It doesn't work for foreign countries. All countries with the Westminster system work exactly the same as the US, only the "electoral votes" are based on "electorates" (sorta like congressional districts) rather than states. It's a smaller scale, but it's still winner-takes-all within in a certain area. And then you get people whining about gerrymandering, so it'll still be "controversial". The thing i like about the American system is that because of the way presidential and senate elections are set up, it reminds people that the federal government is appointed by the states and that state legislature should actually be more important and relevant to citizens than federal legislature. One would hope that would lead to smaller government. Not happening in practise, but i can assure you if you go the Westminster system special interest pandering will get even worse.
Over here in canada, it at least results in some occasional third party or even a 4th party having at least a few seats. Not strictly bipartisan (the two large parties represent liberal and conservative views, but aren't too traditional about it...) Though there is no direct electing the head honcho.
though in reality, with the exception of the actual state/provience governments, the federal government has never elected a far-left leaning party. With good reason, economic self-destruction. Traditionally labour parties and green parties are on the far left.
Trouble with the USA is that both parties are actually on the right, with the democrats being to the left of the republicans... right now the image given by the republicans is that of an almost nazi party. Nazis took the rights away from the jews, the republicans take rights away from the GLBT people.
You're talking about parliamentary elections, which the United States has as its congressional elections. These are won by popular vote within the local congressional district. Senate and presidential elections are not decided by a popular vote on the federal level, but on the state level - this is for a reason, and it is simply to allow smaller states to have a fair say in federal politics by not favoring the more populous states.
Saying that the US is an "all right wing" nation is partisan and missing the point. There's no law limiting any nominees for ANY seat of government to two parties - it is simply that there are two parties who the vast majority of people tend to vote for. That's democracy in action, my friend.
You copy of the U.S. Constitution seems to be missing the 17th Amendment. It provides for (in effect) direct popular elections of Senators. Sadly, so. Now the Senators must campaign to the general public rather than concentrate on doing their job. It is yet one more state power paved over in our march to centralization.
There is a (very small) movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, but without some major crisis, I can't see it happening.
Actually i wasn't very clear, but what i was trying to say in my post is that both senators and presidents (or more specifically, electoral college representatives) are voted by popular vote on a state-by-state basis.
I'm curious, before the 17th amendment passed, how were senators appointed? I hope not "one from each party", because that really wouldn't help things!
In the original construction of the US Constitution, the only government job that was directly elected by the populace was Representative in the House of Representatives. There were several reasons for this. For all their talk of returning the power to the people, the Founding Fathers didn't really trust the people of the time. Most were illiterate and with the slow movement of information, they weren't the most prepared to make educated choices about their government beyond their local town council or county board. Of course, they elected their State Governments as well, but that process varies from state to state. Its because the people elected the Representatives that any proposed taxes have to originate in the House, so that the people control when they are taxed. To counter putting governing power in the hands of the people, Representatives only have two year terms so that the entire House of Representatives is up for election every two years. Also, the Constitution provides for the election of Senators by the Legislatures of the states. So we elected our state government and they then elected the Senators. The Electors for the Electoral College were also popularly elected (and to this day, this is who we actually vote for when we vote for president). Originally, we were electing people we trusted to have informed themselves of all the relevant local issues and would cast their vote for the person they felt was best qualified. Originally, the President and Vice-President were simply the #1 and #2 winner in the electoral college. As the two-party system became more entrenched the party's began nominating their own electors who were promising to vote for their party and the President and Vice-President became a joint ticket to prevent any more President and Vice-President of opposing parties (as had happened in the past).
The 17th Amendment allowed for direct election of Senators which shifted their focus from serving their state governments (as you pointed out) to serving the people (which the House of Reps. is supposed to do). This also provides the distraction of having to run for re-election.
P.S. On behalf of we Americans who support such things, to those Aussies who are willingly making the sacrifices, Thank you for decades of strong support and solidarity. It means a lot to us to know that we have such steadfast allies, even though one of our presidential candidates doesn't seem to think that a country who has marched with us shoulder-to-shoulder into all of the major battles in the last century is a real ally and is instead bribed and coerced.
You certainly may not agree with your government, and we have plenty who do not agree with ours, but I wanted to give my thanks as an American to you as an Australian. Thanks.
Don't thank me! I might be living in Australia but i'm definitely not an Australian. I'm a Brit, born and raised! This is just my temporary (7 year?!) prison till i can move to America :-)
I love how before the Aussie election all the lefties were spinning it as a referendum on the war, and then after the landslide win for the incumbents suddenly it was all about economics and never had anything to do with the war. The truth is, while the economy was a key issue, the fact the "uproar" about Iraq had faded is just a testament to the fact that a lot of people pretty much see it was for the best and support the current efforts.
Well then, let me thank you as a Brit :) You have been by our side as well. As I understand it, the populace has been more divided over working beside the US, but your government does and without question. We are truly blessed to have bribed and coerced you ... ;) I hope you can make it to the US soon. We'll be glad to have you :)
I've seen some of the pseudo-neo-cons (?) on Cavuto now and then. He gets some interesting people in. They're not really those staunch hawks so much as people with a very clear plan of how to make the world a better place. It scares me a bit that i listen to them and they sound sane because i worry that perhaps people might've thought the same thing listening to early Nazi or Communist rallies and this is heading the same way. It's hard to tell and hindsight is always 20/20, but i think it'll be an interesting ride whatever happens.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-10-16 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-16 11:31 pm (UTC)though in reality, with the exception of the actual state/provience governments, the federal government has never elected a far-left leaning party. With good reason, economic self-destruction. Traditionally labour parties and green parties are on the far left.
Trouble with the USA is that both parties are actually on the right, with the democrats being to the left of the republicans... right now the image given by the republicans is that of an almost nazi party. Nazis took the rights away from the jews, the republicans take rights away from the GLBT people.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-17 04:37 am (UTC)Saying that the US is an "all right wing" nation is partisan and missing the point. There's no law limiting any nominees for ANY seat of government to two parties - it is simply that there are two parties who the vast majority of people tend to vote for. That's democracy in action, my friend.
Hey there Aussie!!!
Date: 2004-10-19 08:55 am (UTC)There is a (very small) movement to repeal the 17th Amendment, but without some major crisis, I can't see it happening.
Re: Hey there Aussie!!!
Date: 2004-10-20 06:31 am (UTC)I'm curious, before the 17th amendment passed, how were senators appointed? I hope not "one from each party", because that really wouldn't help things!
Re: Hey there Aussie!!!
Date: 2004-10-20 07:09 am (UTC)The 17th Amendment allowed for direct election of Senators which shifted their focus from serving their state governments (as you pointed out) to serving the people (which the House of Reps. is supposed to do). This also provides the distraction of having to run for re-election.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-19 09:00 am (UTC)You certainly may not agree with your government, and we have plenty who do not agree with ours, but I wanted to give my thanks as an American to you as an Australian. Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 06:29 am (UTC)I love how before the Aussie election all the lefties were spinning it as a referendum on the war, and then after the landslide win for the incumbents suddenly it was all about economics and never had anything to do with the war. The truth is, while the economy was a key issue, the fact the "uproar" about Iraq had faded is just a testament to the fact that a lot of people pretty much see it was for the best and support the current efforts.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 06:40 am (UTC)There is an interesting book coming out soon (in the States anyway) called The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century which talks about the importance of the English-speaking alliance to the world. It sounds interesting and I'm gonna have to check it out.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-21 05:36 am (UTC)