contrary to NZ Law, or attempted to take the country to war without the authority of Parliament, then the GG would not assent without referring to the Queen. This sort of thing has never happened here, but that does not mean it cannot. If you think Royal Assent in our constitutional Monarchies (UK, Australia Canada, New Zealand) is always a given, think again..

https://library.usask.ca/sni/stories/pol32.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...Approval)_Bill

In 1975, in your own country, the GG sacked the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_A...utional_crisis
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 01:18 AM   #53
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 12,650
The difference is that the PM has to keep the support of the Party, not the Population.
This has both advantages and disadvantages, but what it does is make for faster turnover of political leaders who are out of favor, or at least forces them to compromise.

The US President, as we have seen in the last term, is technically unimpeachable.
__________________
Free Speech
https://xkcd.com/1357/
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 01:27 AM   #54
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,831
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
There are votes that matter, and there are votes that don't matter, and there are rebellions that matter and ones that don't. If the government can't whip important legislation through the house then effectively it has lost the confidence of the house. If the government is too weak to force enough of their MPs to vote with them, then it needs to be replaced by a government that can.
You've added things there that weren't in the original statement I was responding to.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 01:28 AM   #55
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,831
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
BTW Australian Parliaments also have whips but I suspect you are using the term "the whip" to make a greater distinction between Australia and the UK than there actually is.
I'm not trying to make any kind of distinction between the UK and Australian parliaments, as I know nothing about the Australian parliament. I was just responding to the statement that you made.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 02:54 AM   #56
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,832
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
That is both good and bad.

Good because it can keep the prime minister from having too much power, bad because it can mean some deplorable people can be nominated just because they are in a part of the country that likes deplorable ideas.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
You do understand that this is what a representative government is supposed to be, representative of the people, both those of good ideas and bad. After all, some people would say that your ideas are deplorable, does that mean that you and your ideas should not be able to be represented in government?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 03:47 AM   #57
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,594
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
For the most part, yes, but it is not a given. Were the Prime Minister make recommendations that were clearly contrary to NZ Law, or attempted to take the country to war without the authority of Parliament, then the GG would not assent without referring to the Queen. This sort of thing has never happened here, but that does not mean it cannot. If you think Royal Assent in our constitutional Monarchies (UK, Australia Canada, New Zealand) is always a given, think again..

https://library.usask.ca/sni/stories/pol32.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...Approval)_Bill

In 1975, in your own country, the GG sacked the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_A...utional_crisis
Nobody is saying that the powers of the PM are absolute. He will be dumped by the party if he becomes an electoral liability. If he doesn't have a majority in the lower house then he needs to negotiate with minority parties. Any law that Parliament passes can always be challenged in the High Court.

But of all of the limitations to the PM's power, the GG is the least significant. The GG not taking the advice of the PM is literally a "once in a century" event that would only happen in extreme circumstance such as the Parliament becoming totally dysfunctional. The sacking you mention is the only incidence of the GG acting independently in Australia's history and happened 45 years ago.

BTW the Australian PM (er GG acting on the advice of the PM) doesn't need Parliament's approval to go to war.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 15th September 2020 at 03:49 AM.
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 04:33 AM   #58
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,191
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Nobody is saying that the powers of the PM are absolute. He will be dumped by the party if he becomes an electoral liability. If he doesn't have a majority in the lower house then he needs to negotiate with minority parties. Any law that Parliament passes can always be challenged in the High Court.

But of all of the limitations to the PM's power, the GG is the least significant. The GG not taking the advice of the PM is literally a "once in a century" event that would only happen in extreme circumstance such as the Parliament becoming totally dysfunctional. The sacking you mention is the only incidence of the GG acting independently in Australia's history and happened 45 years ago.

BTW the Australian PM (er GG acting on the advice of the PM) doesn't need Parliament's approval to go to war.

Indeed. This discussion here is pretty much, "would the US be better served with a Parliamentary Democracy rather than a President and a Congress"

IMO, the description you give in your post (which I have highlighted) accurately describes the situation in the US right now - a once in a century corrupt President with a totally dysfunctional Senate that refuses to rein the useful idiot in. You have Moscow Mitch refusing to allow ANYTHING that will offend Dear Leader being voted on. That cannot happen in the Parliamentary system because no one person has that kind of power - by its very nature, no Parliament has, or can have, an equivalent of Moscow Mitch.
__________________
"Woke" is a pejorative term used by racists, homophobes and misogynists to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 09:42 AM   #59
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,594
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Indeed. This discussion here is pretty much, "would the US be better served with a Parliamentary Democracy rather than a President and a Congress"

IMO, the description you give in your post (which I have highlighted) accurately describes the situation in the US right now - a once in a century corrupt President with a totally dysfunctional Senate that refuses to rein the useful idiot in. You have Moscow Mitch refusing to allow ANYTHING that will offend Dear Leader being voted on. That cannot happen in the Parliamentary system because no one person has that kind of power - by its very nature, no Parliament has, or can have, an equivalent of Moscow Mitch.
That brings us full circle back to post #11.

In spite of your attempts to make it appear that the President is the more powerful one, the practical evidence shows otherwise:
- The PM doesn't have to worry about Vice Regal interference.
- The PM doesn't have to worry about legislation he wants passed being voted down by his own party in the Parliament.

On rare occasions, these things happen but that is a part of the checks and balance built into the Parliamentary system. Otherwise, if the PM is a "Moscow Mitch" then the same thing will happen in Parliament as it does in Congress (unless the party fears that he has become an electoral liability).

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that there has been more than one bad POTUS per century and almost certain that there have been more egregious acts by a POTUS than there have been POTUSes so there is no comparison with a GG.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 15th September 2020 at 09:44 AM.
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 10:11 AM   #60
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,163
Order Order Order!

It seems to me that in the Parlamentary systems, the party is more important than the people.

I'd rather have a bunch of stupid people running things than a bunch of corrupt politicians.

I think it sucks that the party determines who can be the MPs.

And see, I ditched that i.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 10:53 AM   #61
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 46,820
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Order Order Order!

It seems to me that in the Parlamentary systems, the party is more important than the people.

I'd rather have a bunch of stupid people running things than a bunch of corrupt politicians.

.
False dichotomy, just look over here.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 11:03 AM   #62
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,634
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Indeed. This discussion here is pretty much, "would the US be better served with a Parliamentary Democracy rather than a President and a Congress"

IMO, the description you give in your post (which I have highlighted) accurately describes the situation in the US right now - a once in a century corrupt President with a totally dysfunctional Senate that refuses to rein the useful idiot in. You have Moscow Mitch refusing to allow ANYTHING that will offend Dear Leader being voted on. That cannot happen in the Parliamentary system because no one person has that kind of power - by its very nature, no Parliament has, or can have, an equivalent of Moscow Mitch.
I think the real US problem is the inability of majority backed government to enact their agenda. That seems to happen after a lot of midterms.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 11:53 AM   #63
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,042
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Quote:
That is both good and bad.

Good because it can keep the prime minister from having too much power, bad because it can mean some deplorable people can be nominated just because they are in a part of the country that likes deplorable ideas.
You do understand that this is what a representative government is supposed to be, representative of the people, both those of good ideas and bad.
Yes, I do recognize that a representative democracy should be prepared to deal with a wide range of opinions/ideas. But I also think that, from a pragmatic point of view, a party may have an interest in having someone who is (for example) a neo-nazi conspiracy theorist who is a member of NAMBLA from running for their party.

(Note: As I pointed out before... I was a little inaccurate when I said the PM can block someone from running. He can actually block someone from running for his own party, but can't stop them from running all-together. In theory, the potential candidate can still run for another party or as an independent, and if they win they will still sit as a member of Parliament.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 11:59 AM   #64
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,042
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The difference is that the PM has to keep the support of the Party, not the Population.
This has both advantages and disadvantages, but what it does is make for faster turnover of political leaders who are out of favor, or at least forces them to compromise.

The US President, as we have seen in the last term, is technically unimpeachable.
By law, Trump is very impeachable. And if the GOP had any integrity they would have impeached him. Trump was safe because republicans are corrupt.

But then, in a parliament, if the republican politicians were as corrupt as they are in the current American system, Trump would still be just as safe.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 12:18 PM   #65
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,042
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The Prime Minister cannot issue executive orders if the Parliament does not agree with what he wants to do.
In the Canadian (and British) system, there is something called an Order in Council, which is quite similar to an Executive order, and does not have to go through parliament.

See: Wikipedia

Quote:
The Prime Minister does not have the power to pardon anyone, least of all his personal friends and political allies.
Its not quite as blatant as the United States, but there is a mechanism for issuing 'pardons' (known as a Royal Prerogative of Mercy). Its recommended by a cabinet member, and approved by the Gov. General.

See: Wikipedia

Quote:
The Prime Minister has to actually do the work of government, that is be in Parliament when it sits, as leader, involved in the debates, and voting along with his colleagues, not swanning off to play golf at his golf club.
True, that is an issue that affects leaders in Parliamentary democracies, and seeing someone like Trump deal with "question period" on a regular basis would be... interesting.

But I am unaware of any laws that dictate how often a Prime Minister has to attend Parliament, and quite often questions are simply passed off to other ministers.
Quote:
The Prime Minister does not have the power to nominate judges to the courts so that he can politically shape the courts for years to come.
Here in Canada, judicial appointments are sometimes made with no input (or public examination) by the opposition parties.

More recently, there have been attempts by various prime ministers to set up committees to examine or recommend appointments, but often they have limited power.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 12:31 PM   #66
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,042
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But the prime minister doesn't control parliament, right? It is the reverse?
Technically, the Members of Parliament can exercise ultimate authority... they can vote against the prime minister on a confidence motion (requiring parliament to dissolve). Members of the Prime Minister's party can cross the floor, etc.

But, the Prime Minister (either directly or via his cabinet) maintains significant power... removing MPs from caucus or stopping them from running for the party, using "tricks" like proroguing parliament (i.e. suspending it), calling snap elections, stacking various committees with his supporters, scheduling legislation, etc.

In practical terms, while MPs have ultimate authority, it would have to be a real emergency for parliament to over-ride the prime minister's wishes (assuming they hold a majority).
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 12:44 PM   #67
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,042
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I have tried to understand the US political system and read up, but every time it just seems more bollocks.

If you can get passed giving one person that much power, then the whole college thing kicks in and it just gets a bit silly.
In my opinion, any political system relies on the integrity of the politicians who work within the system.

Overall, I think the U.S. has a better system than a Parliament (such as Canada's). In the U.S., there is more of a separation between the legislative and executive branches, which should in theory mean better power sharing, better representation, etc. The fact that it is as disfunctional as it is is not because it is a bad system, but because of the existence of people like Moscow Mitch and Stubby McBonespurs. Places that use a parliament (like Canada) sometimes look like we are better run, but that's not because of our superior political system, but because our electorate has resisted the urge to elect complete and total scumbags.

If Trump were the Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system? Instead of just issuing a bunch of executive orders, he would actually be passing laws (much harder to undo), and the Republican party (which has done little to stop him under the current system) would probably vote along.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 01:00 PM   #68
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,634
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Technically, the Members of Parliament can exercise ultimate authority... they can vote against the prime minister on a confidence motion (requiring parliament to dissolve). Members of the Prime Minister's party can cross the floor, etc.

But, the Prime Minister (either directly or via his cabinet) maintains significant power... removing MPs from caucus or stopping them from running for the party, using "tricks" like proroguing parliament (i.e. suspending it), calling snap elections, stacking various committees with his supporters, scheduling legislation, etc.

In practical terms, while MPs have ultimate authority, it would have to be a real emergency for parliament to over-ride the prime minister's wishes (assuming they hold a majority).
Could the UK parliament scrap the office by majority vote?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 01:01 PM   #69
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,594
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
If Trump were the Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system? Instead of just issuing a bunch of executive orders, he would actually be passing laws (much harder to undo), and the Republican party (which has done little to stop him under the current system) would probably vote along.
That hypothetical is true as far as it goes but it is probably more hypothetical than not. Instead of simply being able to throw money into the Primaries and have the GOP get behind him once he started getting numbers on the board, Trump would have had to win a local seat and rise through the ranks before the party elected him leader.

This usually takes several election cycles to achieve. In Australia, the only politician to have a meteoric rise in the ranks in one term was Bob Hawke. But he had been in the public eye for decades and was considered by many to be PM material before winning his seat in 1980. He also had the advantage of both an unpopular PM and unpopular leader of the opposition to deal with.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 01:07 PM   #70
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,042
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Could the UK parliament scrap the office by majority vote?
I don't know about the U.K., but it might be a bit... complex here in Canada.

Much of how our government works isn't laid out in written laws and procedures, but its just the result of what's evolved over time. Thus, there's not much to vote on.

Even if you did scrap the office, there are certain decisions that have to be made, and those decisions often come down to just a single person. So if you eliminated the position of prime minister, some other position would probably evolve to take over the role currently held by "prime minister".
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 01:26 PM   #71
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 16,042
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Quote:
If Trump were the Prime Minister in a Parliamentary system? Instead of just issuing a bunch of executive orders, he would actually be passing laws (much harder to undo), and the Republican party (which has done little to stop him under the current system) would probably vote along.
That hypothetical is true as far as it goes but it is probably more hypothetical than not.
Given the fact that Trump (a failed businessman/con-artist) is president (instead of, say, a former senator, or other politician) should mean that "its just hypothetical" no longer applies.
Quote:
Instead of simply being able to throw money into the Primaries and have the GOP get behind him once he started getting numbers on the board, Trump would have had to win a local seat and rise through the ranks before the party elected him leader.
First of all, there is nothing in parliamentary procedure (at least in Canada) that requires that a Prime Minister or party leader to actually hold a seat. (For example, at least one of the candidates in the recent Conserative party leadership race had never held political office. And former P.M. Mulroney was not a sitting MP when he became party leader of the conservatives.) Trump could have taken over the republican party in the same way.

As for "winning a local seat", there are probably a hundred areas in the United states where Trump could run where he would be guaranteed a win.
Quote:
This usually takes several election cycles to achieve.
And usually American presidential candidates are former senators, or governors. If Trump could have risen to power in the American system, I see no reason he couldn't have similar success in the U.S.

It is all dependent on the stupidity of the electorate, and simply having a parliament instead of president/congress would not make U.S. voters any smarter.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 02:02 PM   #72
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,841
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
The German Bundesrat is an example of how a modern democracy can deal with federalism and the representation of smaller states.



Still strongly over represents small states, but less absurdly so than the US Senate.
The Swiss even more so!
Mikemcc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 02:12 PM   #73
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,841
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Technically, the Members of Parliament can exercise ultimate authority... they can vote against the prime minister on a confidence motion (requiring parliament to dissolve). Members of the Prime Minister's party can cross the floor, etc.

But, the Prime Minister (either directly or via his cabinet) maintains significant power... removing MPs from caucus or stopping them from running for the party, using "tricks" like proroguing parliament (i.e. suspending it), calling snap elections, stacking various committees with his supporters, scheduling legislation, etc.

In practical terms, while MPs have ultimate authority, it would have to be a real emergency for parliament to over-ride the prime minister's wishes (assuming they hold a majority).
Theoretically so can the Monarch by withholding Royal Assent. By tradition this has only been done on advice of the Government so that a Bill can be returned to the House.

In a situation where it has not been asked for this would provoke a constitutional crisis that we haven't seen since William of Orange took a little sailing holiday.
Mikemcc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 03:15 PM   #74
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,808
Isn't the real way to stop somebody who is popular with the electorate or party members, but not with the sorts of people whose opinions you want to decide the leadership, to hack the primary process? The process by which party leaders are selected is completely different from the process for voting parties into power. You just need to raise the bar on establishment support so that no outsider can run except as an independent.
shuttlt is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 04:29 PM   #75
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 26,094
The big difference between the US and Australia is that the PM needs to make some effort to answer questions put by other MPs every time parliament meets. Is there anything similar in the US for the President?
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2020, 10:44 PM   #76
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 16,594
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Given the fact that Trump (a failed businessman/con-artist) is president (instead of, say, a former senator, or other politician) should mean that "its just hypothetical" no longer applies.

First of all, there is nothing in parliamentary procedure (at least in Canada) that requires that a Prime Minister or party leader to actually hold a seat. (For example, at least one of the candidates in the recent Conserative party leadership race had never held political office. And former P.M. Mulroney was not a sitting MP when he became party leader of the conservatives.) Trump could have taken over the republican party in the same way.

As for "winning a local seat", there are probably a hundred areas in the United states where Trump could run where he would be guaranteed a win.

And usually American presidential candidates are former senators, or governors. If Trump could have risen to power in the American system, I see no reason he couldn't have similar success in the U.S.

It is all dependent on the stupidity of the electorate, and simply having a parliament instead of president/congress would not make U.S. voters any smarter.
You are missing the point that under a Parliamentary system, members of the executive (including the Prime Minister) must be members of Parliament. This is unlike the US system where members of the executive must not be members of Congress.

It is theoretically possible that an outsider like Trump could convince the Parliamentary Republicans to back him for PM at the next election (where he gets elected to a safe seat) but I have never heard of it happening before. Parliamentarians typically have a "them and us" mentality and Trump would definitely be "one of them".

So it would be a lot harder for Trump to parachute himself into the PM's office than to become POTUS where all you need is money.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 01:09 AM   #77
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,831
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
I think it sucks that the party determines who can be the MPs.
It seems silly to me that in the US the party can't have any say in who represents them as a politician. There was that case a year or two ago where the Republican party in one district were being represented by an actual Nazi. And not through choice. They'd spent the last few elections using loopholes to prevent him from running as the Republican candidate, but they ran out of loopholes.

It seems ridiculous to me that someone with a different ideology to the party can say "I stand for this party", and the party itself has no power to say "no you don't".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 01:20 AM   #78
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 29,831
It's also worth noting that to become PM in a parliamentary system, Trump would have first had to demonstrate to the Republicans that he would be of value to them. So he'd have to demonstrate his popularity, which would be a lot more difficult without primaries (and let's not forget how many current allies spoke out against him during the primaries), and he'd have to demonstrate that he would gain power for the party (more difficult in elections that are about the party as a whole or individual members of that party, rather than about one man).

That, in my opinion, is why someone like Donald Trump is the leader of the US political system, and someone like Boris Johnson is the leader of the UK political system (the Queen notwithstanding). It's a different game, played in a different way, which leads to different outcomes.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 01:58 AM   #79
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It seems silly to me that in the US the party can't have any say in who represents them as a politician. There was that case a year or two ago where the Republican party in one district were being represented by an actual Nazi. And not through choice. They'd spent the last few elections using loopholes to prevent him from running as the Republican candidate, but they ran out of loopholes.

It seems ridiculous to me that someone with a different ideology to the party can say "I stand for this party", and the party itself has no power to say "no you don't".
Is that because of rules within the party, or legal/constitutional rules the party has to play by?
shuttlt is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2020, 02:19 AM   #80
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,832
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It's also worth noting that to become PM in a parliamentary system, Trump would have first had to demonstrate to the Republicans that he would be of value to them. So he'd have to demonstrate his popularity, which would be a lot more difficult without primaries (and let's not forget how many current allies spoke out against him during the primaries), and he'd have to demonstrate that he would gain power for the party (more difficult in elections that are about the party as a whole or individual members of that party, rather than about one man).

That, in my opinion, is why someone like Donald Trump is the leader of the US political system, and someone like Boris Johnson is the leader of the UK political system (the Queen notwithstanding). It's a different game, played in a different way, which leads to different outcomes.
This, and you need to realise that the UK only ended up with Boris because they ran out of competent leaders due to them all giving up in the Brexit mess.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.