For Yanks, A Lesson In Parliament

[Tancrisism]

This topic stemmed from another topic talking about Iceland's government falling. It made me remember how little I understood about Parliamentary systems, and how in the US if a government "fell", it would have to mean that a violent overthrow happened and anarchy would break out. So, I am going to try to enlighten you about their workings. The Westminster Parliamentary system is completely different from our Congressional system, so it is worth knowing, I think.

I'll try to explain it in a nutshell (All you Brits and Canadians, feel free to look away, or if I made a mistake somewhere go ahead and correct it; keep in mind though that I am writing broadly):

Basically, first, people have elections for the lower house (the lower house of Parliamentary systems is always the more powerful one; if you can think of an exception let me know); i.e. the House of Commons in England. Similar to the House of Reps, except both the legislative and executive branches are included in it.

In the elections, they vote for party members. Some countries have it so there are two ballots, but I'm not going to go into that. If a majority party is formed (which I will mention), that party has control; if it's a multi-party system, coalitions must be formed (as I go into below).

Many Parliamentary systems have two-party systems (like the UK, although that's technically a 2-and-a-half party system), so the majority party then controls everything - if they want legislation passed, it will pass, and people do not vote against their party (unless it directly affects their local area where they were elected, then they have to ask if they can). The minority party serves as a loud and strong whistle-blower, serving as a good check on the majority party.

The majority party then forms a government, consisting of the Prime Minister and his Ministers (or, cabinet members). Generally these are other Parliament members, and generally they are of the same party, but this is not a necessity.

Iceland, Canada, and Japan do not have two-party systems, so power is never consolidated into one majority party. Instead, there are multiple parties sharing a divided Parliament, and they must form coalition governments (remember, Prime Minister and Ministers) between parties. This involves much political concessions, and means that the government will not be able to do as much as it would like in a 2-party system. In the case of Japan, it means that the only point of the government is to be hopelessly corrupt, leaving the administration of the country to the extremely qualified and talented bureaucrats.

Iceland's coalition government fell - they lost the confidence of their own parties and the other ones, and the Ministers resigned.

Simply, this means that new elections must be held. All is not lost.

It does, however, show that the political situation there is extremely strained due to the financial crisis: one doesn't need to know anything about Parliamentary systems to gather that. But it's not as dramatic as we would think.

Remember Belgium a couple years ago: they couldn't form a government in over a year. It wasn't that they weren't being administrated, the parties in Parliament simply could not form a coalition government because of political struggles.

Comments?

[morefngdbs]

At 2/1/09 03:07 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Iceland, Canada, and Japan do not have two-party systems, so power is never consolidated into one majority party. Instead, there are multiple parties sharing a divided Parliament, and they must form coalition governments

;;;;;;;
This is not always true with a multi party system.
We (Canada) have had lot's of Majority Governments formed by one Party having over 50% of the seats in the House of Commons. There are presently 308 MP's in Parliment. so if you have 155 members elected you have over 50 % of the seats...that means a Majority Government.

Presently the Conservative Party has 143 seats & by having the Liberal Party (they have 77seats)agree with their budgets & other Policies etc. The Conservatives form the government & will have to allow the Liberal Party to make amendments etc. so that a vote on any Government business will then pass.
This is the coalition Government presently running this country.
If the Liberals pull their support & no other Party -Like the Block Party with 49 seats or the NDP Party 37 seats will back the Conservative Party...the Government will fall & an election will be called by the Governor General .

[Tancrisism]

At 2/1/09 03:57 PM, morefngdbs wrote: This is not always true with a multi party system.

Ah, thank you, I shouldn't have wrote "never".

[morefngdbs]

At 2/1/09 04:03 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 2/1/09 03:57 PM, morefngdbs wrote: This is not always true with a multi party system.

Ah, thank you, I shouldn't have wrote "never".

;;;;
No problem, also you were correct where you said more than 2 parties could form a coalition Government , under our system.
It was proposed in December/08 that the Liberals & the NDP would form a government with the support of the Block Party...they would have 165 between the 3 Parties & because of this threat the Prime Minister asked the G.G. to prorogue Parliment.
This 3 Party Government might have been interesting to have watched attempt to govern ,but it would probably not be a very good thing in these economic times. (but that's a personal opinion)

[Patton3]

Don't you think you're being a bit hypocritical, not to mention stereotypical, here? Saying that all "Yanks" think of it as a coup' de tat, that you're going to "enlighten" all of us because you're more educated on this subject because you're from England, acting as though everyone in Europe knows what it means, yet we "Yanks" don't? If this had been titled simply "A Lesson in Paliament", I would have no complaint. Yet you're using the "Ignorant Americans" stereotype, which, ironically, makes any European who uses it come across as ignorant. So, I don't mind that you're offering up this interpretation. However, I do mind that you're trying to "Enlighten" all of us "Ignorant Americans" based on an old and largely untrue stereotype.

Also, here it's Yankees, not "Yanks", and is only used to refer to the baseball team, and sometimes a person from the North-East. The last meaning being used primarily in the old south, usually as an insult.

[Kev-o]

At 2/1/09 05:36 PM, Patton3 wrote: Stuff

You kind of just fulfilled the "ignorant Americans" stereotype.

[Patton3]

At 2/1/09 06:03 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 2/1/09 05:36 PM, Patton3 wrote: Stuff

You kind of just fulfilled the "ignorant Americans" stereotype.

How? By being a little pissed that someone is assuming I and every other American is ignorant of these facts? If an American were to try and "Enlighten all those ignorant Europeans" about...well, anything, we'd be bitched at endlessly and called ignorant ourselves. Yet a European does the same thing to Americans in general and that's fine. That doesn't come across as being ignorant to you? If I'm an "ignorant American" because I get a bit angry at someone who assumes all Americans, which includes myself, are ignorant, than I'll be an "Ignorant American" in your eyes, and a damn proud one at that.

Oh, and why do you choose not to qoute me directly? Any person with an IQ above that of a gerbil can figure out that I said "stuff".

[SkunkyFluffy]

All I know is that it's much cooler when the British parliament erupts into people throwing shit at each other than anything I've ever watched on C-SPAN.

[Tancrisism]

At 2/1/09 05:36 PM, Patton3 wrote: Also, here it's Yankees, not "Yanks", and is only used to refer to the baseball team, and sometimes a person from the North-East. The last meaning being used primarily in the old south, usually as an insult.

I'm an American.

And I'm from New England. Fuck the Yankees.

Also, foreigners do occasionally refer to us as Yanks.

The reason for this post is I also made the mistakes, and I understand that foreign government types aren't always easy to grasp. Trying to educate foreigners who grew up in Parliamentary systems or the crazy/unique Swiss system about the Congressional system is equally difficult, it isn't a strictly American thing to not be aware of or understand foreign systems.

At 2/1/09 07:14 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: All I know is that it's much cooler when the British parliament erupts into people throwing shit at each other than anything I've ever watched on C-SPAN.

Amen man.

[Der-Lowe]

At 2/1/09 07:50 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 2/1/09 05:36 PM, Patton3 wrote: Also, here it's Yankees, not "Yanks", and is only used to refer to the baseball team, and sometimes a person from the North-East. The last meaning being used primarily in the old south, usually as an insult.

I'm an American.

And I'm from New England. Fuck the Yankees.

Also, foreigners do occasionally refer to us as Yanks.

Always*
At least here.
I say nice thread to you from the ultra-presidentialist, one-man-to-rule-them-all Latin America.

[Patton3]

At 2/1/09 07:50 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 2/1/09 05:36 PM, Patton3 wrote: Also, here it's Yankees, not "Yanks", and is only used to refer to the baseball team, and sometimes a person from the North-East. The last meaning being used primarily in the old south, usually as an insult.

I'm an American.

Sorry. The only time I've EVER heard someone say Yanks, they ended up being from England.

And I'm from New England. Fuck the Yankees.

Ok

Also, foreigners do occasionally refer to us as Yanks.

I know. And they're just about the only ones, which is why I incorrectly assumed you were British. Once again, I'm sorry.

The reason for this post is I also made the mistakes, and I understand that foreign government types aren't always easy to grasp. Trying to educate foreigners who grew up in Parliamentary systems or the crazy/unique Swiss system about the Congressional system is equally difficult, it isn't a strictly American thing to not be aware of or understand foreign systems.

I'm sorry, from reading it you came off sounding as though you were an European using the "ignorant American" stereotype. If you re-read you're post, can you see how I could have gotten that meaning...or at least something akin to it?

At 2/1/09 07:14 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: All I know is that it's much cooler when the British parliament erupts into people throwing shit at each other than anything I've ever watched on C-SPAN.

Amen man.

[SkunkyFluffy]

If you're using what I said as an example of an ignorant American stereotype, you clearly didn't get the joke.

[Tancrisism]

At 2/1/09 08:09 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Always*
At least here.
I say nice thread to you from the ultra-presidentialist, one-man-to-rule-them-all Latin America.

Thank you sir.

At 2/1/09 09:17 PM, Patton3 wrote: I know. And they're just about the only ones, which is why I incorrectly assumed you were British. Once again, I'm sorry.

No big deal.

I'm sorry, from reading it you came off sounding as though you were an European using the "ignorant American" stereotype. If you re-read you're post, can you see how I could have gotten that meaning...or at least something akin to it?

Perhaps. In the very beginning, though, I say that I used to not understand the Parliamentary system.

[slowerthenb4]

At 2/1/09 , Tancrisism wrote:

good post!

[qu3muchach0]

wow... it's amazing. you're only 19 and you already have several degrees in political science! oh, you don't? then stfu... lol. :p

seriously... who else claims to be an expert in this? a word of advice: "lay off the pot and switch to shrooms."

[Slizor]

At 2/2/09 02:59 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: wow... it's amazing. you're only 19 and you already have several degrees in political science! oh, you don't? then stfu... lol. :p

seriously... who else claims to be an expert in this? a word of advice: "lay off the pot and switch to shrooms."

I'm 22 and have two degrees in political science, does that count?

Basically, first, people have elections for the lower house (the lower house of Parliamentary systems is always the more powerful one; if you can think of an exception let me know); i.e. the House of Commons in England. Similar to the House of Reps, except both the legislative and executive branches are included in it.

Kind of. I can respect you're speaking broadly and that no-one bothered to try to teach me about Parliamentary systems in other countries, but I think there's some important points.

In a Parliamentary system your vote is for your constituency. So, living in the Sheffield Hallam constituency, if I voted it would be directly for one of the people standing in Sheffield Hallam. It is only indirectly, through the party of the person I voted for, that people vote for the ideological make-up of a government of the country. Once this has happened, and a party or a coalition has a majority, the executive is then formed from the House of Commons (with a few exceptions of people having been brought in from the House of Lords.)

So, what about semi-Presidential systems next week, eh?

[Tancrisism]

At 2/2/09 05:09 AM, Slizor wrote: In a Parliamentary system your vote is for your constituency. So, living in the Sheffield Hallam constituency, if I voted it would be directly for one of the people standing in Sheffield Hallam. It is only indirectly, through the party of the person I voted for, that people vote for the ideological make-up of a government of the country. Once this has happened, and a party or a coalition has a majority, the executive is then formed from the House of Commons (with a few exceptions of people having been brought in from the House of Lords.)

Good points.

So, what about semi-Presidential systems next week, eh?

Perhaps. They are a bit more varied than Parliamentary systems, but France (the system's creator), Germany, and Russia are good examples.

I was thinking about trying to explain the Congressional system to those of you on the other side of the world.

[Dawnslayer]

At 2/2/09 02:59 AM, qu3muchach0 wrote: wow... it's amazing. you're only 19 and you already have several degrees in political science! oh, you don't? then stfu... lol. :p

seriously... who else claims to be an expert in this? a word of advice: "lay off the pot and switch to shrooms."

So one has to have a degree to be knowledgeable in anything now? It's just a piece of paper saying we went through the system so we could earn our daily bread; we as individuals are perfectly capable of educating ourselves and each other. This said, I am glad that I attend college.

And as the OP of the thread that inspired this thread, I give my thanks to Tan for his explanation!

[TonyTostieno]

At 2/1/09 05:36 PM, Patton3 wrote: Don't you think you're being a bit hypocritical, not to mention stereotypical, here? Saying that all "Yanks" think of it as a coup' de tat, that you're going to "enlighten" all of us because you're more educated on this subject because you're from England, acting as though everyone in Europe knows what it means, yet we "Yanks" don't? If this had been titled simply "A Lesson in Paliament", I would have no complaint. Yet you're using the "Ignorant Americans" stereotype, which, ironically, makes any European who uses it come across as ignorant. So, I don't mind that you're offering up this interpretation. However, I do mind that you're trying to "Enlighten" all of us "Ignorant Americans" based on an old and largely untrue stereotype.

Also, here it's Yankees, not "Yanks", and is only used to refer to the baseball team, and sometimes a person from the North-East. The last meaning being used primarily in the old south, usually as an insult.

Eh actually people in the southern US use "yanks" a lot, and yeah it is usually an insult. I should know, I've been living in Texas for 5 years when I'm from New Hampshire.

I do agree though, I'm getting a bit tired of all these fucking ignorant American stereotypes, though stereotypes in general have a tendency to piss me off when they're taken seriously.

[Tancrisism]

At 2/5/09 12:43 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: And as the OP of the thread that inspired this thread, I give my thanks to Tan for his explanation!

No problem. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

At 2/5/09 04:30 PM, TonyTostieno wrote: Eh actually people in the southern US use "yanks" a lot, and yeah it is usually an insult. I should know, I've been living in Texas for 5 years when I'm from New Hampshire.

I do agree though, I'm getting a bit tired of all these fucking ignorant American stereotypes, though stereotypes in general have a tendency to piss me off when they're taken seriously.

I agree as well. When I used "yanks", I used it satirically. I mean, as a New Englander, I am technically more of a Yankee than most Americans.

The best way to destroy these stereotypes is to prove them wrong.