Is the US political system more democratic than the UK political system?

122025278

•

The President is directly elected, the UK Prime Minister is not

•

Senators are elected for 6 years, Peers in the House or Lords are APPOINTED for LIFE

•

You get three votes at the Federal level, President, Senate and House, in the UK you get one

•

All ministerial, military, judicial and civil appointments in the US must get the explicit consent of the Senate, explicit Parliamentary consent isn't needed in the UK.

•

In the UK Parliament is sovereign, in the US the PEOPLE are sovereign. Parliament can change anything in the UK constitution.

•

There are midterm elections every 2 years to hold the government to account, we get one every 5 years.

•

There is a huge amount of power devolved to state and local governments.

•

The judiciary in the US is more independent and far more powerful than the judiciary in the UK.

Of course the US system isn't perfect. It just seems in this country we have so many anomalies and a one size fits all system. The US was designed as a democracy, the UK system sort of dragged its heels and evolved and still has a lot of work left to do.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

CJKay

Sure, in theory.
In practice, George Bush and Mitt Romney.
EDIT: Not to mention how much money sways their elections.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 2

miser

The US is superficially more democratic, but anything more than a cursory glance of it unearths that in fact no, they are not. Politics in America is all about money. Senators do not represent the people, they represent the corporations that fund their political campaigns. What the US has is crony capitalism.

They need a 28th amendment to ban corporations interfering with the political process and stop corporate personhood; all they have at the moment is legalised bribery.

Reply 3

122025278

Original post by CJKay

Sure, in theory.
In practice, George Bush and Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney... am I missing something?

And George Bush, what did he do wrong exactly other than upsetting the liberal media and being portrayed as a dictator

Reply 4

callum9999

Original post by 122025278

•

The President is directly elected, the UK Prime Minister is not

•

Senators are elected for 6 years, Peers in the House or Lords are APPOINTED for LIFE

•

You get three votes at the Federal level, President, Senate and House, in the UK you get one

•

All ministerial, military, judicial and civil appointments in the US must get the explicit consent of the Senate, explicit Parliamentary consent isn't needed in the UK.

•

In the UK Parliament is sovereign, in the US the PEOPLE are sovereign. Parliament can change anything in the UK constitution.

•

There are midterm elections every 2 years to hold the government to account, we get one every 5 years.

•

There is a huge amount of power devolved to state and local governments.

•

The judiciary in the US is more independent and far more powerful than the judiciary in the UK.

Though that relies on the assumption that complete democracy is a good way of governance. It clearly isn't however, hence why no country in the world does it.

That therefore means you have to draw the line somewhere - I'm perfectly happy with how it is in the UK now, and don't see the things you've listed as necessarily positives. Mid-term elections in the US frequently result in the 2 different parliaments being controlled by different parties, therefore causing deadlock. The "more independent" judiciary of the US frequently locks up the wrong people - and sentences some of them to death. You can't compare state governments in the US to local government in the UK - it's a completely different culture.

Reply 5

CJKay

Original post by 122025278

Mitt Romney... am I missing something?

And George Bush, what did he do wrong exactly other than upsetting the liberal media and being portrayed as a dictator

Possibly your sanity.

Reply 6

SnoochToTheBooch

the US political system is rotten, it makes ours look fantastic.

Reply 7

122025278

Original post by callum9999

I think you need to learn the difference between judiciary and legal system

Reply 8

I Kant Spall

In American politics, the candidate with more money wins an estimated 85-94% of elections. How democratic can a country be when the positions your voting for, whether conservative, liberal, or libertarian, matter very little? What matters the most is corporate interests.

Perhaps someday in the distant future, when the US passes a constitutional amendment mandating public financing elections I'd be inclined to agree with you. As it is now, I as an American prefer the UK's system of government where even parties like UKIP or the Lib Dems can influence government policy via direct participation in a coalition or merely poll figures.

Reply 9

122025278

Original post by SnoochToTheBooch

the US political system is rotten, it makes ours look fantastic.

Fantastic, all our MP's are stooges of the party, they usually have nothing do do with their constituency but are parachuted in by party big wigs

Reply 10

122025278

Original post by I Kant Spall

That figure is probably the same for UK elections

Reply 11

Morgsie

Divided Government, Gridlock where decisions cannot be made.

One Party in the White House and One Party have a majority in the House.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 12

callum9999

Original post by 122025278

I think you need to learn the difference between judiciary and legal system

I think you need to stop acting like a pathetic child.

Reply 13

Dapperatchik

The primary system also gives voters much more control over their parties, rather than being alienated by party machines who may not represent the views of their average voter.

Of course, the fact that the Republicans are much more accountable to their base than the Tories has led to some rather unpleasant outcomes. So it's a double-edged sword.

Reply 14

cwmdulais

if it didn't have some of the funding problems exploited by corporations, it would be better then ours by a metric ****ton. But until they sort it out, it will only be just as good (or bad) as ours

Reply 15

122025278

Original post by Morgsie

Divided Government, Gridlock where decisions cannot be made.

One Party in the White House and One Party have a majority in the House.

Americans like divided government though. It all goes back to the seperation of powers thing.

Reply 16

kbw

Its a bit strange to say they're more democratic when the constitution was written so that it limited democracy as best it could. The founding fathers were really distrustful of it.

Reply 17

122025278

Original post by kbw

Its a bit strange to say they're more democratic when the constitution was written so that it limited democracy as best it could. The founding fathers were really distrustful of it.

They were distrustful of it for good intentioned reasons, like preventing majority rule, the 51 people in a room don't get to vote to kill the other 49 people in the room.

Still, it was many times better than what we have. We had no founding fathers. Our system was corrupt and run by a bunch of aristocrats.

Reply 18

SillyEddy

The US system seems to be fed by independent (usually corporate) funding and this seems to shape the actual laws and regulations which are put in place by that president and the members of congress. I think Obama himself even mentioned that congressman are afraid of supporting their people in favour of getting more funding for their own campaign. I have heard of people asking their congressman to support a topic, and then they'll just go on and say something entirely different because it supports their political needs to gain promotions and the such.

Companies are considered citizens by US law, thus, can fund individual campaign members. More funding means more publicity and a greater chance of becoming elected.

Also, the system of having house seats by states is slightly biased. The political system works by each state having a number of seats in congress, but this is not always representative of the number of people in that state. As such, the political battles are generally fought over the states which would earn that senator the most house points, and as such, the White House. Many states are deemed "less important" because they are simply not as important in the long run. I'm not sure of the exact comparison to the UK, but it's certainly not completely democratic.

Furthermore, utter slander is allowed to pass in the US which should be totally wrong. This past year, I have heard so much garbage about each political party in the US because newspapers (who generally support and pay for a particular candidate) will basically spread slander about the opponent's political campaign. President candidates are also allowed to show their own bias because of the First Amendment and will often smite the opposition for not being "pro-America" or "a Christian". Honestly? The candidates fight like babies at times.

Is the UK better? Probably not. But the US is not a role-model. It's not impartial enough. There is too much influence. It's like they're still in the 1800s selling snake oil to become mayor of the outpost. I do agree that some parts of the UK government do need modernising, and certain roles need to be fought for instead of awarded and then never regarded again. I'm not sure if I'll ever see it in my time, but the Queen can still dismantle a government if it because tyrannical.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 19

tinkertailor

Our system has always sucked. You only need to look at the joke that is the House of Lords. The US political system may not be perfect but it's a damn sight better than ours.

Topping all of our political faults is the fact that we still have a monarch as our head of state who's only in position because her blood is superior to us 'commoners'.