What do you think?

What changes would you make to do that?

What's Westminster?

President becomes a figurehead.

Leader of the parliamentary majority is the President's Prime Minister. He/she can lose his/her job at any time if the party vote him/her out, so performance is constantly being assessed. However, there is no limit to his/her term, so they could be P.M. for 30 years if the public and party allowed it.

Ministers/Secretaries are only selected from elected representatives available.

Laws are introduced by the lower house and senate, but signed by the president who has no veto.

Lower house is the house representing the people, while the Senate represents the states (as they would all have equal representation)

The president becomes a figurehead with no real political power, except some emergency reserve powers.

I'm basing it on the idea that one man cannot represent so large and diverse a nation as the USA, and that a westminster system would more accurately enshrine the job delegating that already occurs in say Presidential cabinet appointments etc.

It's just that we the people would vote on which people could possibly serve as defense secretary for example, while the PM would appoint the position out of the pool of people elected.

It means people are in effect voting for a party, not an individual (even though individuals are representing them).
It means individuals representing them can be better known by their constituency, removing the necessity of spending billions of dollars making a single individual known to everyone.

I dunno.

The American system has it's admirers.... what do you think?

Sounds like it has it's advantages.

The american system is useful in that it's possible to have a commons majority that opposes the president (This just occurred with the american midterms)

Anyone who's familiar with Canadian politics knows how bad it is to give any one party majority rule.

Westminster has it's checks and balances. Australia only recently handed the same party control of both senate and lower house. And then you have America, which just came off a one-party rule.

Then there's the other extreme where Europe with it's proportional representation system often has difficulty having one party with a clear majority at all making governing somewhat difficult.

I don't think any situation is perfect, I'm just wondering if westminster might be more appropriate given America's huge population.

I'll be watching what happens in the USA with interest to see how effective a party can be in having a majority in just one house. (Unless the Dems get the senate too of course).

To me it seems that if a party in the US system get's control of the house it's not as big a deal as in Westminster systems.

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Krustin: [qb] Then there's the other extreme where Europe with it's proportional representation system often has difficulty having one party with a clear majority at all making governing somewhat difficult.

There's nothing difficult about that system at all. If you look what happened in holland the last couple of years, it's hard to say there can't be done a lot of stuff in this system. Also I think the multi-party system prevents any party from getting so much power they would implement crazy laws. Like president Bush did with his 'we can torture people if we want to' law.

I prefer paliamentary system, gives more control to the Govt in making better decisions electing the leader rather than the public voting the leader simply because of them easily in being swayed who to vote for.

Actually, the American public does not have any real power to vote a person in as president, even though we vote every 4 years for one. We have an electoral college who is "supposed" to follow the will of the general public's vote when voting for a president, but it is they who choose the president, not the general public.

You still use that? We got rid of it a few years back. I really don't think it has any value. It just makes parlamentary coups easier and the whole system easier to abuse.

I think our system in the US is as perfect as it can get.... if only one change were made:

(1) any law must be passed by 2/3 vote of each house, not 50%+1 and
(2) if vetoed, must be overridden by 75% vote.

If we had a higher majority requirement, only *really* sensible laws that everyone agreed on would pass.

America is fine as it is, they just need better beerbrewers, that's all.

This strictly isn't Westminister government, our PM can appoint anyone he wants to the cabinet, decide how many ministers he wants etc.

This strictly isn't Westminister government, our PM can appoint anyone he wants to the cabinet, decide how many ministers he wants etc. </font>[/QUOTE]So cabinet is not chosen from members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords? So you're telling me Blair could go and appoint David Beckham as minister for Sports despite the public not voting for him to represent them?

I find that odd. Australia has a westminster system, and only elected parliamentary members may serve in cabinet.

You said it!

Actually the smaller breweries are not bad. Magic Hat and a few others. All the major stuff is awful!! (budwieser, rolling rock, millers, coors, etc etc)
Although at $1 per bottle of bud how can you complain! Cheaper than water.

You said it!

Actually the smaller breweries are not bad. Magic Hat and a few others. All the major stuff is awful!! (budwieser, rolling rock, millers, coors, etc etc)
Although at $1 per bottle of bud how can you complain! Cheaper than water. </font>[/QUOTE]1$ as in the bars downtown ? Are you serious ? Maybe i really should move to the US then.

Here's the issue I have (short version... just had a long convo about it)

The secretaries/ministers are in effect running the country, but under the US system are not elected representatives of the people, so their first loyalty is to the president who hires them, not the people, who hire them.

That said, in the US's favour judges and attorney generals are elcted, unlike Australia, where they are appointed....

No perfect system.

I just wonder if systems need to be reformed regularly to root out corruption. Certainly making the president only choose a cabinet from congressmen would get rid of the boys club in DC.

But then you're possibly not having the best men for the job doing the job.

But at least they're answerable to their constituency.

Additionally the advantage in westminster systems is that accountability is two-way.

If the P.M. is an arse, the cabinet could effectively "fire" him by staging a leadership challenge. The P.M. can also fire a cabinet member of course.

I like that accountability.

I guess congress can always impeach a president.... but that seems a much harder circumstance to bring about.

The thing I like about westminster (at least Aussie) is that we say "these are the people we want running the country" and then they work out amongst them who's the boss, who's the treasurer, who's defense minister, foreign affairs etc.

Under the US system, what do congressmen actually do? How do they "run the country"? Seems like they don't. President and cabinet do that. So how does it work? Help! I'm not a yank!!!

[ 11-10-2006, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

A minor piece of discussion... only the President and VP are elected by the electoral college. Everyone else (senators and representatives) is elected by straight vote, so the masses do decide who gets those positions. Cabinet members and supreme court justices are appointed by the President, and approved by the Congress.

The US system is set so that no one person or branch is running the country. The other two of the three (legislative, judicial, and executive) can override the actions of the third.

President and cabinet can set directions, but Congress can override those. Congress can pass laws, but President can veto (which Congress can try to override). And the judicial branch can strike down laws as being unconstitutional, in case something gets too far.

*edit* Correcting just who "everyone else" is... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-10-2006, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Bungleau ]

It's my understanding cabinet are appointed, not elected, and anyone can serve in cabinet, not just elected representatives. Am I correct? That's what I'm having an issue with. Unelected officials running the country. (Secretaries) Appoint away, but only choose people whom the country have asked to represent them.

Quote:

The US system is set so that no one person or branch is running the country. The other two of the three (legislative, judicial, and executive) can override the actions of the third. President and cabinet can set directions, but Congress can override those. Congress can pass laws, but President can veto (which Congress can try to override). And the judicial branch can strike down laws as being unconstitutional, in case something gets too far.

Yeah that's all very cool. Pretty good system of checks and balances.

Maybe a parlementary system for brewers that allowed some of the excellent smaller breweries proper representation. Sadly the big brewers in the US are uniformly mediocre (not unlike the big political parties), and the small guys don't get much exposure overseas.

If you get to NYC or Boston... there are a couple bars that stock some of the best in the country, like Ommegang:
http://www.ommegang.com/

and Lake Placid Brewing Company (their "Ubu Ale" is excellent):
http://www.ubuale.com/

and in almost every part of the country you can find small brewers like these two that are doing fine work. Just stay away from the craptastic big names.

Sorry for the confusion, Yorick. I edited my post to identify who "everyone else" is. You're correct that the President appoints cabinet members (and supreme court justices, too). However, Congress has to approve them... another check and balance.

And sometimes, the appointments do come from the congressional ranks. More often than not they come from outside, though.

An epitome of the US system of government.

--------------------

EXECUTIVE Branch

PRESIDENT: Indirect popular election thru an Elecroral College. Example; Candidate A defeats candidate B 52% to 48% of the vote in the state of Florida....Candidate A will get ALL of Florida's Electoral votes. The Electoral votes are not devided proportionally, it's winner take all. This makes it possible for someone to become President and NOT win the popular vote. This happened in 2000, Bush won the Electoral vote but lost the popular vote.
President serves a 4 year term and can succeed himself once....twice if the total time in power does not exceed 10 years.
Can be impeached by the House of Representatives, upon which the Senate will try him. Conviction on a 2/3 majority.

VICE PRESIDENT: Appointed by the President. He serves as President of the Senate, and only votes in the event of a tie(ties are possible because there is always an even number of Senators).
Serves a 4 year term. Can be impeached by the House.
This position is an odd duck. Although appointed by the President, the VP is not beholden to him. Once affirmed as VP by the Congress, he can vote as he sees fit, and does not have to follow the Party Line. This is possible because his position is Constitutional.

SECRETARIES/ High ranking Undersecretaries:
Appointed by the President with the ADVICE and CONSENT of the Senate. Serve at the complete whim of the President, who can remove them at will. They are monitored for malfeasance by the Senate.

LEGISLATIVE Branch

SENATORS: Elected for 6 year terms. Two senators per state. The entire Senate is never voted on at once. Every 2 years 1/3 of the Senate comes up for election/re-election.
This body has limited power of the purse. The Senate also is the main watchdog of the Executive branch of government.

REPRESENTATIVES: Elected for 2 year terms. The entire House of Representatives is up for election every 2 years.
The main power of this body is that they have COMPLETE power of the PURSE. This body controls the money. Enough said.

JUDICIARY Branch

SUPREME Court Justices: Appointed by the President for life, with the ADVICE and CONSENT of the Senate. Once approved by the Senate, Justices are no longer beholden to the President. They serve until death or retirement. There are 9 of them and their job is to interpret the Constitution.

LOWER Court Justices: Same as above, except there are many more of them. They staff the lower judicial circuits.

-------------------

Well, I hope this makes it clear as mud.

Dude, we have come a looooong way in that regard in the last few decades. I love our small brewers these days. You can and will find good beer in the US.

http://www.greatlakesbrewing.com/beerOurBeers.php

http://www.ottercreekbrewing.com

http://www.magichat.net/

http://www.gooseisland.com/pubs/clybourn.asp

http://www.capital-brewery.com/

http://www.longtrail.com/

Beer from any of these companies is awesome. And with very little effort I could name a dozen more. I used to only buy import beers, but we have gotten some *very good* beers in the US since 1990.

http://www.greatlakesbrewing.com/bee...er_id=00000005
This has been my favorite beer for about 6 months now.

[ 11-10-2006, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

This strictly isn't Westminister government, our PM can appoint anyone he wants to the cabinet, decide how many ministers he wants etc. </font>[/QUOTE]So cabinet is not chosen from members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords? So you're telling me Blair could go and appoint David Beckham as minister for Sports despite the public not voting for him to represent them?

I find that odd. Australia has a westminster system, and only elected parliamentary members may serve in cabinet. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Generally this is the way it works, however the PM can put anyone he wants in a cabinet position. Recently our PM appointed someone from the Senate who was not elected. When they do this type of thing they do get heat from other opposition MPs and voters so it is not a good idea to do this to often. In reality a PM as alot more power than a President. The Governor General who represents the queen signs all the laws but has no real power. She is appointed by the PM and I have never known a GG to oppose a PM ever. I mean she could say I am not going to sign this document so it can't become law but they never do although theoretically I guess they can. Observing both systems both have there advantages and disadvantages and it doesn't matter what system you have if corrupt officials are elected.</font>

[ 11-15-2006, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

history has shown that if theres one group of people who shouldn't decide what happens to a country, its the mayority.
the democratic system is flawed since people dont need to have any clue what the hell they are voting for in order to vote. having said that, theres nothing harder then finding a leader who wont turn into a tyrent when placed with absolute power. with all this in mind i would plead for the party system used in europe because when choosing between 2 parties, instead of going for the best, you got for the lesser of 2 evils.

[ 11-10-2006, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Rikard T'Aranaxz ]

Pritchke, are Senators in Canada not elected? They are in Australia and the USA. I find that hard to believe if so. Appointing a Senator/Lord/Upper house member to a Cabinet position is not that unusual in Westminster systems. Normally the representatives/lower houses have the cabinet positions because they're the power brokers trying to get in line to be PM, getting appeased by a cabinet position. ;)

The GG cannot refuse to sign a law anymore than the Queen of England can't. There'd be a constitutional crisis if they did that. (As there was in Australia when the Governor General used his constitutional power to sack the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam)

Secondly a British/Australian Prime Minister has far less power than a US president, so I'd guess the Canadian PM does too. Namely it's that their cabinet and party can fire the PM at any time by mounting a leadership challenge, so there's more accountability to the party and the people the PM is directly relating to every day.

I guess it's helpful in these conversations to be specific about which country we're talking about, because though the terms are the same, the roles may differ. A Senator in the USA has far, far more power than a Senator in Australia for example. I'd think that the French Prime Minister has less power than a British Prime Minister too.... while the French President has more power than the British Monarch (both heads of state) but less than the American president.... am I wrong?

When I'm talking about a PM putting "anyone" into cabinet, the member needs to come from parliament. Upper or lower house. Parliament contains the government. Theoretically the government could consist of people from any of the parties, as long as they are in parliament. Britain had a war cabinet with members of various parties I believe. Australia when governed by Coalitions have had cabinet quotas for each party.

The American president by contrast can hire ANYONE to serve under them, and I found out today, if they picked a Congressman, the congressman would have to resign from congress, because they cannot be in cabinet and congress (part of the checks and balances issue) otherwise they be part of the legislative and executive bodies of the US sytem.

I'm beginning to like the US system the more I have it explained to me, but I'd like to see how things work over the next two years.

[ 11-11-2006, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

In response to your question, yes Tony Blair could appoint Beckham to the cabinet. Much of the workings of the British constitution relies on the observing of conventions rather than strict legal rules. The extent to which a convention has to be adhered to and the circumstances in which it would be considered acceptable to depart from a convention woud depend on the circumstances and the convention in question.

[ 11-11-2006, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Aragorn1 ]

Hi Aragorn, with all respect, this is what Wikipedia has to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Cabinet

In the politics of the United Kingdom, the Cabinet is a formal body composed of the most senior government government ministers chosen by the Prime Minister. Most members are heads of government departments with the title "Secretary of State". Formal members of the cabinet are drawn exclusively from either house of Parliament.

Two key constitutional conventions regarding the accountability of the cabinet to Parliament exist, collective cabinet responsibility and individual ministerial responsibility. These are derived from the fact the members of the cabinet are members of Parliament, and therefore accountable to it, because Parliament is sovereign. Cabinet collective responsibility means that members of the cabinet make decisions collectively, and are therefore responsible for the consequences of these decisions collectively. Therefore, when a vote of no confidence is passed in Parliament, every minister and government official drawn from Parliament automatically resigns their role in the executive; the entire executive is dismissed. So, logically, cabinet ministers who disagree with major decisions are expected to resign, as, to take a recent example, Robin Cook did over the decision to attack Iraq in 2003.

Recent custom has been that the composition of the Cabinet has been made up almost entirely of members of the House of Commons. Two offices — that of Lord Chancellor and Leader of the House of Lords — have always been filled by members of the Lords, but apart from these it is now rare for a peer to sit in the Cabinet. The only current exception is the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

Ah yes, sorry forgive me, formally they must be from one of the Houses, but the P.M. 'advises' on apointments to the HoL (he has de facto control of appointment), so if he wanted a particular person in the cabinet all he would have to do is make them a peer as a mere formality.

Been a while since I studied constitutional law, so I'm a bit rusty, you tend to remember the defacto positions rather than the technical rules, as these are very often of little consequence in reality. (e.g. the queen would not withhold consent from a statute except in the gravest of constitutional crises).

However I was right in my other assertion regarding the cabinet's composition:

"The Cabinet has no formal legal authority over government departments. The very existance of the Cabinet is a matter of consitutional convention, rather than law: thus it may be thought by some to be unwise, but it would not be not unlawful, for the Cabinet to disappear altogether"

Professor Adam Tomkins, Public Law, 1st Edition, 2003, p. 73


Once again, apologies for my error.

No worries Aragorn!

Rikard!
Good to see you mate.
It's been too long.
Hope you're well bro!

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:

Quote:

Pritchke, are Senators in Canada not elected?

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Nope, just appointed. Would be better that they were elected but they are chosen based on region and population. I think it would be better that they are elected but by being appointed they do have the experience required to make laws. I was of the mind that it should be disbanded all together but they do come up with and create some very good laws on occasion when they are not living in Flordia or Mexico. They are all mostly retired MPs and lawyers so they do have experience. </font>

Quote:

Secondly a British/Australian Prime Minister has far less power than a US president, so I'd guess the Canadian PM does too. Namely it's that their cabinet and party can fire the PM at any time by mounting a leadership challenge, so there's more accountability to the party and the people the PM is directly relating to every day.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Yes the MPs can have a vote of no confidence like in SW Eposide 1. Actually in a minority you have to tread carefully here because the other parties can have a vote of no confidence in the PM. This is the best thing about the Canadian system and it generally makes minorities work together to get things done. It is not done often because the parties who do this often get heat for forcing us to the polls again. Recently done with former PM Paul Martin he lost the no confidence vote the 2nd time around so an election and his party lost.</font>

[ 11-15-2006, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Who appoints Canadian Senators?

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Canadian Senators are appointed by the Governor General of Canada on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister.</font>

Here is the Role of the Senate.

[ 11-15-2006, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

I think the US system is better than westminster due to the formalization of checks and balances. The founding fathers were brilliant, though I suspect they were influenced by the English having Monarchs not being chosen by parliament...

But I prefer a Proportional Representation system to the First Past the Post used by the Anglosaxon world. FPP tends to result in "wasted" votes (if you live in the wrong district), potentially lowers voter turnout, invites gerrymandering, and produce large tent parties. PR results in coalitions between parties where the balance of between different ideological wings is much more transparent as each ideology has its own party. As a right-wing liberal/livertarian I dont risk my vote going to union-hugging protectionists or moral conservatives. FPP has advantages in that it is easier to form a functioning government and there is a clearer geographical bond between the voter and his/her personal representative, but I think that having a broader spectrum represented in parliament is more valuable. In the end I guess it boils down to whether one finds geographical or ideological representation more important... The US is after all vastly bigger than any EU country so geography becomes a problem in a different way. But why not introduce PR at state level or in presidential elections?

EDIT: Sweden has proportional representation and parliamentarism (what was called westminster in this thread). Since the prime minister almost always is supported by a majority in the parliament this means that he has to screw up pretty badly for the parliament to act as a check on him. The parties in the governing coalition act as checks on each other instead. In a way the UK is more problematic as the FPP system results in ONE party controlling both the executive and the legislature, but this is somewhat offset by looser party discipline than in many other countries:p

The UK system actually seems to work so much better in practice than it should in theory:p I guess tradition has some value after all...

[ 11-16-2006, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Zaleukos ]

The banking families of Israel, the U.S. and Europe who run the world thank you for your support. Remember -- support world government.

This has been a public service announcement.