Ceremonial duties fall to the monarch in the UKAs we're about to start a comparative course and look outward at governmental and electoral systems, here's a reading from the other side of the Atlantic that offers some comparative perspectives about the electoral year just begun in the US.
"Why does the United States, champion of democracy, have a drawn-out presidential electoral system that is a far cry from the 'one vote for all' principle?..."
And I didn't say that the American people will elect their president, because collectively they do no such thing... a presidential contender can actually lose the popular vote across the whole nation, but can still win the Electoral College, as George Bush himself did in 2000...
"The US may have good reason to pride itself on being the world's oldest continually functioning democracy...
But it's certainly not a democracy in the sense that most of us would understand that term...
"Kennedy [in 1961] neglected to mention something that may have been self-evident on his side of the Atlantic, but which wasn't at all obvious here: that the inauguration of a new president is more akin to the British coronation of a new head of state than to a general election which may result in a new prime minister...
"So, to put it in Bagehot's terms, while our monarch is expected to be dignified, and our prime minister is supposed to be efficient, American presidents are required to be both dignified and efficient at the same time..."
While David Cannadine writes that, "From this side of the Atlantic, these roundabout and arcane processes of choosing a leader seem mildly reminiscent of electing the Holy Roman emperor in medieval and early modern Europe, and of the way in which popes are still decided on by the College of Cardinals to this day." Included in his critique is the Supreme Court final say on the 2000 presidenial election. 
Great Britain doesn't even have a written constitution or a Supreme Court. But the author seems to claim better British efficiency. Efficency in government, as good a frame of reference as any from which to start our comparative analyis.
8 comments:
I actually really enjoyed reading this article which is a lot for me to say. The British have a lot of good points (although I want to know what the "aftermath" following FDR was) and are much less biased than anything else we read here. I remember reading the International Herald Tribune when I was in Europe this summer as it was the only paper we could find in English and it's more refreshing to read something not as biased as I'm used to.
Sounds like someone is still upset about the Revolution.
I also enjoyed reading the article.
In all, I think that our presidental process is way to complicated and that although the electoral college has a purpose, the people, in the end, should have the final say in who will lead their country and indirectly, their life, for the next four years.
Jenny
Emily's phrasing of the comment, "The British have a lot of good points" was sort of funny. The whole citizenry?
Anyways, I agree that the electoral college is unecessary and not particularly "democratic", but I'm not sure that the president being both the head of government and the chief of state is a bad thing. Is it any more beneficial to have two separate positions?
I think the problem is that people vote based too much on likeability, or say, characteristics you may want to see in a Queen but aren't necessary in a Prime Minister. This is a problem with voter's priorities, not the establishment.
As my dad would say, "Everything in life is a tradeoff." The British political system, in general, is more efficient than ours, but remember, that comes from a highly centralized system. Londoners didn't even elect their own mayor until 1999, something Americans have been doing since the late 1700s. A more decentralized system like ours is inherently cumbersome, but allows for more rights because there are more fail-safes against a rogue faction. If you ask me, both systems need work. As far as I'm concerned, it's six to one, half a dozen to the other.
It sure is fun to read what other nations have to say! I just wish the British would take a little more pride and satisfaction in what they are now.
I personally believe that the Electoral College is a necessary institution because it makes sure that idiots don't become president. Of course their is Bush but I'm talking about extremly idiotic and radical people like Kucinich (UFO guy) or Tancredo. Like Lauren said, Americans vote too much based on likability and characteristics. Therefore, the American people might elect a likable person but he/she might not qualified intellectually to run this nation. The electoral college makes sure that this does not happen.
People can make the argument that the electoral college only weighs down democracy but its a check that the founding fathers put in place to counter the shortcomings of democratic elections. Besides, if we look at presidential elections, the electoral college didn't reflect the popular vote only like 2 or 3 times.
it's really an interesting way to look at things - the bbc is very good at bieng unbiased, unlike say a certain few channels and papers. Could you imagine the changes it would have if Al Gore were elected president under a popular vote? Who knows what we would be doing now, and I'm not saying that's either a good thing or a bad thing- thats something for an individual to think. As for my oppinion - I think personally the US system produces more dynamic, strong leaders than the British system.
it's really an interesting way to look at things - the bbc is very good at bieng unbiased, unlike say a certain few channels and papers. Could you imagine the changes it would have if Al Gore were elected president under a popular vote? Who knows what we would be doing now, and I'm not saying that's either a good thing or a bad thing- thats something for an individual to think. As for my oppinion - I think personally the US system produces more dynamic, strong leaders than the British system.
Post a Comment