UK Elections

Originally posted by googlefudge

I understand the alleged benefits of a unified government, but in my experience, here in the US, the
worst sort of legislation is passed bipartisanly, and often not strictly on party line votes.

In which case having a no one party able to act on it's own acted as no break on passing this 'worst sort of
legislation' and you don't cle ...[text shortened]... ll the blame for everything
and can do little to achieve anything!!! isn't that awesome." ....

The fundamental purpose of the bicameral legislature, and separation of powers was to make government slow and intentionally less "effective". Changes, theoretically, would have to be favorable for the nation, the people and the States, so that opposition would be overwhelmed.

Britain uses a bicameral legislature, and to some extent, the need for a coalition government accomplishes some of the goals of our separation of powers.

Each system may have its flaws, usually paraded out by the losers of elections, here and there.

I think blaming or crediting Presidents for the US prosperity or lack of it is positively silly.

Best example I can think of is the short term budget surplus that came up during the Clinton presidency. To anyone paying attention, if Congress had passed half of Clinton's initiatives, there was never going to be a balanced budget. The role of the Gingrich house was ignored in all that.

In fact, that divided powers Congress and President did accomplish quite a bit together.

Originally posted by normbenign
The fundamental purpose of the bicameral legislature, and separation of powers was to make government slow and intentionally less "effective". Changes, theoretically, would have to be favorable for the nation, the people and the States, so that opposition would be overwhelmed.

Britain uses a bicameral legislature, and to some extent, the need for a co ...[text shortened]... hat.

In fact, that divided powers Congress and President did accomplish quite a bit together.

Coalition governments in the UK are very rare.

Originally posted by FishHead111
UK elections?
Do they like, elect a new king or something?

And that folks is why you are called " FishHead "

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Coalition governments in the UK are very rare.

US Presidents with undivided congressional support are rare also. Still we manage.

Originally posted by normbenign
US Presidents with undivided congressional support are rare also. Still we manage.

My point is your comment about "the need for a coalition government" seems very misplaced. The last hung Parliament in the UK prior to the current one was in 1929.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
My point is your comment about "the need for a coalition government" seems very misplaced. The last hung Parliament in the UK prior to the current one was in 1929.

Not so - it was after the February 1974 election. But you're right that they're rare things in the British system.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
My point is your comment about "the need for a coalition government" seems very misplaced. The last hung Parliament in the UK prior to the current one was in 1929.

The problems with both the EC and parliamentary elections are fairly rare. Both systems work, and as I've pointed out, it is usually grousing of the losers about the system, not any systematic problem with either.

Incidentally, we had a special election today, and one of my pet peeves is filling out an affidavit after presenting my picture ID and voter ID card. That seems more invasive and time consuming, as well as purposeless, compared to my proving who I am with a picture ID.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
Not so - it was after the February 1974 election. But you're right that they're rare things in the British system.

I stand corrected.

Originally posted by normbenign
The problems with both the EC and parliamentary elections are fairly rare. Both systems work, and as I've pointed out, it is usually grousing of the losers about the system, not any systematic problem with either.

Incidentally, we had a special election today, and one of my pet peeves is filling out an affidavit after presenting my picture ID and vote ...[text shortened]... e and time consuming, as well as purposeless, compared to my proving who I am with a picture ID.

Both systems work... poorly.

Originally posted by normbenign
The problems with both the EC and parliamentary elections are fairly rare. Both systems work, and as I've pointed out, it is usually grousing of the losers about the system, not any systematic problem with either.

All systems have problems and are far from perfect. You seem to think that all systems are perfect any any complaints by anyone is necessarily 'grousing by loosers' even if the person criticising a system has no interest in the outcome of the election whatsoever or is actually a member of the 'winning' side.
Sorry, but if you don't like a criticism, then simply explain why the criticism isn't valid. Always dismissing it as 'grousing of the loosers' suggests you have no counter arguments whatsoever.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Both systems work... poorly.

So suggest something better, not related to a controversial election result.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All systems have problems and are far from perfect.

We agree, and I'm open to suggestions that don't amount to complaining of losers.

Originally posted by normbenign
So suggest something better, not related to a controversial election result.

Proportional representation.

Banning bribery is also a good idea.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Proportional representation.

Banning bribery is also a good idea.

Wright Single Transferable Vote. [STV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_system

Maintains a [set of] local MP's while getting pretty close to [and close enough]
to proportional representation.

Makes gerrymandering almost impossible, makes every MP campaign individually
for your vote, and not just as a party.

Politics in the Animal Kingdom: Single Transferable Vote
CGP Grey
YouTube&hd=1


Couple that with campaign finance reform and creating equal national parliaments
in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland that deal with internal 'regional'
issues. And make the national government deal solely with those issues that effect
the entire union and all foreign policy issues. Thus allowing people to vote on national
and international [being over simplistic, but you get the idea] separately.

The advantage being that the more you separate policy areas and allow people to vote
on them separately, the less likely it is that you find yourself as a voted frustrated that
you agree with party A on policy area A, but completely disagree on policy area B,
While Party B gets policy area A completely wrong but you agree on area B.... ect.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Proportional representation.

Banning bribery is also a good idea.

Banning bribery is already the law in most supposedly democratic countries. There are of course methods of making bribes not bribes.

One of the troubling things is that bribery and extortion are so closely related. When a businessman contributes to a campaign, is it bribery or is there an implied extortion which makes a greedy capitalist donate money to politicians.

I'm not sure I understand proportional representation? In which system? In parliamentary systems it seems it would mean the government made up of elected representatives and lords, voting for a Prime Minister, instead of the winning party choosing one of their own.

In the EC system, it would invalidate the purpose of the system, which was to give the States, as well as the people a voice. You'll notice that the 10th amendment makes a distinction between the States and the people.