Dumb USA politics question

Remove all ads!

Over here we have three major political parties: Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats. Every few years we have a general election. Each area votes in a party and the party who wins in the most areas is elected in to govern the country (OK, it's a bit more complicated than that).

Anyway, how does the system work in the US? I see a lot of stuff on here about Democrats and Republicans but I don't really understand how the systme works and why there seems (at times) to be an all out war between them.

Simplify it for me though!

 

There are no dumb USA politics questions ... only dumb USA politicians.

 

I'll give it a go, although I'm sure the American posters will correct a lot of my mistakes.

The most obvious difference is that the US has a Presidential system. They get to vote for their Head of Government (Obama) themselves. The UK has a parliamentary system. Ye elect MPs who will then choose one of their own to be prime minister. Obama gets to appoint his own cabinet from whomever he wants. Cameron has to choose MPs to make up his cabinet. This is more democratic than the US but the US ministers (secretaries) will be experts in their field as opposed to politicians who may know very little about the department they're supposed to be running. US secretaries can also make unpopular decisions more easily, as being unelected they don't have to care about what the voters think.

Obama also has a dual role of Head of State. This means he's also the US's version of the Queen and gets to go to ceremonies and wave at people.

Congress is the US's version of the House of Commons and the Senate is their version of the House of Lords. Whilst Obama looks after the day to day running of the country these people are responsible for passing the laws. It's worth noting that the Senate is more important than the House of Lords is in England and often comes up with laws of its own (though of course a law needs to pass both houses to take effect).

A big difference in the practical running of the two parliaments is that the Whip system is much weaker in the US. In the UK the party "whips" will make sure that MPs vote according to how they're told by the party and there will be hell to pay if they don't. In the US politicians will get away with defying the party a lot more. This makes them more powerful as you may need to bargain with them to get their vote. The disadvantage for the US is that you can have gridlock when the politicians can't agree on a middle ground.

The US system has better checks and balances overall. For a party to force its view it needs control of the Presidency, Congress and the Senate. It's very rare to control all three together, especially as they stagger elections rather than having them all together (so being popular once isn't enough). The UK has a more powerful government but this can also be an advantage. The US is prone to gridlock if the politicians can't agree or they're scared of the voters. A UK government can force tough decisions through. As an aside, Ireland could really have used some of the US's safety controls to reign in the decisions of the last government.

I'm sure others will disagree but to me the biggest reason for the all out war between the Republicans and the Democrats is the Primary system. This is how they decide what candidates are selected to contest the election for the party. In the UK it'll either be voted by the small number of local people who are active members of the party (the type of people who will go canvassing or fundraising) or else the head office will choose the person. In the US they have a mini election for it and anybody can vote by registering as a "supporter" of the party. This is obviously far more democratic and you avoid having party hacks forced on you. I'm sure the Democrat big wigs would have chosen Hillary Clinton over Obama to run for President if they were the ones choosing. The disadvantage is that it polarizes politics. In the UK if you had party elections then you'd win the Tory one by being the most right wing and the Labour one by being the most trade unionisty (not a real word). So the people who get selected to run in the real election are more extreme and less middle of the road than you'd expect. And so it's no surprise they don't get along with one another. Bear in mind that like in the UK a lot of "safe" seats are always won by the same party. So you only need to win the primary to be elected really if you're in that party. You don't need to care what the middle thinks.

I've no idea why there are only two parties in the US and why smaller ones find it so hard to emerge. Possibly because the main two have so many committed followers or else because you need so much money for advertising that it raises the bar much higher than in the UK.

It may also be worth pointing out the the Supreme Court judges in the US are much more influential than in Britain. They can be very creative in interpreting laws to give the result they want (without breaking them). In the UK judges will stick rigidly to the letter of the law and regard it as the politicians' job to change them if they are unhappy with them. US politicians do use this a bit to pass the buck on unpopular decisions, such as abortion.

 

The main difference is that their elections take FOREVER. You have to vote in a zillion layers of government as well as voting on who you get to vote for (I kid you not). I don't even want to know what that electoral system COSTS. USA could slash their national debt just by simplifying their government a bit and getting rid of the year long election process.

 

Or slash it even further by removing elections all together. Dictators are the way of the future. This silly democracy idea will never catch on.

 

The US should do as France and shake up their political system once is a while by changing their voting system every two decades or so. From winner takes all to proportional representation, and then back and forth. The effect would be the end of the US two party system - a good thing. Also, it would lead to the necessity of coalition building - leading to, ghasp, bi- or even multi-partisanship - eliminating current incentives to ideological rigidity and to woo the kooks, as so clearly illustrated in the Republican embrace of the tea party. It would lead to a re-emphasis on pragmatism.

Then: Kill those idiotic party primaries, prohibit by constitutional amendment corporate campaign donations, and introduce public campaign financing to prevent out special interests from as blatantly as currently ingratiating (or outright indebting) politicians to their cause.

 

Thanks Deise, makes a bit more sense now. However, what is the difference between republican and democrat? I didn't get that bit!

 

You really should not hold France as a good example of a properly working political system. Semi-presidential systems are really the worst sort. Thankfully we got rid of ours a few decades ago and moved leaps towards a parliamentary system.

Personally I find the US political system to be quite fascinating in all its absurdity and complexity. To me it really seems in a lot of ways outdated. Especially the US senate (with its filibusters and reconciliations) and the use of electoral colleges in presidential elections. Yet it has managed to stay intact without slipping into some sort of dictatorship for centuries so I guess something has been done right. I also agree with Ragusa that simple majority elections are in many ways a travesty to democracy and should be replaced with some sort of proportional systems. It really allows more plurality in politics which is generally a good idea.

@Silvery, it's simple really. Republicans are the biblethumping, warmongering nazis while democrats are the liberal, potsmoking, commie-hippies.

 

Ah, that clears it up. Cheers love

 

I suspect foul play. Silvery could have looked up the republican/democrat wikis (or more ikely she already knows the answers anyway), so this is just an exercise to see what BoM people think they are. Clever girl.

(You always have to be careful with the people who say "help me out with this, I'm a dummy," because most likely they're smarter than you are.)

 

You really should retitle this topic.

USA Politics: dumb. Questions?

 

The politicians aren't dumb, that's the problem. Our current political climate rewards stupity, and rewards appealing to the stupid. The politicians are smart enough to know that.

Cynic? Me?

 

I'm afraid not Gaear. I tried looking it up on-line but couldn't make sense of it. I figured that if I asked on here then I could repeatedly ask people to re-phrase the answer until I understood!

 

There's a VERY good reason why you couldn't make any sense of it.

 

^ Just more proof!

 

Is it is possible for an independent politician to become president of the USA? I recall to remember that it is.

What a joy it would be if the colonies get a third major political party.

 

Republicans = US Tories. Democrats = US Labour. No Lib Dems. Though this refers to their position in their own country and the US is one of the most right wing countries in the world. Many Tories would be considered left wingers in the US.

There are pluses and minuses to a lot of the US system. It has great checks and balances (hence no dictatorship) but is prone to gridlock. Stuff like the electoral colleges are obviously an anachronism at this stage but they very rarely matter much. Obviously we had a recent example in Gore v Bush. Which I suppose is probably a great argument for getting rid of it even if it doesn't happen often.

I didn't mention the simple majority elections as they're the same as in the UK that Silvery is used to. I'd definitely be in favour of a proportional system but again it's not as simple as saying it's better than the current US one. Simple majorities should usually produce stable governments, proportional systems can produce gridlock or unstable governments. If a minor party holds the balance of power then they can use this to get stupid stuff through. Proportional systems may kill ideological rigidity but from this follows the possibility of killing ideology entirely. Politicians can stick just as rigidly to the middle of the road and refuse to give an opinion on anything.