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

Yes, please continue to post. You often spark some interesting topical conversations here.

" I'd like to think it would be career suicide for those Representatives who blockaded the bill, but - then again - I've met some American voters..." [Mu Beta]



Life is exciting when you get up in the morning not knowing whether your country will be feared or considered the laughingstock of the world.

Is it true, as some have suggested, that the British Constitution is not an actual document that one could peruse?

yes SA come back and at least finally let us know who said that the US has more democracy than the UK.

Enquireing (politics studenty) minds want to know

~*~This is a low point for the heavily-edited document laughably known as the US Constitution.~*~

Hmph. Edited for a reason. And at least we have one.

Stupid childish Republicans....

I think that SA has put forward the general political arguments as to why America could be seen as more democratic the Britain

These are widely debated and discussed.

no it was sold to me as people having said it and I'd like to see that, because it's quite clearly rubbish.

There are no democracies in the world, and thank our luck for that. Democracy is totally unworkable and would lead to disaster. What we have are a number of different attempts to avoid the pitfalls of total democracy allied to systems trying to incorporate the essential workable aspects of the philosophy.

I doubt whether any of these semi democracies is any more or less democratic than the others. It's just a question of taste.

It didn't come across to me that SA was selling a point but was making a general comment

Which was followed up by a post that put across the general points of why America could be considered as being more democratic than Britain

Those points in themselves were valid and it seems reasonable that people would agree with them

I don't want to labour the point but this is what SA said

>>It is said that there is more democracy in the American than in the British political system<<

To which I asked, who said that?

as I pointed out later, as a student of politics i'd be pretty interested to know who said it.

I rather suspect that nobody did but I'm still interested in an answer.

But to be honest, I've been here before so I think I'll unsub and get out of it all.

I am not a politics student but I can see that valid points have been made for the case of America being more democratic

Now clearly the downsides haven't been fully addressed

I am going to take a punt though and say despite them there would still be people who would balance them up and conclude that America is more democratic

The suspicion that nobody holds this opinion or has said it seems is one that I find difficult to comprehend tbh

sorry the 'seems' in the last line shouldn't be there

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it the American Constitution was written once, and then amended over the years to suit circumstances at the time.

This was something that I think was a good thing, because those that wrote the original constitution knew that they weren't politicians, so they left room for those that came later to fix it.

Now, whether they've changed it for the better or not, I couldn't say.


As for America being more democratic than Britain, I think that in some ways it is, but in some ways it's not.

Democracy isn't just about getting to vote, or how often you get to vote. It's about knowing you have a vote, and knowing that you can make a change. And it's not just the voters knowing you have a vote, it's about the politicians knowing that you can vote. And that they can be held accountable.

In the UK, there's not much we can do to be honest, unless we catch them red handed breaking the law. And even then they often squirm their way out of it.
It seems that in the US there's more ways that they can reign their politicians to keep them in check.

What they points out to me is that the US citizens trust their politicians less than we trust ours.

To be honest though, that doesn't matter. Who trusts their politicians less is just who's eyes are open more.

As for the government shutdown, I'm still quite curious about this.
In the UK, as far as I understand it, the government announces its budget, the Queen okays it, and that's it. And in the US, the government okays it, then a bunch of (elected?) people get to yay or nay it.
Now, to me in a way that sounds like a more infallible system, you're not reliant on one individual to make the right decision.
However, on the flip side with more people to make the decisions, there's more people that are potentially susceptible to corruption.

I thought in the government announces it budget, it has to pass through parliament with a majority vote, once it has done that then it becomes law

The Lords have little to do with this and the Queen politically speaking nothing, although technically there are the laws for them to intervene

If it came to a point when a government couldn't get a budget through parliament, it would have to go re-election wouldn't it?

I am not saying that sort of stalemate is any better or worse from the one that is occurring in America

the same sort of political and economic uncertainties would still come in to play

just differently

Do you really believe, Pastey, that the Queen has any say whatsoever on whether or not the budget is accepted?

Meanwhile in America, federal jobs have been declared "essential" or "inessential" with the result that some 800,000 people have had their pay stopped. Immediately.

I wonder which side of the essential/inessential divides the politicians pay-packets have fallen on?

What Peanut said.

The politicians pay cheques are on the essential side, that's been in all the newspapers.

As to whether or not I believe that the Queen has a say, I do. It's done in her name. I very much doubt that she'd allow something done in her name that she really disagreed with.

In general I think she just lets it slide and doesn't have much to do with it.

My take on this particular crisis is that Republicans have gotten so used to being in power that they think of power as their exclusive privilege. When the other party gets in, and wants to put forward a program that Republicans oppose, Republicans think the people will rally to their side in the dispute.

'As to whether or not I believe that the Queen has a say, I do. It's done in her name. I very much doubt that she'd allow something done in her name that she really disagreed with.

In general I think she just lets it slide and doesn't have much to do with it.'

I'm a little flummoxed by that post Pastey

Constitutionally though I would say that the Queen doesn't rock the boat

How is that flummoxing Peanut?

I'm sure that you must know what the phrase "just lets it slide" is the same as "doesn't rock the boat" ?

Maybe it was the bit that you said she had a say and if there was something she really disagreed with she would not allow it her name?

No I didn't read your 'let it slide' as the same as my 'not rocking the boat'