h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"The USA has a better political system than the UK."

Discuss, with appropriate examples.

Let me qualify this by saying that when I talk about a system, I'm talking about the actual construction of the thing... the schematics, if you will. If the bathroom floods because a subcontractor substituted poor-quality pipes, that isn't a fault of the architecture.

Or to come right out and say it, I believe the UK system is a flawed design, but benefits from some good people in the right places. Whereas I believe the US system is a sturdier system, which happens to be in the hands of a moron. In fact, it was designed to survive the control of the lowest common denominator (and could they get any lower?), which is its greatest strength. When the worst monarch takes office, it's civil war.

The great weaknesses of the UK system as I see it are:

1) The monarchy. It's a common misperception that the monarch is nothing more than a figurehead. That's probably a misperception that the current monarch encourages. The truth is that she possesses very real legal power, as well as political influence. She uses it with a light hand, so the rest of the world doesn't notice at all. But imagine Dubya as a king.

2) The electoral process for PM. It forces the voter to choose between priorities... national or local. It allows any scoundrel to get a seat in the Commons merely by attaching himself to the political party of the moment (whereas in the US we simply vote in the scoundrel... at least we know what we're getting). And it gives the US equivalent of executive and legislative control to a single party. There are times when a balance of power between the major parties is necessary, and such relationships breed compromise. The current UK system is an all-or-nothing affair.

1. I largely agree. Although in practise most of the monarch's powers are exercised by the Prime Minister, there are still powers. The monarchy is a remnant of the Dark Ages. The House of Lords is another obvious anachronism.

2. In practise very few people consider local issues or the quality of the individual when electing an MP. These things are not nearly so important as choosing the government. This makes the UK system much less prone to pork barrelling than the US system.

While I would like to see more checks and balances, the parliamentary system itself is a check that the US is missing. Since the executive does not have a mandate of its own, but derives its authority from parliament, an errant PM (like Thatcher) can be removed by Parliament.

While the US tried something similar with the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton, that was not in the spirit of the constitution. In fact Clinton described the attempt as "parliamentary", meaning that to be an insult.

Another thing. I may be wrong about this (I learned about it in a US public school), but I was under the impression that the UK lacked a single written constitution.

Instead, I have been told, British government is based on a collection of seperate documents and traditions. It seems to me that this system is unnecesarily complicated and open to abuse. It would make sence to rewrite the system in the form of one document.

Umm I believe the magna carter has been called a constitutional document, can be reasonably argued to be the British constitution.
A minor point of interest though, is that there is no freedom of speach in the UK, though because of the volume of american media that reaches us most people seem to believe that we do.

Math

"Umm I believe the magna carter has been called a constitutional document, can be reasonably argued to be the British constitution."

Except for that annoying fact that I'm pretty sure that a good bit of the way the British government is run isn't in it.

Does the Magna Carta say that the general public has the right to vote for representatives in Pariliment? If not, then either it isn't a complete constution or the Monarch can take away that right if he or she wants to. Eitehr way is unacceptable.

Also, Freedom of Speech is important.

I didn't say I believe they are a good thing, for either point, I just thought they were worthy of mention.

Math

Primist: The fact that Britain's constitution is a disorganized and incoherent collection of historical documents, legal precedents, and unofficial traditions is a point I brought up in an article I wrote on this site discussing the American Revolution. The end result is that both sides were able to find a part of the constitution that supported their position.

And that's what you get from such a constitution... inconsistency.

The US is governed by a collection of historical documents, legal precedent, and unofficial traditions as well. The difference is, when a challenge to one of them arises, the dispute is solved by reference to a single source... the Constitution.

Do remember the magna carter was drawn up in haste, and signed in what was it 1215?
The few remaining copies have slight differances I believe, between those made on the day and those later reproduced to be sent out to the lords later.
I believe it can be viewed on the british Museum's website, both a copy of the manuscript and a translation, for anyone interested, I apologise but I am not in a position to aquire the address or verify it is still there.
(in work atm, bbc access only, and dead 'puter at home)

Math

Blather and Math, thanks for the information.

Actually, it might be a good idea if every country tried to rewrite or ammend their constitution every couple of centuries to include all the stuff that isn't officially in it. It seems that in the US, things never get added to the constitution unitl they get violated.

For example, the idea that the President should serve for only two terms came from G. Washington. Noone broke it (although Teddy Roosevelt tried) until FDR got 4 terms. Then, of course, the rule was made official.

But all Washington did was establish a tradition, and presidents stepped down after two terms as a sort of homage to him. Was FDR serving four terms really such a bad thing?

After all, he was elected all four times.

The Constitutional amendment just took a tradition and turned it into law. But it's probably not a big deal either way.

Ah I knew it was there... http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F81863?thread=160559 Someone typed up a translation for the magna carter for another conv' took me a while to find it... well I personaly suspect cut and past might have been used ;) Anyway, a pleasure to be of some help :) The entry that conv' started from might also be relevent, as it's about the privy council. Math

The largest flaw I see with the US system of government is the electoral college. It is antiquated and downright dumb, but it hasn't been changed. It's resulted in more than a few unfair election results.

I don't know the american system well enough to make fair comparisons, however, imo, both systems suffer the almost fatal flaw of being popularity contests. Seemingly America has very much a personality centered system, whereas with the UK its more the party, or at least that is the impression I have picked up.
If it is indeed a popularity contest the price of success is advertising, which is not a cheap process, which of course means it is easy for party/preisdential sponsors to find political will going in their direction.
So I dislike both systems for inherently encouraging corruption (Not that I have a better alternative to suggest).

Math

What I really don't like is the character debates!

I've never understood why a person's history affect his policy when he has so many advisors that his personal opinion is drowned out! That's the president

"But all Washington did was establish a tradition, and presidents stepped down after two terms as a sort of homage to him. Was FDR serving four terms really such a bad thing?"

"After all, he was elected all four times."

True. My point was that the American people generally assumed that noone would run for a third term to the point that it was almost an unwritten part of the Constitution. However, because it wasn't written, it diddn't really matter.

"The largest flaw I see with the US system of government is the electoral college. It is antiquated and downright dumb, but it hasn't been changed. It's resulted in more than a few unfair election results." - The design of the electoral college was to prevent large states from dictating elections completely. We are not a democracy... we are a republic made up of 50 somewhat autonomous states, each with its own needs and priorities. It was created because they felt the vote should not depend entirely on the popular vote, but should take into consideration the will of each sovereign state.

I used to think like you. The more I studied it, the less I found that it matters. All that really matters is that we have a formalized method of electing a president. The mechanics of that method are largely academic.

Abraham Lincoln did not win a majority of the popular vote.

"My point was that the American people generally assumed that noone would run for a third term to the point that it was almost an unwritten part of the Constitution. However, because it wasn't written, it diddn't really matter." - It was mostly just FDRs opponents who got up in arms over the breaking of tradition. Americans don't put much store in tradition anyway. We're rather proud of breaking them wherever we can. And there were some rather special circumstances that suggested continuity in executive authority would be a good thing. Imagine if the Democrats lost in '44, and the Republicans brought in an entirely new Secretary of Defense and War Department.

I know why it was formed.

The ideas of states' rights isn't in effect now as much as when it was created, but the electoral college is still in effect. The idea just isn't logical anymore, since government is becoming mostly federal. States aren't really anything but names anymore. Remember that for a while, each state had its own currency, culture, etc. This isn't the case anymore, the states aren't anything but borders.

The two seperate houses of Congress were created for this reason as well in fact. But that's another subject

I'll have to check on that Lincoln fact though...

According to my source (and my memory) Lincoln did get the popular vote. As I recall, it wasn't even a very tight race

" Imagine if the Democrats lost in '44, and the Republicans brought in an entirely new Secretary of Defense and War Department.
"

This brings us on to another feature of the US system that is incomprehensible over here. (I say over here, but I am in Colorado this week.)

The absence of an independent civil service. (Or stranger still, the absence of an independent judiciary.) Most Brits, unless they are regular listeners to Alastair Cook, do not realise that an incoming president takes a year or so to re-appoint the entire civil service with party loyalists.

The American system seems to allow an incumbent to argue with some force, that a change would cause a great upheaval which would be bad for the country, particularly now, (particularly if there is a war on or something).

The judiciary is an even stranger thing. Of course all judges have their own prejudices, but in the UK, judges are gently encouraged to suppress them. In the US, it seems, they are strongly encouraged to indulge them. Combined with the legislative gridlock that you generally get in the US and not the UK, this makes the US supreme court effectively a parallel legislature. One made up of people who are not elected, but who are partisan. A greater offence to democracy than the House of Lords.