I had stated in my last post on the thread about the show House of Cards the differences between parliamentary and presidential democracy, and how exactly they could be corrupted and/or usurped by likes of the Distinguished Rep. Francis Underwood (D-SC), or The Right Honourable Francis Urquhart, M.P.; both their party's chief whips in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively.

My original major was Political Science (until I woke up and changed my major to Business Technology Administration--I did not want my degree to permit me the dignity of asking "would you like fries with that" for the rest of my life) and I concentrated it in international relations and comparative politics courses. Yet, the subjects still fascinate me, even if most other peoples' eyes glaze over. I'm mostly trying to GATHER MORE INFORMATION by posting this thread. I certainly did not learn everything in just a few classes and I hoped that some of you could help me, if you can bear with me for a few moments, here!

I thank our Great Redscape Cousins from Across the Sea [a Churchillism I couldn't resist] for their explanations to me so far. It has been invaluable!

Now, I understand that it is no longer as easy to get rid of a party leader in the UK Conservative Party as it was back during the "bloodless coup" against Prime Minister/Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher. And in Labour, it's a lot more difficult, time consuming and....complicated...from what you have said in the aforementioned thread. I didn't understand some of it but no matter I'll read it again, and if I still do not understand it, move on. I normally do understand this stuff.

I understand the basic differences between Parliamentary and Presidential democracies. The $64,000 question (or L64,000...or e64,000...) is, have both our systems--both presidential democracy in the United States, and parliamentary democracy not only in the UK but other countries--in some way corrupted from their "original intent" (or in the UK, the traditional procedures under Britain's largely unwritten constitution)?

As we know, the main difference is fusion of powers (parliamentary) versus separation of powers (presidential). In a presidential democracy, specifically in the United States Constitution [of 1787, as amended] the President is not supposed to make the law. He may recommend laws to Congress. He can even prevent a possible law (a bill from Congress) from coming into being. But, at the end of the day, he cannot actually make the law. That is the exclusive province or bailiwick, whatever, of Congress.

In reality, it's that veto power--which contrary to popular belief among non-Americans is NOT necessarily final, there is an "override" (veto the veto) power Congress has but it's not always possible to get enough votes to do it--combined with the fact that he can recommend laws to Congress which has allowed the Office of the President to meddle in legislation in ways it should not. The Affordable Health Care Act is called Obamacare because it was his brainchild (if one wants to use the word "brain" in that one). Never, ever, would there have been such a thing in the early republic as "Adams-o-Care" or a "Fillmore-o-Deport-Em-Act" (Fillmore was quite anti-immigration and anti-Catholic). President Washington only ever vetoed bills he considered to be "unconstitutional" in nature. The Alien & Sedition Acts signed by John Adams were not really his creation but that of the Federalists in Congress and, if you believe the HBO series, he was dithering on approving it until Abigail conned him into singing it.

I do firmly believe that even parliamentary democracies are not as "collegial" as advertised. The reason for the quasi-corruption of the U.S. Constitution of 1787 [as amended] is that power seems to consolidate. Has the same thing happened on the other side of the pond, or north of the 48th parallel, or down under?

Hacker, the biggest problem in politics in the US is the money. Because of this the mechanisms no longer work as intended.
The cost of running for high office is enormous and the people who fund the campaigns have an out sized measure of influence.
The major difference in democracies that work is that funding of political campaigns is public. Which means that people retain influence and power that in the US (particularly has accrued to corporations.

rickyp wrote:Hacker, the biggest problem in politics in the US is the money. Because of this the mechanisms no longer work as intended.
The cost of running for high office is enormous and the people who fund the campaigns have an out sized measure of influence.
The major difference in democracies that work is that funding of political campaigns is public. Which means that people retain influence and power that in the US (particularly has accrued to corporations.

it's interesting that Cantor lost when he outspent his opponent 25 to 1 ... Cantor had the support of corporations ... it's not just money that runs this country.

Ray Jay wrote:

rickyp wrote:Hacker, the biggest problem in politics in the US is the money. Because of this the mechanisms no longer work as intended.
The cost of running for high office is enormous and the people who fund the campaigns have an out sized measure of influence.
The major difference in democracies that work is that funding of political campaigns is public. Which means that people retain influence and power that in the US (particularly has accrued to corporations.

it's interesting that Cantor lost when he outspent his opponent 25 to 1 ... Cantor had the support of corporations ... it's not just money that runs this country.

I think the Cantor election disproves RickyP's premise completely.

bbauska wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

rickyp wrote:Hacker, the biggest problem in politics in the US is the money. Because of this the mechanisms no longer work as intended.
The cost of running for high office is enormous and the people who fund the campaigns have an out sized measure of influence.
The major difference in democracies that work is that funding of political campaigns is public. Which means that people retain influence and power that in the US (particularly has accrued to corporations.

it's interesting that Cantor lost when he outspent his opponent 25 to 1 ... Cantor had the support of corporations ... it's not just money that runs this country.

I think the Cantor election disproves RickyP's premise completely.

It's kind of the exception that proves the rule, don't you think? I mean the reason we're all talking about it, is because that sort of thing has never happened before to such a high ranking member of the House.

ray

it's interesting that Cantor lost when he outspent his opponent 25 to 1

.

Apparently especially so at steak houses... His loss seems to have been self inflicted. Only 12% of the electorate voted and Cantor didn't actually fund a ground game, or even actively campaign. He took his opponent lightly. And suffered. Goliath meet David.

Did you know...
When Cantor learnt he had lost the primary he was at a fund raising event.
The republican party and the democratic party both inform new members of the house that they must spend at least 50% of each day raising money for their next campaign. Starting the day after the election that they've won.... Mostly with big corporate donors or the very wealthy...

In a publicly funded system, there is no doubt about whether or not the resources will be there to campaign. So the actual governance is vital. Time to read and evaluate legislation. Time to do constituency work. Time to talk to everyone, because everyone's vote is equal.

In which system are you going to get governance that is more responsive to corporations and the wealthy? Which is going to be more responsive to ordinary folk?

JimHackerMP wrote:I had stated in my last post on the thread about the show House of Cards the differences between parliamentary and presidential democracy, and how exactly they could be corrupted and/or usurped by likes of the Distinguished Rep. Francis Underwood (D-SC), or The Right Honourable Francis Urquhart, M.P.; both their party's chief whips in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively.

Any system can be 'corrupted', and representative democracies are not really that different from each other in that regard.

My original major was Political Science (until I woke up and changed my major to Business Technology Administration--I did not want my degree to permit me the dignity of asking "would you like fries with that" for the rest of my life) and I concentrated it in international relations and comparative politics courses. Yet, the subjects still fascinate me, even if most other peoples' eyes glaze over. I'm mostly trying to GATHER MORE INFORMATION by posting this thread. I certainly did not learn everything in just a few classes and I hoped that some of you could help me, if you can bear with me for a few moments, here!

No problem. I did not study politics, I 'did' it (at a local level). My degree was in Maths/Comp Sci, but I've been involved in political activism for years, culminating in a stint as a councillor. So my 'knowledge' is more practical and low level. And tinged with a bit of cynicism based on experience...

Now, I understand that it is no longer as easy to get rid of a party leader in the UK Conservative Party as it was back during the "bloodless coup" against Prime Minister/Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher. And in Labour, it's a lot more difficult, time consuming and....complicated...from what you have said in the aforementioned thread. I didn't understand some of it but no matter I'll read it again, and if I still do not understand it, move on. I normally do understand this stuff.

Getting rid of a leader is not always done in the same way as electing a new one. Blair went quite quickly (and Brown was elected with ease because no-one got enough MPs to nominate them). Forcing a leader to resign can be done in various ways, not just by standing someone against them.

I understand the basic differences between Parliamentary and Presidential democracies. The $64,000 question (or L64,000...or e64,000...) is, have both our systems--both presidential democracy in the United States, and parliamentary democracy not only in the UK but other countries--in some way corrupted from their "original intent" (or in the UK, the traditional procedures under Britain's largely unwritten constitution)?

Well, we don't have an 'original intent' - more a series of attempts to fetter some of the more egregious aspects of the system with each reform. So we deliberately dropped some 'traditional procedure' as problematic, while maintaining others that are now redundant/obsolete.

In reality, it's that veto power--which contrary to popular belief among non-Americans is NOT necessarily final, there is an "override" (veto the veto) power Congress has but it's not always possible to get enough votes to do it--combined with the fact that he can recommend laws to Congress which has allowed the Office of the President to meddle in legislation in ways it should not. The Affordable Health Care Act is called Obamacare because it was his brainchild (if one wants to use the word "brain" in that one). Never, ever, would there have been such a thing in the early republic as "Adams-o-Care" or a "Fillmore-o-Deport-Em-Act" (Fillmore was quite anti-immigration and anti-Catholic). President Washington only ever vetoed bills he considered to be "unconstitutional" in nature. The Alien & Sedition Acts signed by John Adams were not really his creation but that of the Federalists in Congress and, if you believe the HBO series, he was dithering on approving it until Abigail conned him into singing it.

I do firmly believe that even parliamentary democracies are not as "collegial" as advertised. The reason for the quasi-corruption of the U.S. Constitution of 1787 [as amended] is that power seems to consolidate. Has the same thing happened on the other side of the pond, or north of the 48th parallel, or down under?

Yes - power has consolidated into to particular positions. Firstly the Prime Minister, who used to just be the 'first among equals' in a Cabinet (subordinate to the Crown), then was elevated to being the head of government but still requiring a Cabinet to work with them, to now where we have a more media- and personality-driven 'presidential' style and the person of the PM is very important.

The other is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who runs the Treasury department - holding the purse strings. There have been influential CoEs, and it's often a stepping stone to PM, but the Treasury has increasingly exerted power over the other departments, as power has been centralised (so local government which is remote from the Treasury has lost influence) and tied to money.

But oddly we now have a parliament where members are much more likely to rebel than ever before. This means that a party is finding it harder to apply the whip. It may be a function of coalition government, where right wing Tories or left wing Lib Dems oppose particular government positions, but it does perhaps present a counter-balance. We will have to see if it continues past the next Election in 2015 (and whether that results in a majority government, a minority government or a coalition).

Actually I am glad you said that, Danivon. I disagree with you Rickyp because it is not a function of the American government's structure, or that of presidential government. I think it is because those big corporations and so forth are the ones actually doing the talking and it is difficult for congressmen to "hear" the so-called "little people" or average voters, so to speak.

Why? Doing the math, using Canada's population of 34,834,841 (CIA World Factbook, current estimate); and the fact that there are 308 seats in the House of Commons; there are therefore--give or take--113,100 constituents to one MP. Right?

Now that's actually a little big to know your MP, but that's not such a bad number. You can still know things other than just corporate interests in a riding where you have as many as 113,100. Not too bad for advertising, as far as what it's going to cost to get your message out, and who are the "real selectorate" and the "winning coalition" for your average MP in the Canadian House of Commons. [If you want more info on "winning coalitions" and "nominal/real selectorates" and what all that crap means, read The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics.]

In fact, when Congress [roughly] fixed the size of the House of Representatives in 1910, there were about 90,000 constituents, on average, in a congressional district. The size of the House of Representatives was bumped up a few when AZ & NM joined in 1912, and when AK & HI joined in 1959, bumped up a few more (92 senators in 1910, now there are 100).

Think Canadian politicians know their constituents a little better than corporate interests and wealthy donors, versus American politicians? You betchya. But it isn't due to the structure of the government. It's in the fact that, in the United States, congressman have gone from 90,000 constituents.....to well over 720,000. Far too many to hear the little people talking. And together, Sens. Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein have almost 38 million constituents (the two senators for the State of California). You're a little luckier if you live in Delaware as far as being "heard" by your member of the House or your two senators.

That said, there is actually an advantage to the American system at the moment, though polarization of politics in America has dulled the blade somewhat: the freedom of conscience (OK, freedom of interest, whatever) that our members of Congress have. A member of Congress, especially someone who has been there longer, can pretty much give their party the finger and get away with it. You talk about coalitions in the UK falling part, Danivon. Well, that 52 to 48 slim majority in the Senate isn't worth the paper it's printed on if enough Democrats defect on a particular vote, or enough Republicans do not. Yes, there's a lot of money involved. But money cannot explain American politics entirely. Not even close. Even if you look only at donors, especially big donors, there are still far too many lobbyists and far too much money for any one of them to "own" their own congressman. That's not to say that some aren't stooges of special interests, of course. But the accusation is, at least in my observation, overstated a little bit.

By the way Rickyp your last reply about a "publicly-funded system" and governance it produces sounds....a little optimistic. I might not live in Canada but you're obviously very patriotic about your country. And well you should be. But you seem to think that one system is "better" than the other, which is the point I was trying to make...well, make the exact opposite of.

The differences between the parliamentary and presidential systems are what works in a given country. It wouldn't work here. If our Constitution has survived a complete and [sometimes] gradual shakedown of the body politic more than several times (expansion of the electorate, Civil War, abolition of slavery, Vietnam, Watergate, two world wars, and lots of other changing social and economic conditions in our society) without having been abrogated or replaced by a new one (or overthrown) by now, then there is probably a reason. Maybe because it works in the United States?

P.P.S. that is about typical for a primary turnout in some states (the 12% you mentioned).

I missed out on a response, which was on 'Obamacare'.

It was not really authored by Obama. His 'plan' during 2008 was susbidies (as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's individual mandate). After the election, Obama said he would work with Congress, but of course the Senate and House came up with different plans. But the individual mandate was proposed by others, not Obama

The bills that came through both were shaped by considerations on whether they could get passed, and because of Republican staunch opposition, it meant that in the Senate a single Democrat holdout could lead to a filibuster, and the House Democrats were becoming worries about the 2010 elections.

Obamacare is a convenient label, but the bill was a product of the Capitol sausage machine.

hacker

I disagree with you Rickyp because it is not a function of the American government's structure, or that of presidential government. I think it is because those big corporations and so forth are the ones actually doing the talking and it is difficult for congressmen to "hear" the so-called "little people" or average voters, so to speak.

Please note that i said the "mechanisms (of governance) no longer work as intended.
And although the numbers you refer to might be a reason why American consituents voices are heard, the primary reason is that, unless a voice comes with lots of money ...... it doesn't get access.

hacker

By the way Rickyp your last reply about a "publicly-funded system" and governance it produces sounds....a little optimistic. I might not live in Canada but you're obviously very patriotic about your country

I was not refering to Canada when I said publicly funded. I would reference Germany as an example. (Public financing has taken a backward step in Canada with the Harper government reversing public finance laws.)
I would argue that the actual structures and mechanisms of the Canadian Parliamentary system make it less democratic than either the US or UK. Mostly because far more power resides in the PMO than does in the UK ... or the executive branch of the US government. And when the PMO decides to wield all of its perogatives, we get a somewhat benign dictatorship for 4 years of majority rule.

None of this changes the realities of political power in the US. As long as it costs millions to run for office, and as long as elections are endless, politicians will be beholden to the money. Money distorts democracy, however the mechanisms have been structured to provide for democratic representation.

Rickyp: understood. Sorry if I misunderstood. Actually, I have a facebook friend I have talked on online for some years. He brags that the Canadian electoral system is better-run (I have no way of finding out if that is true) because they count all the ballots by hand, within two hours, no less. But I typically remind that that would actually be quite a task in the United States, populated by a People who hate voting more than they really have to, so we cram every possible office--state, local and federal--onto the same ballot. The sample ballot for the Carroll County, MD GOP Primary for Tuesday, June 24, crams 15 distinct races on the same ballot. I'd love to see someone count that by hand, accurately!

But anyway, there are more powerful forces than money. Money itself didn't pass the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s; I should be very disappointed if it did. Money talks, yes, that's true, but not any more in the United States than any other national legislature on the globe. In some more than others, but I do not know too many western democracies that are as corrupt as you seem to think Washington is. Is it corrupt at all? You bet your a$$. Do some voices with more money get heard a little louder than the rest? Sure. But it is far from an absolute. You cannot make a blanket statement [I know you didn't say this specifically] such as, for example, "The only people who get elected in the United States are the ones who can outspend their opponents." And American congressmen do a lot of "casework" for their constituents, something that I understand doesn't happen very often in other countries. There has at least been some reform on the VA hospitals (the senior senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, raised hell about their conditions, and no one bribed her or contributed to her campaign funds in order to do it). Money talks, but like I said, the fact that they listen to lobbyists is less to do with money and more to do with who is doing the talking in the most efficient and organized way.

Money, as I said, cannot explain everything as far as who congressmen listen to and why they make the decisions that they make. There are just too many forces working in society, even American society, for only the people with the money to be able to control what Smith & Bueno de Mesquita call the "nominal selectorate" (the bizillions of average voters).

Now, about Obamacare. You are not correct Danivon that it was a congressional initiative more than Obama's. Much of the legislation was drafted in secret, by White House lawyers and not by legislators. The bill is so damned long most members of Congress would not have had time to read the whole thing.

"Staunch" republican opposition. Hpmh. Sounds like you're listening to the international media which, is can be quite mistaken about many of the things that go on in the United States (not always, but quite often) and, to some of whom, Obama can do no wrong. Probably because they do not have to live here. They'll praise Obama, berate his opposition, but Barack Obama never, ever would have ended up in the "Federal Washing Machine', or Elysee Palace, or many other European capitals.

But to say on topic, let me tell you how "staunch" the Republican "opposition" in the 111th Congress was, at least according to the actual numbers.

MAKEUP OF THE 11TH CONGRESS (2009 to 2011) *[new congress takes office Jan 3rd, at noon, following a congressional election in November of the even numbered year.]

HOUSE: 257 Democrats (59.1%); 178 Republicans (40.9%). [435]
SENATE: 59 Democrats (59%), 41 Republicans (41%) [100--# includes 2 "independents" who are really Democrats if not actually in name]. If I am not mistaken, until the death of Ted Kennedy (D-MA), it was really 60/40 (filibuster-proof). Not sure of the exact date of Kennedy's death and special election which replaced him with Scott Brown.

That's about as low as it has gone for one party for quite a while (40%) in either chamber.

http://history.house.gov/Congressional-Overview/Profiles/111th/ for House data
http://history.house.gov/Congressional-Overview/Profiles/111th/ for Senate data

I agree about the "congressional sausage machine" but I disagree that it wasn't the President ramming it through Congress the way he usually does (especially Obama--until Jan 3, 2011, at least, which made his life very "inconvenient" and hastened the spate of Executive Orders issued from the White House). His friends in Congress even called it Obamacare, and it's interesting that, now it turned into an administrative disaster, the media (international and domestic) call it "The Affordable Health Care Act"; its literal name. Yes, there was some wrangling between the House and the Senate, but both were under Democratic control; to the tune of almost 60% in both houses. Sorry Danivon, the members of Congress may have filled it with their usual sausage, but the President provided the pig. All too easy for a Democratic president to "recommend" legislation to Congress. I also remember him saying "it had better be on my desk by August". Very polite young man, isn't he?

Which gets back to my point about presidents abusing their constitutional power. Just because we're the most powerful nation on Earth, doesn't mean the U.S. president was meant to be a dictator. Or any presidential system's combined head of state/government is designed to be one. But the "corruption" of the system--not money corruption in this case, but corruption of the intent of the Constitution--has become noticeable over the years. Even so, a BBC reporter (despite what I said of the international media just now) did hit the nail on the head on the night of the 2010 midterms, when he said that "take away the president's "shiny toys"...and he is closer to the Venetian Doge than a British Prime Minister." (Venetian doges were almost figureheads). I still thikn our president is actually a great deal less powerful than he looks, as the BBC reporter astutely put it. A lot less. But still a few steps too close on the long and perilous road toward a General Secretary of the old USSR.

But yeah, the president of the United States needs to be less like an executive, and more like an executor, at certain times. Not only because of the framers' original intent, but because executive power needs to be curbed. And when it meddles with the legislative, curbing or checking the power of the executive becomes more difficult. Not entirely black and white, no. but still worrying enough!

Great post -- thanks. (I don't agree with all of it but it is certainly well thought out.)

Now Ricky will say you are an uninformed American who only listens to Fox News.

hacker

Money itself didn't pass the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s;

The political system has changed a great deal in the US since the 1960s. It wasn't till 1968, after the Democratic National Convention that presidential primaries had a standardized set of rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... _primaries

There's a lot that has changed, mostly for the worse, since the 60's
There's a great book about some of this ...
T

he Broken Branch offers both a brilliant diagnosis of the cause of Congressional decline and a much-needed blueprint for change, from two experts who understand politics and revere our institutions, but believe that Congress has become deeply dysfunctional. Mann and Ornstein, two of the nation's most renowned and judicious scholars of government and politics, bring to light the historical roots of Congress's current maladies, examining 40 years of uninterrupted Democratic control of the House and the stunning midterm election victory of 1994 that propelled Republicans into the majority in both House and Senate. The byproduct of that long and grueling but ultimately successful Republican campaign, the authors reveal, was a weakened institution bitterly divided between the parties. They highlight the dramatic shift in Congress from a highly decentralized, committee-based institution into a much more regimented one in which party increasingly trumps committee. The resultant changes in the policy process--the demise of regular order, the decline of deliberation, and the weakening of our system of checks and balances--have all compromised the role of Congress in the American Constitutional system. From tax cuts to the war against Saddam Hussein to a Medicare prescription drug benefit, the Legislative process has been bent to serve immediate presidential interests and have often resulted in poorly crafted and stealthily passed laws. Strong majority leadership in Congress, the authors conclude, led not to a vigorous exertion of congressional authority but to a general passivity in the face of executive power.

amazon

But even this was written before the Supreme court ruling on campaign financing.
If you think that money can't influence policians, I think you are naive.

The supreme court has struck down limits on individual campaign contributions, ruling that federal caps on combined donations to candidates, parties and political action committees are an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
In a landmark judgment in favour of the rights of political donors, the conservative-dominated bench ruled five to four in favour of Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, who funded 16 Republicans in 2012 but was prevented from supporting more by a $46,200 cap on overall donations.
A separate limit on how much can go to any single politician remains in place, but critics claim the ruling opens the way for wealthy individuals to buy influence on a national scale by bankrolling an unlimited number of candidates.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... tributions