UK General Election- May 6th

[C0ckney]

well the obvious difference is that you have a clear seperation between the executive and the legislature in the US, whereas in britain the executive comes from the legislature.

[OzzyKP]

Understood. I think our system is better, but I'm not suggesting making that change in Britain. But I don't see how bringing down the government over a failed budget vote is necessary when the executive and legislature are joined.

One assumes the only way a budget vote would fail would be if members of the PM's own majority party vote against it. I assume there is no equivalent to filibustering in parliament. So maybe the PM should simply do a better job crafting his budget. Or convince some small parties or folks from the opposition party to cross over. Under the current system, they wouldn't do so because they'd want to have the election and have their shot at increasing seats, but if that wasn't an option they might play ball to keep the government moving. This would necessitate compromise which seems to be a pretty good thing to have in government.

I don't really see the problem with rewriting a bad budget. It would certainly be more expedient that calling a new election.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Cockney: Exactly. Ozzy, you don't understand how different it is when you have the executive and legislative branches joined. A failed budget is basically a vote of no confidence. It is a signal by the majority party that they want the party leader (aka the PM) to step down.

[C0ckney]

as you say, usually the party presenting the budget has a majority and so it's not a problem to get it through parliament. there is also a convention (an unwritten rule) that the house of lords won't block a finance bill which has been approved by the commons. for the next budget, the tories and lib dems will come to an agreement over what goes into the budget beforehand so that it will pass parliament.

as for which system is better, it depends on your point view. our system leaves us with a somewhat spineless and partisan legislature. because MPs are dependent on their parties for jobs you get examples like the 90 labour MPs who campaigned to save their local post offices turning into 19 actually voting for a conservative motion to halt the closures. in short, if you kick up too much of a stink you can't get on.

in the US you have more independent and strong legislature, but as we have seen it is very open to corporate influence. also, because legislators are better able to resist party pressure, they can hold out for special favours for their districts in exchange for their votes, which obviously increases the cost of doing anything vaguely controversial.

so it's patronage or pork barrel.

[OzzyKP]

Cockney: Exactly. Ozzy, you don't understand how different it is when you have the executive and legislative branches joined. A failed budget is basically a vote of no confidence. It is a signal by the majority party that they want the party leader (aka the PM) to step down.

I think you don't understand how it could be different. They do this vote of no confidence that requires the party leader to step down *because* that is the mechanism through which new elections can be called. If there was no link between that behavior and the election they just wouldn't do it. Or would do it for different reasons.

If the system were changed and parliament were told that under no circumstances whatsoever will voting down this budget result in a new PM, new election, or new party leader they probably wouldn't.

Telling me over and over that this isn't how it works now isn't really an argument. I know this isn't how it works, I haven't heard any reason why it *couldn't* work this way in the future.

[Dauphin]

as you say, usually the party presenting the budget has a majority and so it's not a problem to get it through parliament. there is also a convention (an unwritten rule) that the house of lords won't block a finance bill which has been approved by the commons.

Actually, it's a written Act that says that finance bills can be given Royal Assent within one month of approval by the Commons even if not approved by the Lords.

[OzzyKP]

in the US you have more independent and strong legislature, but as we have seen it is very open to corporate influence. also, because legislators are better able to resist party pressure, they can hold out for special favours for their districts in exchange for their votes, which obviously increases the cost of doing anything vaguely controversial.

so it's patronage or pork barrel.

I'm not sure if that is a result of the structure of our government, one would assume (hope) that pressure from voters (and your primary or general election opponent) would be an appropriate mechanism to keep people in line (in theory). But money in politics is definitely a very big problem.

My best guess though is simply a matter of mathematics and scale. I watched lots of election returns last week in the UK and people were winning districts with a total of 25,000 or so votes (and a lot less in other constituencies). The average US House district has about 700,000 people in it. Senate campaigns have, of course, much larger pools of voters to reach, and President... whew, obviously harder. You can't knock on the door of 700,000 or 300 million people. You can't get them all together at town hall debates to see the candidate in person. So the only way to reach all your voters is through expensive direct mail pieces, expensive TV advertising, hiring expensive campaign teams, etc. It costs a lot of money to get elected in this country. That money has to come from somewhere and sadly, as we all know, the people who put up that money exert a lot of influence.

I think things would be *much* different if we had a House of Representatives of 3,000 or 4,000 members. Obviously that'd be unworkable though.

So yea, I think it is just a numbers problem, not a structural problem. Since we can't really fix the numbers side of things, structural solutions should be thought up, campaign finance and the rest. But I'm not too proud to consider changes to our political system to fix obvious problems.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ozzy, that's not how Westminster works. You can't just say 'budgets are not confidence measures', because they are.

If for whatever reason they fail to obtain a plurality, then the government will fall.

It would be like saying a bill doesn't need to have 50 percent to pass house and senate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben: You are apparently under the assumption that additional elections cost no money for the government?

Some states have implemented a runoff between the top two vote getters in a plurality short of a majority. As for cost, the major election cost is campaigning, not the actual execution of the vote. Voting for the entire nation takes what, 2 days? Campaigning is incredibly expensive and will last nearly a year in the US.

Personally, vote then a runoff between the top two is the fairest election result.

And, of course, everyone knows that voter turnout is very depressed for runoffs... but you wouldn't be using that political calculation, would you?

Which is why you are opposed to it. Why do you have a problem with democracy? If people are too stupid to vote in the election and not vote in the runoff, why should we care about them?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think the British people would rather have spot elections than 2 year constant campaigns. Set elections make it far easier for money to influence elections. When you got a few months, that becomes much harder.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for cost, the major election cost is campaigning, not the actual execution of the vote.

Setting up elections takes a decent amount of $$. There was concerns in the last few years with the states that require runoffs that they wouldn't be able to afford the cost of a runoff (such as GA Senate).

Which is why you are opposed to it. Why do you have a problem with democracy? If people are too stupid to vote in the election and not vote in the runoff, why should we care about them?

So its democratic to not care if you have a miniscule voter turnout?! I think its far more democratic to increase voter turnout and the easiest way to do so for a runoff is to have an instant runoff.

[OzzyKP]

I think the British people would rather have spot elections than 2 year constant campaigns. Set elections make it far easier for money to influence elections. When you got a few months, that becomes much harder.

That's a good point.

[C0ckney]

Actually, it's a written Act that says that finance bills can be given Royal Assent within one month of approval by the Commons even if not approved by the Lords.

ah, i didn't know that, thanks.

[notyoueither]

I think you don't understand how it could be different. They do this vote of no confidence that requires the party leader to step down *because* that is the mechanism through which new elections can be called. If there was no link between that behavior and the election they just wouldn't do it. Or would do it for different reasons.

If the system were changed and parliament were told that under no circumstances whatsoever will voting down this budget result in a new PM, new election, or new party leader they probably wouldn't.

Telling me over and over that this isn't how it works now isn't really an argument. I know this isn't how it works, I haven't heard any reason why it *couldn't* work this way in the future.

I don't think 'we' want it to be different.

A government that cannot spend money leads to a bit of a mess.

The consequences of losing the confidence of the Commons (the government resigning and normally elections being called) is fundamental to responsible government in a Westminster Parliament.

[OzzyKP]

Well it seems the Conservatives & LibDems want it to be different. They represent a good chunk of the UK.

But again, no one really seems to have even attempted to think about this issue. Everyone just keeps saying "that's not how it works, it is different, we're not changing" Well, that's not an interesting discussion, especially with the subject up in UK.