Hermit wrote:Forty Two wrote:So, quite often, a parliamentary system will have it's head of government or head of state (depending on terminology) chosen who (a) has never been put to a vote at all, and/or (b) is chosen by coalition of minority parties, such that someone who belongs to a party who didn't even win the majority of seats in the Parliament gets picked as Prime Minister by compromise.
Parliamentary systems are representative democracies.
So is the congressional system in the United States. It is no "worse" to have an electoral college system to elect a President than to have members of Parliament elect the Prime Minister. Heck, we could just have the members of our Congress elect the President, and then people living in parliamentary systems may stop carping about the electoral college.
Hermit wrote:
In Australia, the parliamentary democracy I am most familiar with, we have 150 of individuals who make laws on our behalf in the lower house.
We have 435 members of our "lower house" which is called the House of Representatives. They make laws on our behalf. We also have a Senate, which has two members per State, which participates in the lawmaking process. The Senate and the House together is called the Congress, which members are elected by popular vote.
Hermit wrote:
By virtue of the preferential voting system all of them gain their seats through a majority (rather than a plurality) of the voters in the area they represent.
members of Congress in the US are elected by strict popular vote.
Hermit wrote:
The 76 members of the upper house are also elected by popular vote. The twelve candidates of each state and two of each territory who get the most votes in their state or territory get to sit in it. The role of the upper house is to review laws initiated and formulated in the house of reps.
Similar to the US, and if the number of upper house members is the same for each of your states, then it's very much the same as our Senate.
Hermit wrote:
A Prime Minister, who is indeed not elected to that office through a popular vote, is not equivalent to a president of the sort you find in the US.
Yes, and no. The Prime Minister is, generally, a head of government, as is the President of the United States. The Parliamentary system marries the legislative and executive branch, whereas in our system, they are separate and equal. I would not suggest one is better than the other.
Hermit wrote:
For a start he must win a seat in the lower house.
Sure, usually in the 10s of thousands of votes, like any member of parliament or Congressman.
Hermit wrote:
We had cases where Prime ministers lost their seat and therefore were ineligible for Prime Ministership. Also, if the Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence, not only must he resign his Prime Ministership, but also a general election must be called.
A vote of no confidence is akin to impeachment in the US; however, in the US it must be for high crimes and misdemeanors of office.
Hermit wrote:
There are no legal, let alone constitutional requirements to do so. It's just a matter of convention, but I dare say all hell would break lose should someone break it. A Prime Minister can also be sacked by a vote from within his own party. This happened three times in the past six or so years. So it's a bit silly to compare the way an (Australian) Prime Minister attains office to the way a (United States) President does. Executive power is not so much vested in him as with the 150 members of the lower house, who do get elected by popular vote.
Yes, but they vest him with "Prime" Ministership, and he is the head of government and the holder of supreme executive power. The notion of a queen or monarch holding that power is really not real anymore. The Prime Minister of the UK is the foreign policy head, the mouthpiece of the country, and heads up the government ,which he puts together. He has all his ministers, just like the US Prez has his "cabinet" (ministers of varying aspects of government).
They are not 100% the same, but they serve much of the same functions. There is no reason for it to be all hunky-dory to have your legislators elect the Prime Minister, but it be ridiculous for the US to elect its President by vote of Congress, is there? If so, why is it o.k. for one, but not for the latter? And, if is reasonable to have the legislature vote for the President, then why can't there by a marrying of a popular vote system with an electoral college to adjust it a bit?
If it's ridiculous for a Congress to elect a President, then why no complaints about Germany using its Bundestag to appoint a President and a Chancellor? O.k. for Germany? Reasonable? Why?
Hermit wrote:
By the way, head of government is not synonymous with head of state.
That depends on the system, but it generally is synonymous in practice
Hermit wrote:
A PM is our head of government. Our head of state is elected by nobody at all. It's the reigning monarch in the UK, who is represented by the Governor General.
Yes, that is why I have pointed out in other posts that the Queen is the head of State of the UK (and same with Canada, they have a Governor General). However, that is not a powerful position. The powers of the "head of State" in the UK are really in the government. The Queen doesn't really wield power.
Heck, if she did wield real power - or if she really does, and I'm wrong - then everyone pointing at the US and the electoral college system really can go fuck themselves sideway. Nobody living in a country that accepts a hereditary monarchy in any real sense of the word, other than as a figurehead and nod to tradition, has any standing to criticize any electoral system of any kind. Get rid of your "power by right of birth" or "divine right of kings" before you go pointing fingers at a system that happens to shift a small, usually insignificant bit of power to small states so that their relevance is maintained in a broad, large, and diverse country.
Hermit wrote:
Although the GG must sign every Bill in order to have it ratified, that has never been refused, again by convention, and since the changes made on account of the skulduggery that took place in 1975, the reserve powers have become an empty letter. Our head of governments role is restricted to opening hospitals, hanging medals on people, making ceremonial speeches and making fools of themselves at the Melbourne Cup.
Yes, the GG doesn't hold real power. If he tried to exercise it, there would be a major problem and Oz would likely rid themselves of it. I'm sure you're fine with the figurehead and nod to tradition, but the "head of state" doesn't really do anything, does he (or she, the Queen)?
Your head of government is the Prime Minister and his or her role is not limited to hanging medals on people or opening hospitals. Maybe you meant "head of state," and yes. That's because the head of state doesn't do jack shit and all the real functions of a head of state have long ago effectively been transferred to the Prime Minister and his ministers, and the Parliament itself.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar