Do you think Americas political system is better than the UK ?

Question

Do you think Americas political system is better than the UK ?

Answer 1

Yes I do... for one main reason. That we in the UK still have unelected hereditary peers in the house of lords. Its a ridiculous state of affairs in a country that pretends to be a democracy.

in addition, i am no fan of the monarchy and i would much rather that we could elect our head of state rather than having to accept a person as head of state because of who their parents were.  

Answer 2

no its not g.w .bush lost the election , but won because they cheated over chavs or some stupid little peice of paper  

Answer 3

I think they are both the same.  

Answer 4

Marty74 clearly hasn't paid attention to developments in British politics in the last 10 years, as the majority of hereditary peers have now been expelled from the House of Lords - and the remainder are elected.

The British system is superior.  Feel free to read Walter Bagehot's 'The English Constitution' and Professor Vernon Bogdanor's 'Monarchy and the Constitution' to see some reasons why.

Britain's executive depends on its survival on the support of the elected Commons, which can at any time terminate its life and resolve major questions of dispute by going to election.

In America the system for disabling the executive is long and arduous, rendering the executive effectively immune from Congressional oversight.  Moreover, the process of overriding the Presidential veto is long and hard, and does not resolve the issues as totally as an election does.

Moreover, while the parliamentary system ensures that the legislature and executive cooperate intimately in Britain to ensure legislation is processed efficiently and effectively, and the voices of those outside the major parties are heard by the executive, AND ministers of the Crown are required to answer for their actions directly in Parliament, Congress cannot do any of these things.  The American executive has almost no presence in Congress and the legislature and President can regularly be in total loggerheads resulting in deadlock, dissatisfaction, and damage to the common weal.

The House of Lords, contrary to Marty74's assumptions, is almost completely appointed by the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission which vets and scrutinises all proposed candidates for peerages, checking their suitability, willingness to work, and any motives behind their candidacy.  The quality of the peers are on the whole excellent, being appointed for their expertise in fields - doctors, scientists, lawyers, technicians, financiers, bankers, senior civil servants, diplomats, military men, community leaders.  Mere popularity is not the requirement for a peerage, unlike an MP; but capability is.

The Lords as a revising chamber complements and enhances the work of the elected Commons; the Commons decides overall policy and the Lords busy themselves with ensuring the detail within bills is sensible and possible - something which the Commons tends to struggle at doing.  Moreover, being appointed for life, and with a third without party affiliation, the Lords have shown themselves to be quite independent of government pressure, and routinely defy the government over amendments to legislation - the Commons hardly ever defeats the government's work, as the MPs can be Whipped into obedience thanks to their ambition and desire to achieve ministerial office.

The monarchy serves the purpose of symbolic head of state.  Ceremony is kept out of the Prime Minister's schedule, ensuring greater efficiency of his work, as well as ensuring that national symbols and culture are kept well out of the hands of politicians.  Moreover, the Queen is the longest serving statesperson in the world and lends her expertise to support all her governments of whatever political ideology.  She also serves a number of absolutely crucial constitutional roles that an elected president would struggle to achieve with the same level of trusted impartiality and dignity.  Find the Lascelles Principles papers for an example of this.

The American Constitution is rigid and tends towards deadlock; the British constitution is dynamic and relies upon pragmatic legislature/executive relations and the valuable input of recognised experts and apolitical state symbols and support.

Answer 5

Considering that more political parties are represented in Parliament, I'd have to say that the British have a political advantage over the American political system.

Answer 6

Beyond a doubt.

Answer 7

No.  At least we in the UK don't have perpetual election campaigns.  And our ballots are harder to rig since we don't rely on hackable voting machines which don't even record votes on paper...  

Answer 8

No!Why?The American system is so artificial and showbiz style!

Answer 9

Yes

2 - points!!

Answer 10

Relatively, yes. By a smidgin, a tad. But both are inferior to that of the rule by lamas. We have a karmic appointed system that is re-birthed every generation, and my rule is absolute. No questions, buts, butts, ifs. My word is the law. All my subjects are also my worshippers. Now, that's the system for all.

Answer 11

well the USA system is a plutocracy- you have to be very rich to become President  name me a poor President

UK system is more of a democracy - you can be anybody and be Prime Minister -  that is poor

so UK system is fairer

Answer 12

The both rely on a hypocritical electorate who are easily influenced by lies and negative campaigning.

Answer 13

the same the american system is based on uk system , they both favour the rich and give leftovers to poor.

Answer 14

SH-TE IS SH-TE different colours and some turds sink,

but they all smell of corruption,

Answer 15

Only someone who has been involved in both can truly answer that.

Anyone who answers and has not is bias.