Back
to top
What is this political system called?
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
... where you can vote for the leader of your nation directly and separately from your vote for your local representative; it's used in France, for example. I know in America there's a gradually fading phenomenon called 'ticket-splitting' where you can vote for a presidential candidate from one party and the representative from another, but I want to know the general name for voting for a representative and leader separately, instead of the British system, in which you vote for an MP who essentially pledges to vote for his party leader as Prime Minister.
Would such a system work in the UK? Would it be more 'democratic' as the Prime Minister would be the person who has the most votes, not (as it currently stands) the majority of constituencies (or plurality if he or she enters a coalition). Would the system outlined at the start of the post make the government less efficient?
Would such a system work in the UK? Would it be more 'democratic' as the Prime Minister would be the person who has the most votes, not (as it currently stands) the majority of constituencies (or plurality if he or she enters a coalition). Would the system outlined at the start of the post make the government less efficient?
0
reply
Report
#2
I do like the idea.
I think the UK should make a move to becoming a more democratic country, there is a worrying degree of people that seem to want a dictatorship. It would cause more conflict in the government, but that's a good thing. Government should be a situation where the majority must comprimise with the minority to achieve the desires of the whole nation.
Although to be honest, I would go a step further and allow us to vote for the whole cabinet seperately, and thereby 'vote' for policies of mulitple parties.
I think the UK should make a move to becoming a more democratic country, there is a worrying degree of people that seem to want a dictatorship. It would cause more conflict in the government, but that's a good thing. Government should be a situation where the majority must comprimise with the minority to achieve the desires of the whole nation.
Although to be honest, I would go a step further and allow us to vote for the whole cabinet seperately, and thereby 'vote' for policies of mulitple parties.
0
reply
(Original post by Farm_Ecology)
I do like the idea.
I think the UK should make a move to becoming a more democratic country, there is a worrying degree of people that seem to want a dictatorship. It would cause more conflict in the government, but that's a good thing. Government should be a situation where the majority must comprimise with the minority to achieve the desires of the whole nation.
Although to be honest, I would go a step further and allow us to vote for the whole cabinet seperately, and thereby 'vote' for policies of multiple parties.
I do like the idea.
I think the UK should make a move to becoming a more democratic country, there is a worrying degree of people that seem to want a dictatorship. It would cause more conflict in the government, but that's a good thing. Government should be a situation where the majority must comprimise with the minority to achieve the desires of the whole nation.
Although to be honest, I would go a step further and allow us to vote for the whole cabinet seperately, and thereby 'vote' for policies of multiple parties.
1) Turnout. While many people would have a clear choice on who they want to be the next Chancellor, Education Minister, or Health Minister, I'm not sure if they know or care much about the role of the Minister for Prisons. In lesser known ministries, people would just vote for the party they're naturally comfortable with.
2) Cooperation. Some ministries must work with other ministries. Having two ministries from two different parties would be like two siblings fighting for who gets the better room etc. It'd be inefficient due to constant fighting over which party gets its way.
P.S. I don't know why I should care much about this. I'm proudly non-aligned to any of the British political parties. I think it will let me view the policies of each party from a more objective angle.
The reason why I made this thread was when I heard that my dad is considering to vote Labour due to Ed Miliband's pledged tuition fees cuts, but a vote for Labour in my constituency would be useless as Labour are unheard of in my local area (which is a fierce battleground constituency between the Lib Dems and the Conservative). I still believe a separation of parliamentary and prime minister elections would allow voters to choose both the candidate for MP who they believe would benefit them locally and the candidate for Prime Minister who they believe would benefit them on national policies.
P.P.S. Do you think capitalism is evil?
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by flibber)
... where you can vote for the leader of your nation directly and separately from your vote for your local representative
... where you can vote for the leader of your nation directly and separately from your vote for your local representative
0
reply
(Original post by XMaramena)
Isn't that like the American system where they elect governors for constituencies, but also vote for their presidential candidates?
Isn't that like the American system where they elect governors for constituencies, but also vote for their presidential candidates?
Is there a name for it though?
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by flibber)
I'm not aware of any parties or people which favor a dictatorship.
I'm not aware of any parties or people which favor a dictatorship.
(Original post by flibber)
However, your idea for electing cabinet ministers separately has some flaws:
1) Turnout. While many people would have a clear choice on who they want to be the next Chancellor, Education Minister, or Health Minister, I'm not sure if they know or care much about the role of the Minister for Prisons. In lesser known ministries, people would just vote for the party they're naturally comfortable with.
However, your idea for electing cabinet ministers separately has some flaws:
1) Turnout. While many people would have a clear choice on who they want to be the next Chancellor, Education Minister, or Health Minister, I'm not sure if they know or care much about the role of the Minister for Prisons. In lesser known ministries, people would just vote for the party they're naturally comfortable with.
(Original post by flibber)
2) Cooperation. Some ministries must work with other ministries. Having two ministries from two different parties would be like two siblings fighting for who gets the better room etc. It'd be inefficient due to constant fighting over which party gets its way.
2) Cooperation. Some ministries must work with other ministries. Having two ministries from two different parties would be like two siblings fighting for who gets the better room etc. It'd be inefficient due to constant fighting over which party gets its way.
(Original post by flibber)
P.P.S. Do you think capitalism is evil?
P.P.S. Do you think capitalism is evil?
0
reply
Report
#7
the french system (e.g. a cohabiting prime minister and active president) is called semi-presidentialism
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by flibber)
Yes. I do think despite the well known flaws of the American Electoral College, Americans get more choice than we do in elections: presidential, gubernatorial, US senate, US House of Representatives, mayoral, district attorney, attorney general, state senate, state house (or Unicameral in Nebraska), in some states, separate lieutenant governor elections.
Is there a name for it though?
Yes. I do think despite the well known flaws of the American Electoral College, Americans get more choice than we do in elections: presidential, gubernatorial, US senate, US House of Representatives, mayoral, district attorney, attorney general, state senate, state house (or Unicameral in Nebraska), in some states, separate lieutenant governor elections.
Is there a name for it though?
0
reply
Report
#9
The bourgeois state is never going to be more democratic, since for as long as it exists, the interests of a (minority) ruling class will be seen as identical to the interests of the whole of society. [/Marxist thread derailing]
1
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by LinksRadikal)
The bourgeois state is never going to be more democratic, since for as long as it exists, the interests of a (minority) ruling class will be seen as identical to the interests of the whole of society. [/Marxist thread derailing]
The bourgeois state is never going to be more democratic, since for as long as it exists, the interests of a (minority) ruling class will be seen as identical to the interests of the whole of society. [/Marxist thread derailing]
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
it's a legit point
it's a legit point
2) it's totally irrelevant; I wouldn't come onto a page about methods of government spending and groan about how it needs to stop via libertarian/anarcho-capitalism arguments, for example (on the flip side)
0
reply
Report
#13
Well firstly the French presidents and US presidents are heads of states. David Cameron isn't Vladimir Putin is PM, president in Russia is some guy who does what our Queen does.
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by flibber)
... where you can vote for the leader of your nation directly and separately from your vote for your local representative; it's used in France, for example. I know in America there's a gradually fading phenomenon called 'ticket-splitting' where you can vote for a presidential candidate from one party and the representative from another, but I want to know the general name for voting for a representative and leader separately, instead of the British system, in which you vote for an MP who essentially pledges to vote for his party leader as Prime Minister.
... where you can vote for the leader of your nation directly and separately from your vote for your local representative; it's used in France, for example. I know in America there's a gradually fading phenomenon called 'ticket-splitting' where you can vote for a presidential candidate from one party and the representative from another, but I want to know the general name for voting for a representative and leader separately, instead of the British system, in which you vote for an MP who essentially pledges to vote for his party leader as Prime Minister.
Would such a system work in the UK? Would it be more 'democratic' as the Prime Minister would be the person who has the most votes, not (as it currently stands) the majority of constituencies (or plurality if he or she enters a coalition). Would the system outlined at the start of the post make the government less efficient?
In either case, I'd say no, mind you. a) is fine, but I wouldn't consider it more democratic than what we presently have, as in the US, an elected president clashes with an elected legislature, and there is no means of democratic resolution when they disagree. Consider how ossified American politics is right now.
As for b), Israel tried such a system in the late 1990s, and it was considered such a bad idea that they repealed it in 2001.
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by flibber)
I think I meant b), that is, have separate elections for your MP and your PM. Was there a reason why it was a bad idea? Did it make the PM virtually powerless in the case of a Parliament controlled by an opposition?
I think I meant b), that is, have separate elections for your MP and your PM. Was there a reason why it was a bad idea? Did it make the PM virtually powerless in the case of a Parliament controlled by an opposition?
The 'reform' had been brought in as a means of controlling the ability of smaller parties to dictate terms when forming coalitions, but it simply aggravated the problem, and the resulting coalitions were more fragile and more temporary than ever.
I'm not very knowledgeable about British politics. Despite having never set foot on American soil, following American politics is more interesting to me. I am aware about the gridlocked state of Congress, but that is more to do with people (Ted Cruz) trying to impress his base with filibusters etc, and I believe it's a rather recent phemenon. Despite the Republican's 1995 shutdown and 1998 impeachment of the President, they did work with Bill Clinton and achieved several notable pieces of legislation. I think compromising is what many American politicians don't know about or can't do for fear of a primary challenge from one of their own party members, which forces them to shift to the extremes to impress their base. Whether this cross-partisan cooperation can be repeated post-Obama if Hillary Clinton wins is, however, another question. I certainly don't see it in the forseeable future, and certainly not with Keystone XL, Iran, Obamacare, and immigration reform on the table. I'm looking forward to the 2016 presidential election, especially if a Democrat runs a credible challenge against Hillary, and who wins the Republican primaries.
Back to topic...
Back to topic...
But I believe that the current system makes some people's votes (that is, those who live in swing constituencies) worth more than others, not dissimilar to the flaws of the American Electoral College system, and a change would let all votes be as equally important, regardless of where you live.
P.S. Sorry for long digressions.
P.P.S. Thank you for taking the time to answer.
P.P.S. Thank you for taking the time to answer.
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by flibber)
... where you can vote for the leader of your nation directly and separately from your vote for your local representative; it's used in France, for example. I know in America there's a gradually fading phenomenon called 'ticket-splitting' where you can vote for a presidential candidate from one party and the representative from another, but I want to know the general name for voting for a representative and leader separately, instead of the British system, in which you vote for an MP who essentially pledges to vote for his party leader as Prime Minister.
Would such a system work in the UK? Would it be more 'democratic' as the Prime Minister would be the person who has the most votes, not (as it currently stands) the majority of constituencies (or plurality if he or she enters a coalition). Would the system outlined at the start of the post make the government less efficient?
... where you can vote for the leader of your nation directly and separately from your vote for your local representative; it's used in France, for example. I know in America there's a gradually fading phenomenon called 'ticket-splitting' where you can vote for a presidential candidate from one party and the representative from another, but I want to know the general name for voting for a representative and leader separately, instead of the British system, in which you vote for an MP who essentially pledges to vote for his party leader as Prime Minister.
Would such a system work in the UK? Would it be more 'democratic' as the Prime Minister would be the person who has the most votes, not (as it currently stands) the majority of constituencies (or plurality if he or she enters a coalition). Would the system outlined at the start of the post make the government less efficient?
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Ofqual consultationTeachers to use 'mini-exams' and other work to decide grades
- Is it too late to do well in my A-levels?
- What Harry Potter house are you in?
- 2021 wellbeing blog launch
- Student tips on lockdown mental health