Differences and similarities

[Dave]

Because I thought it was interesting I have split something off the "Alternstive facts" thread - since it was OT there.

I have not studied the subject, my "knowkledge" is anecdotal from books, films and comments by members of various forums.

I doubt that the American system of representation is unique but I do find it quite different, in some respects, from that in the UK. Most obviously Anerica has two representative houses compared to our one.

I do not know if either of the American house has a "whipping" system, a disciplinary measure that seeks to ensure  that members toe the party line - regardless of what their constituents want on any particular matter.

Once elected into government the party is supposed to keep to its manifesto, but it is not uncommon to find out the definitions of promised measures have suddenly changed. "Targets" become "aims" - and we all know that "aims" can be well off "target".

Individual MPs have little power in the house, though large numbers, "back bench revolutions" can sometimes affect policy. Any party that turhed against a significant number of its MPs is asking for ttouble. Of course, this and other things like it change value as an election year gets closer.

And as that election year approaches goodies are dropped in the publics' collective lap, tax droos, benefit increases etc. that may not last in the new parliament.

So, in the UK the individual representative has little power, does not really have to listen to his constituents - well, they listen but maybe cannot or will not take the matter further even when many constituents make their voice heard. That is my observation over 50+ years of writing to MPs mysekf and hearing of the experiences of others.

Thus I have a very cynical view of politics and politicians, ideology will win over democracy every time it seems. We just get to vote for the "least worse" party mostly.

[Biggus Dickus]

Yes we do have "Whips" here in the US as well, in both houses of Congress there are majority and minority whips (That is the Senate,and House of Representatives)

Regardless, just realize that "Merica" is number one in the world Jack with regards to a form of representational government, our is simply the best, you got it? Number fucking uno! (Sic)

I'm kidding Glouchester...how's it go... "we're 7th in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, number four in labor force and number four in exports. We lead the world in only three categories. Number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real and defense spending..."

Plus, and this irks me the most, the U.S. is ranked 28th best soccer team by FIFA. This my friend is shite!

Interesting topic, sorry if I derailed it some...I enjoyed reading your OP, like the bit about "Targets" become "Aims". I'll have to remember that.

[Arturo]

So I guess this thread is about differences and similarities between our governments? If that's the case then I don't know much about foreign government states.

What I have heard from teachers in school is that the UK system doesn't have a constitution like ours, and that the whole thing is held together by tradition. And that is literally all I've had expressed to me.

[Dave]

So I guess this thread is about differences and similarities between our governments? If that's the case then I don't know much about foreign government states.

What I have heard from teachers in school is that the UK system doesn't have a constitution like ours, and that the whole thing is held together by tradition. And that is literally all I've had expressed to me.

Oh, we have a constitution, but it is not written down as such! It is a collection of practices, agreements and laws that are recognised and, largely, accepted.

Take the Brexit fiasco, the government wanted to just bully the vote to initiate Artucle t0 through the house. Our supreme court has ruled that, since Brexit wll necessitate changes in British law it, constitutionally, had to be presented to Parliament. Not that it makes much difference, the government can present it then just go ahead anyway whatever Parliament says! But the form has to be followed, the Prime Minister is not allowed to exert her prerogative in this.*

So, it is there but always available to interpretation - always a good thing for lawyers to feast on and keep very high judges occupied. I seem to notice that even the American not-always-well-worded (in modern meanings and usage) Constitution is open to some interpretation.

Edit: * I should have added the the presentation gives the house a chance to seek ammendents to the terms sought ftom Europe, but that the government are not obliged to do anything about it.

[Arturo]

Not that it makes much difference, the government can present it then just go ahead anyway whatever Parliament says!

We had a similar situation here in Michigan. Except voters had the illusion they could choose. (Hahaha silly people and your freedom.) What happened was that there was a state-wide vote over whether or not to raise taxes on gas. And voters shot it down. The next month there was a law passed that raised the taxes on gas anyway! So the vote basically meant nothing. That was a little over a year ago I believe.