Westminster sucks (or, How I learned to stop worrying and love the President...

[notyoueither]

Except the president can't declare war, and he couldn't get a law passed that specified **** as stinking without getting support for it in Congress and that support resulting in passage of the **** stinks law.

[Dracon II]

Comparing the power of the executive in the USA and UK (and Australia)... I would say the president has much less power than the prime minister and his cabinet. Of course the President is more powerful than the Prime Minister in that he is the leader of a more powerful nation... but in real terms he has less power over government.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Everyone talks about "pork," but no one's going to say why it's so bad.

To me, it's a legal form of bribe.

A politician makes promises to his constituency that he would bring national money to the district if he gets (re)elected. Then, if that happens, he tries to create projects to vie for national funds.

So, you have vote buying here.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Except the president can't declare war, and he couldn't get a law passed that specified **** as stinking without getting support for it in Congress and that support resulting in passage of the **** stinks law.

Isn't it the same with a parliamentary style of government?

[Drogue]

It is. Dracon's not mentioned any reason why the Prime Minister might have more power over his nation than the President. If you include his cabinet then possibly, but that's not a fair comparison, as the cabinet is 13 people, not concentrated in one person, like the President.

In both systems any laws have to be passed by two houses, so I don't really see a difference in terms of that - the legislative side. The only difference is that our executive decisions, who gets to decide what's put before parliament/congress, is that we have a 13 man cabinet and the US has a single President. Hence the power is more concentrated in the US.

[Kuciwalker]

The Prime Minister also by default is of the same party as the most powerful party in Parliament; that's very often (though not currently) not true in the US.

[Imran Siddiqui]

who gets to decide what's put before parliament/congress, is that we have a 13 man cabinet and the US has a single President.

This displays a lack of knowledge of the US system. The President doesn't put anything before Congress. It tries to get Congress to propose laws that it wants, but the President has NO authority to actually propose a law. If a Congressman or Senator doesn't propose the law that the Prez wants, then it doesn't get voted on.

[Dracon II]

It is. Dracon's not mentioned any reason why the Prime Minister might have more power over his nation than the President. If you include his cabinet then possibly, but that's not a fair comparison, as the cabinet is 13 people, not concentrated in one person, like the President.

You're confusing what I am saying. I'm talking about the respective executive branches... not the number of people in each of them. The executive in Westminster has more power than in the USA. Why? Because they are selected from the majority party in the legislature... which means they have direct control over the bills that are put before parliament. The fact that they are always drawn from the majority (dependence on coalition governments are fairly rare, at least in the UK) means these bills, once proposed are likely to be passed. The executive only has to convince its own party, and that is relatively easy given the culture of party discipline in Westminster systems. In the US, the President has much more of an uphill battle. He has no more power over legislation than that which the legislature affords him, and the extent to which he can use public opinion. The executive in Westminster systems have direct control over legislation. Private member's bills are not considered very normal.

In both systems any laws have to be passed by two houses, so I don't really see a difference in terms of that - the legislative side.

Functional equivalence - you see two houses of government in both systems therefore you assume they're identical. Wrong.
The House of Lords is much less powerful than the Senate... to name just one difference.

The only difference is that our executive decisions, who gets to decide what's put before parliament/congress, is that we have a 13 man cabinet and the US has a single President. Hence the power is more concentrated in the US.

The real difference is the functional relationship between the executive and legislature... the numerical composition between the respective executives is pertinent only to the concentration of power within the executive branch itself... the relationship between this branch and the legislature is much more important in observing the extent to which the executive can get its bills onto the legislature's agenda, and from there, to pass said bills. Being the core leadership of the majority of the legislature, a Westminster Cabinet has remarkable legislative power by default. There are still checks on their power, but these are much less than that on the President. The President has no formal power over determining the Congress's agenda; he can veto bills passed by congress, but the congress has the power to overrule this veto if they have sufficient will to do so.
The power of the executive branch in the USA is concentrated in one man, yes. But you ignore the extent to which the constitution of the United States, in its enumeration of the powers and functions of each branch of Government, was designed to limit the power of one man over Government.

[notyoueither]

The PM is much more powerful under Westminster. The big weakness though is that he or she can be deposed at any time by a majority in the house (new election) or a revolt by the MPs or membership of the PMs party (change of leader midstream).

More power, but also greater accountability.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dracon II
Functional equivalence - you see two houses of government in both systems therefore you assume they're identical. Wrong.
The House of Lords is much less powerful than the Senate... to name just one difference.

What about Canada? Or Australia for that matter?

[notyoueither]

Less power than the Lords.

[notyoueither]

The problem with the upper house in the daughter parliaments is the perception of a total lack of legitmacy to use the power they have been assigned constitutionally.

Theoretically, the Senate in Canada could serve as a check on the government in the Commons, but in practice senators are very demure and go along with most legislation due to their lack of elected status. They do get involved, and they do voice their opinions, but collectively they feel that blocking government legislation would be undemocratic.

[Dracon II]

Australia's upper house is modelled on the the US Senate... but with a PR electoral system. Therefore it has more power and legitimacy than the Upper Houses in other Westminster countries.

I don't know much about Canada's upper house, but I believe it is fairly similar to the UK's. Australia's Upper House is popularly elected and represents the states and territories.

[notyoueither]

No ****? I had not heard that.

Elected on PR nationwide or by state?

[Dracon II]

Each state has 12 members... and the territories have 2 each (I think).

So the same principle as most PR systems... multimember constituencies.