Take Control Of Your Prostate Health...
Business & Finance1 min ago
Is The Usa A Democracy?
19 Answers
In the UK, when a party is voted into power, they submit plans for legislation. The opposition will, more often than not, criticize the proposals but will not use parliamentary procedure to block them, which it could. This is because all parties recognize the democratic result and will respect it. This doesn't seem to be the case in the USA, not with the current President, anyway. Trump was elected because he said he would carry out certain proposals. What he said appealed to the majority, and he was elected. When it comes to his proposals passing into law, the democratic result is ignored and the H of R says "Nah. you aint doing that pal". The land of the free! Democracy in action! Is it?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"What he said appealed to the majority, and he was elected."
Well, that's wrong for a start: what he said *didn't* appeal to the majority, but owing to a quirk of First-Past-the-Post voting he won anyway.
Secondly, he has got a few things through that he wanted to, mainly by executive order and occasionally with opposition of the courts (but that's to be expected and is the courts' job in the US).
Thirdly, the Healthcare legislation failed to get through not because of the opposition but because of his own party. Also, the H. of R. actually said "oh sure, I guess so", it was the Senate that ended up blocking it.
But apart from that there are no factual errors in your post at all.
Well, that's wrong for a start: what he said *didn't* appeal to the majority, but owing to a quirk of First-Past-the-Post voting he won anyway.
Secondly, he has got a few things through that he wanted to, mainly by executive order and occasionally with opposition of the courts (but that's to be expected and is the courts' job in the US).
Thirdly, the Healthcare legislation failed to get through not because of the opposition but because of his own party. Also, the H. of R. actually said "oh sure, I guess so", it was the Senate that ended up blocking it.
But apart from that there are no factual errors in your post at all.
"The opposition will, more often than not, criticize the proposals but will not use parliamentary procedure to block them"
Yes they will: they'll vote against bills in parliament, because that is how a parliamentary deomcracy works, and although the US does not operate in quite the same way, being a bit more "presidential", the principle is the same. You vote in a president, but that does not make the president "God" (despite what the president may think) any more than a governemt in the UK can expect to have all its manifesto pledges nodded through
Yes they will: they'll vote against bills in parliament, because that is how a parliamentary deomcracy works, and although the US does not operate in quite the same way, being a bit more "presidential", the principle is the same. You vote in a president, but that does not make the president "God" (despite what the president may think) any more than a governemt in the UK can expect to have all its manifesto pledges nodded through
yes
but democracy is how you define it
Suppliant Women 460BC - Aeschylus I think
" The village has voted you can stay - it is this new thing called democracy" - on in Manch - earlier this year
WHEREAS - the Egyptians were talking - after the glorious election of the Muslim Brother Morsi or Sisi or someone - of the tyranny of democracy. 80% of the population had voted ( great ! democracy working ) for penal laws against the Christians ( Copts)
but democracy is how you define it
Suppliant Women 460BC - Aeschylus I think
" The village has voted you can stay - it is this new thing called democracy" - on in Manch - earlier this year
WHEREAS - the Egyptians were talking - after the glorious election of the Muslim Brother Morsi or Sisi or someone - of the tyranny of democracy. 80% of the population had voted ( great ! democracy working ) for penal laws against the Christians ( Copts)
-- answer removed --
"The opposition [in the UK] will, more often than not, criticize the proposals but will not use parliamentary procedure to block them, which it could."
One key difference here, too, is that the US system is designed to encourage bipartisan support wherever possible. To the best of my knowledge there is only one vote in the UK that requires more than a simple majority to pass, whereas in the US the "filibuster" is a natural part of many debates. It's enforced by the constitution and the point is to ensure that major changes ensure broader support than a mere simple majority.
Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, the other factual error in your post is therefore in assuming that Trump is somehow the first victim of these sorts of procedural blocks, at least for a while. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama, in particular in his second term, was blocked on most of the major policy attempts because his party had lost the majority in the Senate and Representatives. He was even refused the chance to have his preferred candidate for the Supreme Court vacancy, Merrick Garland, up for even a hearing to assess his ability. The Republicans flatly refused, for all sorts of *** excuses but mainly because they had the power to screw over the democratically elected president.
As it happens there's good reason to question the democratic process in the US, but falling for Trumpist propaganda isn't one of them.
One key difference here, too, is that the US system is designed to encourage bipartisan support wherever possible. To the best of my knowledge there is only one vote in the UK that requires more than a simple majority to pass, whereas in the US the "filibuster" is a natural part of many debates. It's enforced by the constitution and the point is to ensure that major changes ensure broader support than a mere simple majority.
Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, the other factual error in your post is therefore in assuming that Trump is somehow the first victim of these sorts of procedural blocks, at least for a while. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama, in particular in his second term, was blocked on most of the major policy attempts because his party had lost the majority in the Senate and Representatives. He was even refused the chance to have his preferred candidate for the Supreme Court vacancy, Merrick Garland, up for even a hearing to assess his ability. The Republicans flatly refused, for all sorts of *** excuses but mainly because they had the power to screw over the democratically elected president.
As it happens there's good reason to question the democratic process in the US, but falling for Trumpist propaganda isn't one of them.
-- answer removed --
// The opposition will, more often than not, criticize the proposals but will not use parliamentary procedure to block them,//
eek well in 1820 in the matter of the Kings Divorce
Countess Lieven commented- everyone is rushing around trying to defeat the goverment as it will lead to a change of government or an election - but this is a private matter involving the (new) King and has been made the subject of politics
in fact - foretelling the vote in amerikee last night - clause 2 was carried by one vote - and ministers advised that clause 1 might well be defeated.
The Bill was withdrawn - and that accounts for Queen Caroline tooling up to the doors of Westminster Abbey and demanding to be let into the Coronation - open up I am your queen !
eek well in 1820 in the matter of the Kings Divorce
Countess Lieven commented- everyone is rushing around trying to defeat the goverment as it will lead to a change of government or an election - but this is a private matter involving the (new) King and has been made the subject of politics
in fact - foretelling the vote in amerikee last night - clause 2 was carried by one vote - and ministers advised that clause 1 might well be defeated.
The Bill was withdrawn - and that accounts for Queen Caroline tooling up to the doors of Westminster Abbey and demanding to be let into the Coronation - open up I am your queen !
You were the one who brought Trump into it, I'm not sure why you are being so defensive.
Anyway, as I say, this is the norm in the US, and the reason is primarily to ensure that it takes more than just a simple majority to force through major changes. In the UK that doesn't hold. It's a different approach to democracy, more conservative and more at risk of stagnation, but at least when change does happen it's usually with consensus; something we could do with more of here, perhaps.
Anyway, as I say, this is the norm in the US, and the reason is primarily to ensure that it takes more than just a simple majority to force through major changes. In the UK that doesn't hold. It's a different approach to democracy, more conservative and more at risk of stagnation, but at least when change does happen it's usually with consensus; something we could do with more of here, perhaps.
The House of Representatives, it sshould be noted, has a majority that belongs to the same party as the President (!)
Unlike the situation that pertains in the UK just now ...
Not sure where you get the idea that in the UK parliament will not block things, Of course they will if they can. That's why the PM bust a gut to be nice to the DUP for example, to help stop that
Unlike the situation that pertains in the UK just now ...
Not sure where you get the idea that in the UK parliament will not block things, Of course they will if they can. That's why the PM bust a gut to be nice to the DUP for example, to help stop that
Trump didn't get in due to any first past the post election, he got in because votes from some places are given more value than votes from others. It was a single election for a single position, there was no justification for messing about with the votes on a state to state basis. That was an affront to democracy.
"Trump didn't get in due to any first past the post election, he got in because votes from some places are given more value than votes from others."
But that's what a first past the post election basically does, though. OK, to be sure it also didn't help that votes were assigned to state colleges, and the US Electoral College is deliberately designed to transfer voter power around; but even if you tried to draw College boundaries such that each College vote had the same size in terms of adult population, the anomaly could still persist that the winner of the overall election didn't win the most votes. It's rarer, but could still happen. All you have to do is ensure that you win all the key tight races, and lose every other race comfortably.
But that's what a first past the post election basically does, though. OK, to be sure it also didn't help that votes were assigned to state colleges, and the US Electoral College is deliberately designed to transfer voter power around; but even if you tried to draw College boundaries such that each College vote had the same size in terms of adult population, the anomaly could still persist that the winner of the overall election didn't win the most votes. It's rarer, but could still happen. All you have to do is ensure that you win all the key tight races, and lose every other race comfortably.
"In the UK Parliament, the opposition can use procedures to block any legislation. They don't do that because they don't want any reciprocation when they get in power. It's called democracy." If that were true, what is the purpose of the debates and votes in Parliament?
If you look back over the voting records, various legislation introduced by the government of the day has been defeated, even when the government has a majority in Parliament.
It doesn't happen very often but it proves the argument is false.
If you look back over the voting records, various legislation introduced by the government of the day has been defeated, even when the government has a majority in Parliament.
It doesn't happen very often but it proves the argument is false.
It is not what the FPTP system does at all. The FPTP system elects a representative who gained the most first cast votes, and gets on with it. There is no putting a weighting on the votes so some are worth more than others. For example everyone in the area where the vote is held gets the same option to vote for a candidate, and all count as one vote. No wonder you are against it if you think there is some fiddling going on. There isn't.
"he FPTP system elects a representative who gained the most first cast votes, and gets on with it. There is no putting a weighting on the votes so some are worth more than others. For example everyone in the area where the vote is held gets the same option to vote for a candidate, and all count as one vote. No wonder you are against it if you think there is some fiddling going on."
I don't regard what happens as "fiddling". It's just a fact of FPTP mapped to a constituency system that the overall winner in terms of *seats* can (and occasionally does) lose in terms of *votes*. You don't need to deliberately imbalance the weightings in order for an imbalance to still occur. That;s because FPTP implies that a win by one vote is just as significant as a win by 10,000 votes, of which 9,999 are therefore "wasted".
That is all I'm saying. The system of FPTP is for sure "fair" in the sense of one person, one vote, and if there were no constituencies then it would also seem "fair" across a whole nation. But that's not what we have, and in practice FPTP + constituencies leads to unfair results.
Some of that is to do with underlying local issues that can't be blamed on FPTP itself. The point, though, is that FPTP doesn't even try to take these into account, which (in order to represent the people properly) it should.
I don't regard what happens as "fiddling". It's just a fact of FPTP mapped to a constituency system that the overall winner in terms of *seats* can (and occasionally does) lose in terms of *votes*. You don't need to deliberately imbalance the weightings in order for an imbalance to still occur. That;s because FPTP implies that a win by one vote is just as significant as a win by 10,000 votes, of which 9,999 are therefore "wasted".
That is all I'm saying. The system of FPTP is for sure "fair" in the sense of one person, one vote, and if there were no constituencies then it would also seem "fair" across a whole nation. But that's not what we have, and in practice FPTP + constituencies leads to unfair results.
Some of that is to do with underlying local issues that can't be blamed on FPTP itself. The point, though, is that FPTP doesn't even try to take these into account, which (in order to represent the people properly) it should.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Business & Finance16 mins ago
T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV17 mins ago
