Originally posted by MrPresident
[re: electoral college vs. Parliament]
If you think that is the only difference you either don't understand what the executive branch of government is or you don't know the situation in Britain. Our head of state is not elected. The party elects our Prime Minister, with the approval of the monarchy. The only thing that the British people elect are the MPs who will represent them in Parliament and if they elect someone not with the majority/ruling party then those people have no say in the executive.
Mr. President, rest assured that I DO understand both what the executive branch is and what the situation is in Britain. In addition to years of mindless university study of the U.S. system and a small fascination with Britain's, I WORK in a Westminster Parliament as the chief of staff to a Cabinet Minister. Prior to that, I worked as press secretary to the government house leader. I could go on, but take my word for it, I understand the distinctions:
Yes, our head of state is not elected. Since we both share the same head of state (HRH Elizabeth R II
), I see your point.
But your point is irrelevant. The President's chief function in the US system is to hold "the executive power." The head of state function is more or less a ceremonial afterthought. In contrast, Her Majesty in practice has no executive function except to sign orders-in-council, which she so helpfully always does
when the Prime Minister/Premier asks her to. So there is no comparison between the Queen and the President, save for fancy state dinners and palaces and so on.
MP system for executive selection:
1. Voters elect MPs from regional ridings. In all cases, plurality winner takes each seat.
2. Leader of the party with the most MPs is asked to form a government, taking leadership of the executive branch
3. Leader of the largest party selects cabinet members. While they should be sitting, elected MPs, they don't have to be.
Electoral College:
1. In state by state races, voters elect members of an electoral college. In virtually all cases, the candidate/slate winning a plurality of votes takes the whole electoral college vote - or at least, obtains their pledge to vote accordingly.
2. The college meets, and votes. Presidential candidate with the majority of electoral college votes is elected president.
3. If no majority is achieved, the House of Representatives takes over the function of the electoral college by selecting a candidate from among the deadlocked candidates.
4. Winning President selects cabinet members by picking them off the street.
So, once they are in power, the two systems are very different. But for ELECTORAL PURPOSES, the flaws in the electoral college are identical to the flaws often identified with a British parliament:
To be specific so there's no more confusion:
BOTH systems can, in multi-party races, elect someone who does not have the support of the majority of voters.
Thanks to vote concentrations and the first-past-the-post rules, BOTH systems can produce situations where the executive branch is held by a party/slate that won LESS votes than the "loser," and this has in fact happened on more than a few occasions in both systems.
BOTH systems delegate the final election of the chief executive to elected authorities other than the actual individual voter, rather than by direct election.
BOTH systems elect people who can in theory vote for a different executive than the voters wanted. An MP can cross the floor, and an electoral college member can cast a different ballot.
Clearer?
R.III
), everytime he says the word 'liberal' replace it with 'blacks', and everytime he says the word 'democrat' replace it with 'jew'.
