A Conversation for Contrasting the UK and US political systems
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Montana Redhead (now with letters) Started conversation Aug 16, 2003
Political parties in the US *do*, in fact, pick the candidates, although in an underhanded way. The Republican and Democratic National Committees (respectively the RNC and DNC are the ones who "recommend" a candidate. That recommended candidate is ALWAYS the one who gets nominated at the national convention, because that's the way the game is played. Which is how the US ended up with the Shrub instead of with John McCain, who had a better record, a better fiscal policy, and a bettter foreign policy outlined. What this boils down to is a popularity contest, often based on who is the least controversial candidate. But in theory, you are right. There's no central committee process.
Now, for the major faux pas of the article. The US does NOT have a tricameral legislature. We have three branches of government, the judicial, the legislative, and the executive. The president is the executive branch of the government, and as such, yes, he does have to agree with legislative agreements, thus making him a party to, but not part of, the legislative branch. It is part of the constitutionally mandated checks and balances system. Because of this, the president cannot propose or make law, the legislative bodies cannot make law on their own, and the judiciary has control to some extent over both. Again, in practice this isn't necessarily true, since the president often "suggests" new law ideas, and there is a provision for overriding a veto, known as a quorum, which is a 2/3rds majority in the senate only. Since the current senate is 50 democrats, 49 republicans, and 1 independent (although that may have changed since Wellstone's death), this possibility is hardly likely.
Nice start. May I suggest a collaborative article with someone well versed in US politics? (no, not me...I have only the basics down, as well as strong opinions!)
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
R. Giskard Reventlov Posted Aug 18, 2003
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."
(Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2 of the US Constitution)
As you see, it takes 2/3rds of each house (not just the senate), to override a veto.
Also, "quorum" means the number of people who have to be present for the legislature to meet, and it is 1/2 of the people in each house.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide."
(Article 1, Section 5, Clause 1 of the US Constitution)
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Montana Redhead (now with letters) Posted Aug 18, 2003
Yes, but there's a special quorum requirement for veto overrides. Everyone has to vote, or at least be present to abstain. Which is how they avoid having 50 senators show up and allowing 33 of them to override a veto.
I never said I was an expert (obviously, you are), but what I was trying to point out is that we don't have a tricameral legislature.
(And just on a note of etiquette...if you're going to make pronouncements from on high, you might want to preface it with something a little less abrupt)
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
R. Giskard Reventlov Posted Aug 18, 2003
"Yes, but there's a special quorum requirement for veto overrides. Everyone has to vote, or at least be present to abstain. Which is how they avoid having 50 senators show up and allowing 33 of them to override a veto."
I didn't know that.
"I never said I was an expert (obviously, you are), but what I was trying to point out is that we don't have a tricameral legislature."
Apparently I'm not--see above.
"(And just on a note of etiquette...if you're going to make pronouncements from on high, you might want to preface it with something a little less abrupt)"
I'm sorry. I was just annoyed because on another thread to this, I tried to tell Jowot that a veto required both houses, and then you repeated his or her mistake to him or her. I wanted to make sure that he or she got my point and didn't think I was wrong. My post was directed more to Jowot than to you. Sorry.
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Montana Redhead (now with letters) Posted Aug 19, 2003
No hard feelings...I was just sort of taken aback.
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Joe Otten Posted Aug 24, 2003
Thanks for your corrections. A couple of queries:
Can you elaborate on the effective influence of the national committees on presidential primaries? The reason I am surprised is that we often get considerable (tiresome) coverage of US presidential primaries in the UK, with the implication that it is news, and not a foregone conclusion.
On the tricameral thing, I guess I could have been clearer. The point I was trying to make was that while both the US and UK are bicameral in principle, in the UK, a single house can get its way, so it is effectively unicameral (in a sense), and by contrast in the US, two houses in agreement might not get their way, so there is effectively a third "chamber" (OK, it is not a chamber).
To say that the president is not part of the legislature may be correct us of US constitutional language, but I was tying to use the term in a neutral, rather than US specific way. (Btw, in the UK, the monarch must assent to legislation, but this is only a formality.)
Sorry not to reply sooner. I has assumed that I would be automatically subscribed to conversations on an article I had written. But apparently not.
(Mr) Jowot
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Montana Redhead (now with letters) Posted Aug 25, 2003
What you are seeing is media hype. At the beginning of a presidential campaign, there are a lot of people in the race, and everything is up in the air. After a while, a few frontrunners start to emerge. The party of the sitting president backs him throughly, unless he has already served two terms, in which case both parties get into it.
This election, the repbulicans are (of course) backing Shrub. The Democrats, on the other hand, are presented with many options. The front runners are Howard Dean and John Kerry, with the shadow of Dick Gephardt in the background. Eventually, depending on several factors, among them public opinion polls and the early primaries (New Hampshire and Iowa), the DNC will "annoint" one of the candidates.
Now, here's where it gets tricky. It seems that the vast majority of Republicans in the last presidential election really liked John McCain. The question is, then, why did Shrub get the nomination? A lot of back room dealing, that's how. The RNC knew that Shrub was more telegenic, and, in all honesty, someone they could control. McCain was his own man, someone who would do what he thought was right, regardless of party affiliation. The RNC could not, and did not, stand for it, so they pressured McCain to drop out.
And this is why Howard Dean will never be the president.
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Joe Otten Posted Aug 25, 2003
OK, understood. What about elections to other positions: Senators, Governors, state and city governements? Judges? Police chiefs, school boards, sanitation commissioners, etc.
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Montana Redhead (now with letters) Posted Aug 25, 2003
On a state level, there is something of the same backroom politicking going on for governor, senator and congress, although heavily populated states, such as California, see less dithering over congress members, since there are so many of them.
As far as local offices go, I am only aware of the local offices in my old homestate. It was about name recognition, honestly. As in "oh, yes, I recognize that person's name, and I know this about them." Of course, getting your name out there is greatly helped by contributions, but the RNC and DNC really don't help. It's more who you know than your party.
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Agnostic Primist (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71) Posted Aug 28, 2003
Some of the lower level elections (like sanitation commissionars) aren't based on party affiliation.
Also, some states are essentially one-party, (Maryland is heavily democratic) so the primary elections and back room dealing basicly determine who will be elected.
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Joe Otten Posted Aug 28, 2003
Out of interest, how many "lower level" elections are there? We elect members to parliament, the local council, the European parliament, maybe a parish council and that is about it. They appoint everybody else, or (councillors) sit on police authorities or school governors committees themselves.
A lot of these jobs are mostly technical and not very political, so I wonder what the benefit of having elections for them is.
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
Montana Redhead (now with letters) Posted Aug 28, 2003
Depends on the state, really. In my old hometown, we voted for the Mayor, the city council (and, if you lived in the county, the county commissioners), the Sheriff, and justice of the peace. Other folks were appointed, or applied for committees.
Key: Complain about this post
A few minor (and major) nitpicks
- 1: Montana Redhead (now with letters) (Aug 16, 2003)
- 2: R. Giskard Reventlov (Aug 18, 2003)
- 3: Montana Redhead (now with letters) (Aug 18, 2003)
- 4: R. Giskard Reventlov (Aug 18, 2003)
- 5: Montana Redhead (now with letters) (Aug 19, 2003)
- 6: Joe Otten (Aug 24, 2003)
- 7: Montana Redhead (now with letters) (Aug 25, 2003)
- 8: Joe Otten (Aug 25, 2003)
- 9: Montana Redhead (now with letters) (Aug 25, 2003)
- 10: Agnostic Primist (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71) (Aug 28, 2003)
- 11: Joe Otten (Aug 28, 2003)
- 12: Montana Redhead (now with letters) (Aug 28, 2003)
More Conversations for Contrasting the UK and US political systems
- Peer Review: A1145440 - Contrasting the UK and US political systems [19]
Jul 16, 2004 - Writing Workshop: A1145440 - Contrasting the UK and US political systems [1]
Sep 5, 2003 - A few minor (and major) nitpicks [12]
Aug 28, 2003 - not sure about that in practice [5]
Aug 28, 2003 - Contrasting UK US Politics updated [1]
Aug 25, 2003
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."