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

OK I will take a stab at this. I am not the most knowledgable though

"But they (US parties)are not in control of candidate selection."

Well they are, you need the parties money to make it, so far.

***
"Referendums on the ballot which will have the force of law if passed."

This varies widely.
We have voted in Co for things thathave not become law.
This is up to the states. Not all states have this provision. Some atates take the vote more seriously than others. Many are argued in the state supreme court which can undo the action.
***
"The states have considerable autonomy in principle."

Only in principle and budget to some degree. The Federal Government is more of a partner.

****
I think one of the major deferences may be that we have a constitution that is "living" . It can be changed. The US Supreme Court would oversee that. We have supposedly have a clear seperation of powers in 3 branches of government. The Supreme Court really tries to stay out of the way of anything the individual states Supreme Court can handle or the other branches of government.

For instance the state of Texas wanted the US supreme court to order the Texas legislators back into session. The Federal Gov refused to help in that or in their states redictricting fight.

The sentancing and (having a death sentance) are different.
and the courts and juries are different in procedures.

I could be slightly off somewhere in this info !

Thanks for your comments. A question:

Is there any right to have referendum questions on the ballot at a federal level? If you don't have the same lever with the level of government that spends most of the money, wages wars, etc, it seems like more of a token gesture than an important democratic principle.


The UK constitution is also living. Recently, there has been a lot of change, with devolution to Scotland and Wales, changes to the make up of the House of Lords, and the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor (a bit like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who happens to be a member of the executive and legislature to boot). Opponents of these largely sensible changes spoke of constitutional vandalism.

The fact that the constitution is unwritten seems to present a danger that basic democratic institutions are not entrenched out of the grasp of the parliament of the day. Many, myself included, would like to see a written constitution. However I don't think it makes as much difference as it might appear.


Legal systems are another interesting area - something for another article, and not my field. We abolished the grand jury long ago...


Another interesting contrast is in the area of religion. The US has constitutional separation of church and state, and yet a very overtly christian public life. The UK has an established (i.e. part of the state) christian church, and a largely secular public life.

"referendum questions on the ballot at a federal level?"

No.

I just learned of the Religion differences in set within the Gov. Interesting, although I believe that is part of why people fled there before!
I just thought it had changed! Our seperation of church and state is being severly tried at the moment. I feel we have an administration that is willingly ,actively failing at that seperation.

Today there was a US soldier on the news that wrote into say that he was an athiest and he was in Iraq for America along with many other atheists and would apreciate hearing how the right to forgo any religious belief is what they are consciously fighting for along with the other ideals of freedom.

I am not an athiest put I cheer that message sent to the American Government and people.

"I just learned of the Religion differences in set within the Gov. Interesting, although I believe that is part of why people fled there before!"

Particularly ironic that many of these Puritans set up theocratic societies that were rather less tolerant of religious freedom than the society they fled.

The odd thing is that the establishment of the church doesn't actually intrude on everyday life very much. It means, for example that the monarch is the head of the church. And the man due to be monarch next is a confessed adulterer, which rather agitates some church people. (Presumably past monarchs who kept their adultery fairly secret were perfectly fit to head the church.) He has indicated that he wishes to be sworn in as the "defender of faith" rather than "defender of the faith", which is nice. Defender of "faith and reason" would be even better

There is a token collective act of broadly christian worship in schools (that can be opted out of), which was introduced a few years ago under Margaret Thatcher, but on the other hand there is very rarely any problem with teaching evolution.

I dare say we are some way from all religions being treated equally, and none being imposed on vulnerable children (other than by parents), but I think we are much closer to that ideal than the US.

Maybe you are closer to the ideal