This makes sense. I’d add that the system of government in the US didn’t function as intended in many facets and almost immediately. In respect to the electoral college today, American exceptionalism prevents us accepting that a direct democracy in choosing our President would sentence us to the mediocrity we fear most. We don’t understand why we’ve an electoral college because we broke it before railroads and the cotton gin.
I appreciate the parliamentary system so far for its simplicity relative the US system. But, the good and bad consequences really depends on the nuance.
What compromise must be reached to prevent another election?
What offices are reelected? The entirety of parliament?
So the UK is probably the simplest to discuss because it doesn’t have a constitution, and this means parliament is sovereign and decides everything by a simple majority vote.
They can pass laws saying that certain things need a super majority, but then they can just turn round and unpass them as well
This means that what you think of as the executive, i.e. the prime minister and all his helpers, can be changed by a simple majority, and an election can be called by one. They don’t need to happen at the same time. The last parliament had three different prime ministers without an election, and it’s common to switch prime ministers well before an election in order to create an incumbent advantage.
I’m looked up UK’s parliamentary party composition. There’s three major parties. And, if one adds up all the minor party seats they hold like 7%.
What isn’t this system suffering two-party dichotomy as seen in the US? In this I can quickly understand how deep cultural roots may be a significant factor. But, are there also systemic checks and balances that keep third parties alive? Is it as simple a core difference as ballot access?
It does. The UK sucks too because it doesn’t have proportional representation. But that’s a whole separate problem.
What basically makes it suck a little less than the US is each seat only receives tens of thousands of votes, so it’s possible for local interests to do well in particular seats and get a little bit more diversity.
We are a two party system. It’s just one of them has suffered such a catastrophic loss in vote share that it looks like there’s three main parties.
It’s extremely regional. In most of England it’s Labour vs Tories. In some southern areas it’s Lib Dem vs Tories. In Scotland mostly the SNP vie with Labour for control. Northern Ireland is DUP (Tory aligned, but we only remembered they existed when they had to prop the Tories up) vs Sinn Fein. Wales is mostly Labour vs Tory with Plaid Cymru thrown in.
The minor parties are competitive in a handful of locations, so only Labour and Tories can actually win control.
In a Parliamentary system, you win a seat if enough people in one constituency like you. If the US had a similar system, the ‘Fuck NYC’ party might win upstate New York. In the UK, such local parties include the SNP in Scotland, the Liberal Democrats in southern England, SF and the DUP in Northern Ireland, and PC in Wales. None of them can win across the UK, but they often end up as kingmakers if neither of the big parties can get a majority. If that happens, they can then demand some benefits for the regions they represent.
In parliamentary systems, the government needs to maintain the confidence of the majority. Any elected official can request a vote of confidence be held and, at least in Canada, certain votes are always considered votes of confidence (ex. the government’s budget). If a confidence vote fails, parliament dissolves and can’t do anything until a new parliament is formed. All seats are up for re-election. Since the government can’t do anything until an election is held, they tend to happen very quickly.
The government can prevent a no confidence vote by swaying enough members. It’s a bit of a non-issue if the current government already holds the majority of seats. If they don’t hold a majority, they’ll often make deals with a smaller party in exchange for their confidence. This can be as little as modifying a bill to as much as forming an official coalition and granting members of another party cabinet positions.
I think I’m understanding how it supposed to work: Because it’s a unicameral legislature that appoints the executive, there’s no possibility of checks and balances by bicameral legislature and pseudo-democratic election of executive. So, the larger parties don’t kill off the smaller parties because, if they aren’t part of the majority coalition, they need smaller party favor to in the future be part of the majority coalition.
Is that generally the right idea?
Is it safe to assume that some things, like changing a federal or provincial constitution, would take more than a majority?
In practice, that’s generally the idea. Small parties haven’t gone away because larger parties can usually bet on them lending a hand when the large party fails to win a majority, and voters aren’t afraid to vote for a small party when polls are split. However, this is mostly a left wing thing, at least in Canada. Small right wing parties tend to eventually join up with the “big tent” Conservative party. Although it’s mostly because small right wing parties tend to be unable to convince conservative voters to switch from the big party to their little party.
Because it’s a unicameral legislature that appoints the executive, there’s no possibility of checks and balances by bicameral legislature and pseudo-democratic election of executive.
Canada has a bicameral legislature, just like the UK. Our second chamber is the Senate, modelled after the UKs second chamber, The House of Lords. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and can serve until 75 (technically they are appointed by the reigning monarch but the constitution requires them to listen to the Prime Minister). All bills must pass a vote in both chambers before it is law.
In practice, the appointed Senators don’t like to vote down bills that have been approved by the elected Members of Parliament since it upsets Canadians who have been asking “what is the point of the senate?” and “why don’t we get rid of it?” for a long time. They will typically only request small changes to avoid loosing their very cushy jobs, though there are times they do play politics. They claim to be the chamber of “sober second thought”, where things are debated on their merits without political fervor. To their credit, most of their debates do end with a unanimous decision.
Is it safe to assume that some things, like changing a federal or provincial constitution, would take more than a majority?
For changing the constitution, it requires approval of Parliament (technically the Senate has a say but at most they can only delay changes for 180 days) and 7 out of 10 provinces. In cases where the change affects only one province, only Parliament that province needs to approve.
There are a few special parts of the constitution that need to be absolutely unanimous: removal of the monarchy, lowering the minumum number of seats a province has in parliment, removing English or French from the offical languages, and changing the composition of the Supreme Court.
The bicameral system operates at the extremes. The Senate is appointed sorta for life like our Supreme Court. But, the Parliament can be dissolved at any time by failure to form a majority coalition.
The best thank you I have is trying to demonstrate depth of understanding.
One purpose of the Senate appears to be to protect the minority from the majority. Another appears to be to protect the majority from the mediocre results of democratic governance. These roles are never safe, politic, or popular. That’s why they’re appointed effectively for life.
I don’t know what’s “best”. But, I think I now better understand why it was designed the way it is. Thank you.
This makes sense. I’d add that the system of government in the US didn’t function as intended in many facets and almost immediately. In respect to the electoral college today, American exceptionalism prevents us accepting that a direct democracy in choosing our President would sentence us to the mediocrity we fear most. We don’t understand why we’ve an electoral college because we broke it before railroads and the cotton gin.
I appreciate the parliamentary system so far for its simplicity relative the US system. But, the good and bad consequences really depends on the nuance.
What compromise must be reached to prevent another election?
What offices are reelected? The entirety of parliament?
So the UK is probably the simplest to discuss because it doesn’t have a constitution, and this means parliament is sovereign and decides everything by a simple majority vote.
They can pass laws saying that certain things need a super majority, but then they can just turn round and unpass them as well
This means that what you think of as the executive, i.e. the prime minister and all his helpers, can be changed by a simple majority, and an election can be called by one. They don’t need to happen at the same time. The last parliament had three different prime ministers without an election, and it’s common to switch prime ministers well before an election in order to create an incumbent advantage.
This makes sense also. Thank you for teaching.
I’m looked up UK’s parliamentary party composition. There’s three major parties. And, if one adds up all the minor party seats they hold like 7%.
What isn’t this system suffering two-party dichotomy as seen in the US? In this I can quickly understand how deep cultural roots may be a significant factor. But, are there also systemic checks and balances that keep third parties alive? Is it as simple a core difference as ballot access?
It does. The UK sucks too because it doesn’t have proportional representation. But that’s a whole separate problem.
What basically makes it suck a little less than the US is each seat only receives tens of thousands of votes, so it’s possible for local interests to do well in particular seats and get a little bit more diversity.
It does suffer from it.
We are a two party system. It’s just one of them has suffered such a catastrophic loss in vote share that it looks like there’s three main parties.
It’s extremely regional. In most of England it’s Labour vs Tories. In some southern areas it’s Lib Dem vs Tories. In Scotland mostly the SNP vie with Labour for control. Northern Ireland is DUP (Tory aligned, but we only remembered they existed when they had to prop the Tories up) vs Sinn Fein. Wales is mostly Labour vs Tory with Plaid Cymru thrown in.
The minor parties are competitive in a handful of locations, so only Labour and Tories can actually win control.
In a Parliamentary system, you win a seat if enough people in one constituency like you. If the US had a similar system, the ‘Fuck NYC’ party might win upstate New York. In the UK, such local parties include the SNP in Scotland, the Liberal Democrats in southern England, SF and the DUP in Northern Ireland, and PC in Wales. None of them can win across the UK, but they often end up as kingmakers if neither of the big parties can get a majority. If that happens, they can then demand some benefits for the regions they represent.
In parliamentary systems, the government needs to maintain the confidence of the majority. Any elected official can request a vote of confidence be held and, at least in Canada, certain votes are always considered votes of confidence (ex. the government’s budget). If a confidence vote fails, parliament dissolves and can’t do anything until a new parliament is formed. All seats are up for re-election. Since the government can’t do anything until an election is held, they tend to happen very quickly.
The government can prevent a no confidence vote by swaying enough members. It’s a bit of a non-issue if the current government already holds the majority of seats. If they don’t hold a majority, they’ll often make deals with a smaller party in exchange for their confidence. This can be as little as modifying a bill to as much as forming an official coalition and granting members of another party cabinet positions.
I think I’m understanding how it supposed to work: Because it’s a unicameral legislature that appoints the executive, there’s no possibility of checks and balances by bicameral legislature and pseudo-democratic election of executive. So, the larger parties don’t kill off the smaller parties because, if they aren’t part of the majority coalition, they need smaller party favor to in the future be part of the majority coalition.
Is that generally the right idea?
Is it safe to assume that some things, like changing a federal or provincial constitution, would take more than a majority?
In practice, that’s generally the idea. Small parties haven’t gone away because larger parties can usually bet on them lending a hand when the large party fails to win a majority, and voters aren’t afraid to vote for a small party when polls are split. However, this is mostly a left wing thing, at least in Canada. Small right wing parties tend to eventually join up with the “big tent” Conservative party. Although it’s mostly because small right wing parties tend to be unable to convince conservative voters to switch from the big party to their little party.
Canada has a bicameral legislature, just like the UK. Our second chamber is the Senate, modelled after the UKs second chamber, The House of Lords. Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister and can serve until 75 (technically they are appointed by the reigning monarch but the constitution requires them to listen to the Prime Minister). All bills must pass a vote in both chambers before it is law.
In practice, the appointed Senators don’t like to vote down bills that have been approved by the elected Members of Parliament since it upsets Canadians who have been asking “what is the point of the senate?” and “why don’t we get rid of it?” for a long time. They will typically only request small changes to avoid loosing their very cushy jobs, though there are times they do play politics. They claim to be the chamber of “sober second thought”, where things are debated on their merits without political fervor. To their credit, most of their debates do end with a unanimous decision.
For changing the constitution, it requires approval of Parliament (technically the Senate has a say but at most they can only delay changes for 180 days) and 7 out of 10 provinces. In cases where the change affects only one province, only Parliament that province needs to approve.
There are a few special parts of the constitution that need to be absolutely unanimous: removal of the monarchy, lowering the minumum number of seats a province has in parliment, removing English or French from the offical languages, and changing the composition of the Supreme Court.
The bicameral system operates at the extremes. The Senate is appointed sorta for life like our Supreme Court. But, the Parliament can be dissolved at any time by failure to form a majority coalition.
Super cool.
The best thank you I have is trying to demonstrate depth of understanding.
One purpose of the Senate appears to be to protect the minority from the majority. Another appears to be to protect the majority from the mediocre results of democratic governance. These roles are never safe, politic, or popular. That’s why they’re appointed effectively for life.
I don’t know what’s “best”. But, I think I now better understand why it was designed the way it is. Thank you.
Do you mean what should happen after an election in case no coalition with the majority in the parlament can be formed?