Would America be better served by the westminster system of govt?

[Iron Greasel]

Originally posted by Griefmaker: 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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[johnny]

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

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Yorick: Ministers/Secretaries are only selected from elected representatives available.

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

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aragorn1: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Ministers/Secretaries are only selected from elected representatives available.

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

[Yorick]

Originally posted by johnny: America is fine as it is, they just need better beerbrewers, that's all.

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.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by johnny: America is fine as it is, they just need better beerbrewers, that's all.

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 $1 per bottle of bud how can you complain! Cheaper than water. [/QUOTE]1$ as in the bars downtown ? Are you serious ? Maybe i really should move to the US then.

[Yorick]

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 ]

[Bungleau]

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 ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Bungleau: A minor piece of discussion... only the President and VP are elected by the electoral college. Everyone else is elected by straight vote, so the masses do decide who gets those positions.

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.

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.