US General Election 2016

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-12/donald-trump-said-to-weigh-newt-gingrich-for-vice-presidential-role

One of my conservative friends on Facebook put it this way: "Self-absorbed, egotistical, thrice-married blowhard considers self for running mate"

So all Trevor Noah really needed to hit his stride was to get out from behind the desk. His former stuff was funny, but seemed a bit forced. With him standing up, it suddenly all seems natural.

Well, he's originally a stand up.

David H wrote:

Orwell wrote:Does Congress hold the real power? Hope so.

In theory yes, but they've been fumbling in the dark looking for the switch for years now.

I genuinely admire America in many things, but this investment if so many in the aura and power of individuals - or the individual - has always unnerved me a bit. The democracy seems strong but more power seems invested in a individual than seems wise. Which was what made me wonder about just how potent congress is. Most western democracies topple their leaders at the drop of a hat, and often by members of their own party. You get rid of bad presidents by impeachment. Are there other ways to get rid of of chumps or trumps? I'm not including assassination btw...

Btw I only just in the last half hour or so come across a defamatory comment about me going potty. I don't know where I saw it now, can't seem to find it now, but this good a place as any to say what needs be said: "Respect Your Moderator"

(I mean you, Petty! )

Orwell wrote:

David H wrote:

Orwell wrote:Does Congress hold the real power? Hope so.

In theory yes, but they've been fumbling in the dark looking for the switch for years now.

I genuinely admire America in many things, but this investment if so many in the aura and power of individuals - or the individual - has always unnerved me a bit. The democracy seems strong but more power seems invested in a individual than seems wise. Which was what made me wonder about just how potent congress is. Most western democracies topple their leaders at the drop of a hat, and often by members of their own party. You get rid of bad presidents by impeachment. Are there other ways to get rid of of chumps or trumps? I'm not including assassination btw...

and the second step of the impeachment process, a 2/3 vote to remove from office, has never happened.

Remember that the system is not the same as the parliamentary system, in which the dominant party "forms a government". Once they are no longer dominant, that government evaporates. The president is counted as one full branch of government, so is not easily removed.

Orwell wrote:Most western democracies topple their leaders at the drop of a hat, and often by members of their own party. You get rid of bad presidents by impeachment.

Leadership challenges and votes of no confidence aren't really that common. Australia is a major outlier in terms of Prime Ministers being overthrown on the regular. Generally speaking, Prime Ministers have more authority than the President of the United States does (within their own political systems, I mean) because they can rely on an accommodating Parliament by virtue of simultaneously being the leader of that Parliament as well as the chief executive. Also, the whip system is really weak in the US and the party leaderships have relatively little control over their members in Congress, which drastically dilutes the concentration of power. Look at all the havoc Ted Cruz has been able to wreak against the wishes of his party leaders (eg, the 2013 government shutdown). On the flip side, look at all the limitations Obama has had to work under when even a single house of Congress is against him (though currently it's both houses). Although having two Houses with meaningful input in the legislative process is another difference between the American and Westminster systems.

To be sure, there has been a nearly continuous trend of increasing concentration of power in the hands of the President, but the American system is still decentralized by design and vests considerably less power in the very tip top of government than the Westminster system does. The main area where the President can act unilaterally is foreign policy, but Congress has not wholly abdicated its oversight there.

Don't forget the Supreme Court as the apex of the third branch of government either. The power of judicial review is a very significant one that helps keep both Congress and the President in check. Similar institutions have been introduced in some countries using the Westminster system, but in for example the UK the Courts do not have the ability to strike down laws on constitutional grounds (though in the UK they can strike down secondary legislation which includes regulations and statutes issued by ministers).

Although having two Houses with meaningful input in the legislative process is another difference between the American and Westminster systems.- Eldo

{{{What does that mean? How are you defining 'meaningful'? And Westminster has two Houses and the Lords has stopped this Government on some very major policy issues, as well as performing its more usual function as a revising chamber for legislation before it can be passed into law. Its system of member shop is weird and archaic and undemocratic yes, but the reason its still around is that it works overall in the function it has and no-one can think of a better way to do it that would actually improve it -if its elected then its just another Commons and then there is the issue of where power recedes and who does what , and we have to have another bloody election and all the expense, hassle and annoyance they bring. There not only isn't an appetite for another elected chamber in the public, there not really the time for electing one what with all the devolved elections, council elections, European elections (for now!) Mayor election, ect we already have.

On the point of a PM and power, in theory the PM is Prime Minister- First among equals (apparently this still counts even if your equals are the sort of folk who will put their cock in a dead pigs mouth), not a Presidential leader in the US sense (Blair is the exception to this rule because he broke all the ones about cabinet, and having to take minutes of everything) the UK system relies on Cabinet Responsibility- a PM must get the agreement of a majority of the cabinet, one who doesn't wont last long in the job. Its worth noting Thatcher was never once rejected by the voters, it was her own cabinet that did for her in the end.
A considerable amount of Power in the UK system lies directly wit Ministers, particularly the big three of Home Office, Foreign Office and Treasury which creates a further balancing out of power.
And nowadays we also have the London Mayor, who is effectively PMo f a small country (more folk live in London than do in all of Scotland) and is another power base in our political system, and thats before you get to all the devolved stuff and how it takes power away from Westminster and the PM}}}
And as we all know from Yes Minister there is the civil service, who have all the actual power and have been running the country for about 600 years (want to know what happens when a PM actually tries to run things and cuts them out the loop- Blair is the answer!) }}}

What does that mean? How are you defining 'meaningful'?

In the US, both houses have to pass a bill before it becomes a law. Many countries' upper houses play a far smaller role in the lawmaking process.

And Westminster has two Houses and the Lords has stopped this Government on some very major policy issues

And it doing so was unusual enough that it sparked outrage in much of the media and the government started making noise about constitutional reform, because generally speaking the Lords doesn't get in the way of the Commons on major issues. Not just due to the Parliament Acts but also the Salisbury Convention.

the reason its still around is that it works overall in the function it has and no-one can think of a better way to do it that would actually improve it

I didn't criticize the House of Lords, but the existence of "another Commons" (ie, both houses of a parliament having roughly equal powers) distributes power more thinly across a greater number of people. Whether it's good or bad depends on your point of view, but it's one of the ways in which the US system is decentralized.

On the point of a PM and power, in theory the PM is Prime Minister- First among equals

We both know how it actually works though. The Cabinet is selected by the Prime Ministers -- and ministers can also be unilaterally removed by the PM -- and while there are, as always, exceptions, recent PMs in particular have not faced strong opposition from their Cabinets. You mentioned Blair, but look at how much Cameron has been able to make happen over the wishes of significant factions in his party. In any event, yes, members of the Cabinet in both the UK and the US have a good deal of power as well (on this side of the Pond, particularly for the big four of State, Defense, Treasury, and Justice), even though they are appointed by and ultimately under the authority of the PM or President. Although the President, unlike a PM, requires the approval of a sometimes hostile Senate for his Cabinet picks, again further highlighting the limits of Presidential power compared to a PM.

And nowadays we also have the London Mayor, who is effectively PMo f a small country (more folk live in London than do in all of Scotland) and is another power base in our political system, and thats before you get to all the devolved stuff and how it takes power away from Westminster and the PM

And in the US we have federalism which is like devolution but moreso. More powers held by the states than most devolved parts of the UK, and the states have a constitutional existence of their own that can't be modified or withdrawn by the federal government.

I didn't say that the PM has absolute control over the British political system, I said that he has relatively more control relative to the other actors in that system than the US President has relative to the other actors in the American system.

{{{It was unusual, but it was lawful , which is why despite the bravado of the time Cameron hasnt been able to actually do anything effective about it. In general Cabinet Responsibility has worked well up to Blair, who simply went around it and conducted is government from a comfy sofa with a few mates and with no minutes taken or record of who as present.
And Cabinets are a huge threat to a PM<usually the biggest in the end- it didn't just do for Thatcher, more recently it did for Blair, as Brown manoeuvred his backers into positions of power and influence- forcing Blair to eventually announce that he would not be standing for re-election, allowing Brown to step in his place uncontested. Cameron's cabinet is in open revolt, at least the euro out lot are. And after the referendum it will be the cabinet who really decides if Cameron stays or goes ether result (based on the usual calculations of if it will help or hinder their personal vote, and if it will help or hinder their progress up the greasy pole). Boris and Osbourne already have their men in key positions in Cabinet awaiting their time.

I think the problem with the US system is that in the end it basically comes down to a gentlemen's agreement- an agreement to debate, compromise and then create law. As soon as the two houses refuse to either talk to each other, or to the President, nothing happens, nothing gets done. Change therefore happens very slowly, if at all, and bills go nowhere but round and round.
The UK system is probably a bit much to far the other way however. The PM does have a lot of power, if he chooses to ignore all convention and do a run round of his own cabinet and civil servants, but if the PM actually follows the tradition of cabinet responsibility the power is much diluted. I think Blair shows why is best in this case to follow traditions. Although personally I would like to see it a bit more solidly enshrined than tradition- and for it to be illegal for a PM not to follow Cabinet decision making, and Cabinet Responsibility- making another Blair style of sofa government impossible.}}}

I think you're on the right track with regards to stuff not getting done in US politics. The system is designed to be slow and inefficient and require a lot of people to get on board before anything happens. The original intent of this arrangement was to limit the ability of factions (political parties) to control the system. Of course, the same people who wrote the constitution ended up founding the first two American political parties less than a decade later, but for much of American history the parties have been broad tent coalitions bound together less by ideology and more by patronage and back-scratching. But with the rise of the professional civil service (making patronage harder to put into practice) and later the parties gradually become more ideological and polarized, it became increasingly hard to make mutually agreeable compromises.

I think that the centralization of power in the person of the PM has accelerated in recent decades, but it's certainly a very long and gradual process that's been going on intermittently since the 18th century. You raise good points concerning the limitations on the PM from his Cabinet (who are also the senior members of his party). I tend to be a little uncomfortable with a system where the main check on the executive are also his closest allies, though. I don't want to overstate my case here because obviously this system hasn't resulted in the overthrow of democracy or anything, but I tend to think the constitution should be structured in a way that forces political parties to work together more, which is one of the reasons why I'm in favor of proportional representation. Though obviously this can run into hard limits.

Simulpost with Eldo, saying pretty much the same thing.

I don't understand why in Parliament you can't have gridlock the same way we currently have it in the US.  Gridlock is NOT so much between the two houses of congress, it's between the political parties.  Which party controls which house is just a detail, though it can help create gridlock as you say.  But in Parliament you can have the same gridlock between parties.

Separating the voting between senate and house is meant to balance the power of the people against the states, though admittedly it doesn't really work that way.  But the idea is that only laws which are obvious enough to rise above partisanship should get passed, else you get a whipsaw effect.  It can be grating if you think government is there to help, but that really wasn't the way the system was set up.

halfwise wrote:I don't understand why in Parliament you can't have gridlock the same way we currently have it in the US.  Gridlock is NOT so much between the two houses of congress, it's between the political parties.  Which party controls which house is just a detail, though it can help create gridlock as you say.  But in Parliament you can have the same gridlock between parties.

There are fewer moving pieces in the UK system, so to speak. To pass a law in the US, you need to get majorities in the Senate and House, plus the signature of the President (without getting into vetoes and how to override those). In the UK, 98% of the time all you need is the House of Commons, which is by definition controlled by the same party as the head of government (Prime Minister), and once Parliament passes a bill the process of granting Royal Assent is purely a formality. It's tricky for a single party to control all three relevant bodies/offices in the US system; it's not so difficult to get a majority in just one.

Also, US political parties have to deal with a lot of headaches thanks to intransigent members of Congress who won't vote the party line. In the UK, if anyone gets really difficult, the party can just refuse to name that person as a candidate in the next election. If a member of Parliament wants to change parties or become independent, they have to resign and face a by-election if they want to keep their seat. US parties don't have either of those weapons to help keep members in line, so even when your party has a majority, it might not mean much on a particularly divisive vote.

Reading your comments made me realise that the three systems of government I have any basic knowledge of, the UK, USA and Eru's Great Nation (Ozhobbistan)) have quite some differences in design but not a lot of difference in practice.

And I don't know what was thinking when I said most western democracies get rid of their own leaders. My defence: I was pretty ill at the time I made it. Yes, only fully civilised democracies like Ozhobbistan have formed the recent enough habit of removing serving Prime Ministers. I can think of four times it's happened down here.

Keating chopped down Hawke around 1991. (Tick)
Gillard chopped Rudd in around 2008-9. (Huge tick)
Rudd (and all men and the media) strangled Gillard (whose political life had been blameless) in 2013 (cross)
Turnbull moved on Abbott in 2015. (Huge tick)

It's a sensible system with about a 75% approval rating by those who count (me, that is).

Reading your comments made me realise that the three systems of government I have any basic knowledge of, the UK, USA and Eru's Great Nation (Ozhobbistan)) have quite some differences in design but not a lot of difference in practice.- Orwell

{{Well the UK is the 'Mother of all Parliaments'- you lot tweaked stuff, changed stuff around, altered the names of stuff, and over time developed your own procedures, but at absolute basics its the same template based on the same ideals and history.
Magna Carta was long before there was a US, as was the Declaration of Arbroath and the Scottish Enlightenment- but you don't have a US constitution without them.
Its a bit like the major western religions, all Abrahamic at root no matter how much they divide in the present or future, they still share that same basic template. In religious terms that one God, prophets, angels, heaven ect in politics its two chambers, a PM/President and a Head of State as the basic template, with rules based on the principles of Magna Carter ect}}}.

{{{Saw the Kelly/Trump interview- dear lord is that what passes for a 1 on 1 politicial interview in the US press? I think at one point she was giving him a handjob under the table it was that friendly. Did she ask any difficult questions, press him on any points? If she did I must have fallen a sleep out of boredom and missed it.
Pity the US have taken someof our best satririts, and some of our middle of the road to rubbish presenters- but you havent taken our journalists- you need one right now- imagine Kirsty Wark had got a 1 on 1 with Trump (imagine he had been bamming her up on twitter first too- Id fear for the man!) Or failing getting her bring old Paxman out of retirement for a final political grilling, or get Scottish political journalist Gordon Brewer- any of them can show Kelly a thing or two about how to conduct an interview. Compare and contrast!}}}







{{{You need to step up your political interviews game US! That Kelly/Trump one was just embarrassing.}}}

Well, you have to remember they were trying to end a feud that started when Kelly pointedly asked him about some of his sexist (actually too weak a word) comments he had made, quoting him. As you might expect he didn't react too well and said more of the same about her. So this was a kiss and make up interview, though why they wanted to do that is anyone's guess.

{{{Oh I know what started it I saw the first debate (and the rest of them) I just thought it was a really poor, weak political interview- I can only assume she had to agree to not talk about so many things to get the interview as an excuse for why her line of questioning was so saccharine and puke inducing. She is supposed ot be a political journalist, not just a pretty face. Compared to UK female political interviewers she seemed ill prepared, ill informed, unwilling to go after her quarry with real questions or issues, poor at pursuing him on weak responses, terrible at calling him out on blustering his way through answers and switching the topic mid-answer to avoid answering- all the sort of tricks a UK interviewer would have hammered them over and held them over the coals for. But then I am often taken aback by the weak and often fawning style of US political interviews.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{ She is supposed ot be a political journalist, not just a pretty face. }}

Correction: She's supposed to be a FOX News journalist. Not quite the same thing.
I wonder if she simply wanted to keep her job?

I have to agree American political interviews are often weak and fawning. In fact that's much of what Fox news was up until that debate that set Trump off: for once Fox was asking hard questions of conservatives. Now it looks like he's getting away with his brow-beating, and it's a shame.