USA vs UK Executive Branch Elections

[GHook93]

In the US the people vote on the President. Therefore in many cases the executive and legislative branch are ruled by different parties.

It is different in the U.K. In the U.K. The House of Lords selects the PM. Therefore the Executive and Legislative branches match up (unless the majority party doesn't have the majority of seats).

Which system is better? In the U.K. system there is far less gridlock and many more meaningful laws get passed. However the balance of powers get skewed. The legislative is supposed to keep the executive branch in check and vice versa. However if the legislative picks the executive then can you ever truly have a balance of power?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

In the US the people vote on the President. Therefore in many cases the executive and legislative branch are ruled by different parties.

It is different in the U.K. In the U.K. The House of Lords selects the PM. Therefore the Executive and Legislative branches match up (unless the majority party doesn't have the majority of seats).

Which system is better? In the U.K. system there is far less gridlock and many more meaningful laws get passed. However the balance of powers get skewed. The legislative is supposed to keep the executive branch in check and vice versa. However if the legislative picks the executive then can you ever truly have a balance of power?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Correction: The House of Commons majority selects the Prime Minister who is actually appointed by the Queen.

 

[forkup]

In the US the people vote on the President. Therefore in many cases the executive and legislative branch are ruled by different parties.

It is different in the U.K. In the U.K. The House of Lords selects the PM. Therefore the Executive and Legislative branches match up (unless the majority party doesn't have the majority of seats).

Which system is better? In the U.K. system there is far less gridlock and many more meaningful laws get passed. However the balance of powers get skewed. The legislative is supposed to keep the executive branch in check and vice versa. However if the legislative picks the executive then can you ever truly have a balance of power?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Not completely sure it's true for the UK, but I live in Belgium which has a parliamentary democracy as in the UK. Here you have an election and on the result of that election which is always hung decides on who gets first chance to form a coalition. This doesn't necessarily mean the winner of that election appoints a member of it's party as PM. It all depends on the agreements the parties make. Brittain atm has a hung election result. Neither of the 2 major parties got a majority so they have to negotiate with one, or several of the minor parties, to get a majority. The checks and balances here exist in the fact that the 2 major parties have to make major concessions to the minority they want to rule with. The second part of it lies in accountability. Election campaigns in Europe are limited in time, scope and are publicly funded. In the US election campaigns are funded by private money. It's impossible to get elected in the US without money. In the end any American politician has to strike a balance to representing his constituency and placating the people that fund his campaigns, in Europe only the former applies