How democratic is America?

[DanS]

Who said ‘When Congress Refuses to Act, Joe and I Are Going to Act'?

Apparently somebody with delusions of grandeur.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Of course. After all, Nixon and Reagan always let Congress define the limits of their authority.

[kentonio]

QFT. Obama has managed to stretch the power of the executive relatively far by using regulatory powers congress has explicitly given him, but could revoke at any time. David Cameron or any other European prime minister has far more power over their respective countries than Obama has over the US.

UK Prime Ministers are extremely constrained by parliament. They can also be forced to dissolve their government on a single vote of no confidence by parliament.

[Tupac Shakur]

Scandinavia

[Hauldren Collider]

UK Prime Ministers are extremely constrained by parliament. They can also be forced to dissolve their government on a single vote of no confidence by parliament.

Kentonio, they simply aren't as constrained as the President is. Particularly since the US has nowhere near the party unity the UK has.

[kentonio]

Kentonio, they simply aren't as constrained as the President is. Particularly since the US has nowhere near the party unity the UK has.

You might want to let the Conservative party know how united they are, given that they've just spent the last 20 years ripping themselves in two over Europe.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's simply factual that it is easier for the PM to strongarm MPs than for the President to strongarm members of congress or for the Speaker of the House/Senate Majority leader to do so.

[Kidlicious]

The Supreme Court also has significant power.

[Hauldren Collider]

Not relevant.

[Kidlicious]

Not relevant.

US Government Fail.

[kentonio]

It's simply factual that it is easier for the PM to strongarm MPs than for the President to strongarm members of congress or for the Speaker of the House/Senate Majority leader to do so.

Don't just keep saying things are factual, backup your claim.

[Kidlicious]

Don't just keep saying things are factual, backup your claim.

[Dauphin]

It's simply factual that it is easier for the PM to strongarm MPs than for the President to strongarm members of congress or for the Speaker of the House/Senate Majority leader to do so.

Your arguments are predicated on the strength of unity and support of the ruling party in parliament. That is a transient factor and neither innate nor intrinsic. PMs throughout history have been stalked by challengers from the backbenches and been removed from power because of it. Thatcher for example had very little power in the middle of her third term. Her successor was nearly ousted by Eurosceptic rebels. The next Tory PM, David Cameron, has to garner support from the Lib Dems to enact anything. Tony Blair was accused of adopting "Presidential Powers" (a misnomer granted) because Labour had such a large majority he could withstand revolts from large swathes of his own party and he just ignored them.

A better argument is to point to the constitutional framework and enumerated limits on power. The PM is head of the executive and the legislative. The President is head of the executive only. The PM can reshuffle his cabinet with only the need to satisfy his own party (or ruling parties in a coalition). The President needs appointments approved by the legislative which is not automatically the same party. The PM etc..

[kentonio]

It's swings and roundabouts really.

[Dauphin]

As I was trying to look up the answer of who has an easier time of ordering a nuclear strike (a measure of real power!) I discovered that in the event of the UK being wiped out in a nuclear attack one of the standard positions for the "letters of last resort" held by submarine captains is to subsume into the American or Australian fleets (guess Canucks are too squirmish about controlling WMD themselves).

If only the French at Mers-el-Kébir had done something like that in 1940.