So how does your government work?

[menace]

I realize that a majority of members here are US or commonwealth but I though it might be interesting to explain how your particular democratic process works (no flaming others--there are enough other threads for that).  For instance Canada:

leader (official) : prime minister
leader (unofficial): queen of england and her liason the governor general

we vote for particualr parties via representative members.  these members then vote for their leader of the party who becomes the defacto head of state should that party reach a majority of seats in the house of commons.  The sitting party then nominates others (buddies, cronies etc.) to sit in the senate..  These leaches...er.. people then have life tenure in the senate rubber stamping all sorts of official government twaddle.

On a provincial level we have basically the same structure. (there are 10 provinces and 3 territories) territories have a small population and no provincial government.

simplified history:
http://www.kidzone.ws/geography/constitution.htm

[danny_galaga]

oz is much the same, except that WE'VE had a leader sacked by our governor general (and hence by the queen)!!

[menace]

so is the queen your figurehead as well? having no real power but is on all your money?  Canada passed a constitution in 1982 declaring all laws and regulations to be the mandate of the government of canada and not that of england (i'm still shocked it took that long but i guess england wasn't really all that demanding  )

[Dexter]

Ireland:

We have a political leader (Taoiseach) and a figurehead President for state functions. The Taoiseach is whoever is the leader of the controlling political party following a general (national) election. Our president can sit a maximum of two terms of seven years each. Our voting areas are divided into constituencies with candidates able to pass their votes over to other candidates if they lose.

Pretty standard stuff, but parties can form coalitions with each other to outnumber seats held by others following an election, effectively ensuring a majority and overall win. We've had 'rainbow coalitions' i.e. different parties with differing policies coming together and running the country. These were VERY interesting times as you can imagine.

[GGKoul]

oz is much the same, except that WE'VE had a leader sacked by our governor general (and hence by the queen)!!

When I was in OZ in May 04 & Dec 03, I remember reading how there is a big movement to remove the Union Jack from the Australian flag.  How is that coming along?

Menace, I would say Australia is more connected to England then Canada is to England.  If I remember correctly, Prince William or Andrew is or were in Australia doing some work for a couple of months.  And the Royal family has some vacation property in Australia.  Also, the Australian coinage has a picture of a queen on one side.  Similar to Canada.  But the Canadian coins now feature a more mature picture of the Queen on the back.

Click here to see a picture of the various coins in Australia.  ---> http://www.ramint.gov.au/making_coins/default.cfm?DefaultPage=coin_designs.cfm

[GGKoul]

For instance Canada:

leader (official) : prime minister
leader (unofficial): queen of England and her liaison the governor general

Just to add, there is no limit on how long a person can be Prime Minister. 

Also, Prime Minister is the leader of the political party that has the most seats in the House of Commons.  We know who the leader of the party is before election day.  So we vote for a local member, we know who would become the Prime Minister if the party wins the elections.

And if the leader of the party retires before the end of the term.  Then the political party members have a vote to elect the new leader of the party and then that person would become the new Prime Minister.

Finally, there is 4 main party's in Canadian

Liberal - Currently in power.
PC (Progressive Conservative)
Alliance Party
Bloc Quebecois

[SeaMonkey]

There are four branches of government.
(According to Thomas Jefferson.)
1) Executive
2) Legislative
3) Judicial
4) Armed citizenry

We are a hybrid of a democracy and a republic, so that less populated areas, generally farming areas, do not lose their voice.

We have an electorate system that doesn't allow small, but highly populated, areas of geography, to dominate and silence the larger areas of the country.

For example, blacks in the U.S. are less than 7% of the popular vote. They still have a large voice, due to the fact that if you want to carry states like Louisiana, and Georgia, then your message has to speak to blacks.

I don't have a vested interests in farmer's rights, women's rights, or even black rights. However I am proud to be part of a system that gives all of these groups a loud voice. A system that is so uniquely fair, it could only be American.

A woman's right to vote, emancipation, affirmative action, and prohibition are examples of sweeping progressive changes to our culture, that was born of the fertile soil that is our electorate system. Issues that would not have fared as well under a single popular vote.

That is how my government works.

[shmokes]

A system that is so uniquely fair, it could only be American.

WTF?

[menace]

  yeah i agree from that post i still have very little information as to how the US govt body is operated--whats the electoral college for instance?  how does this weigh against the popular vote?  care to enlighten your fellow board members?

[GGKoul]

yeah i agree from that post i still have very little information as to how the US govt body is operated--whats the electoral college for instance?

[SeaMonkey]

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population.

This is the same divistion of power that the legislative branch has, as it is BASED on their population, for the state in which the electors are formed.

In other words, if one is fair, then they both are. If you are going to do away with one, then it would follow your arguments for doing so would also do away with the other.

It is built on the idea that not only do we have individual power, but that the state, by virtue of their existance, have a certain level of sovereingty that gives the state its self a level of voting power. (As is also the case with the entire legislative branch.)

These electors are charged with casting their votes, with the will of the people in their representitive state.

This process smooths out perterbations, and also gives a clearer winner. It also protects the incumbant from errors on the state popular vote level, after the fact, as he/she was not actually elected by those votes.

It also protects the future from dictatorship.

Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

I am not a Hamilton fan, and do not completely agree with his statements, but his point is well taken.

Abolition of this institution takes voices away from the people who need it most. Blacks and gays would be the biggest hit in a popular vote. Blacks are 7% or less than the popular vote, and gay issues take a HUGE bashing on popular votes, in the U.S.


California is the perfect model of why some votes should not be popular votes, but rather voted by representitives, charged with that duty. They have so many voter initiatives, they could not pay for them all if they were all to actually take effect. Some of their voter initiatives conflict with each other. This is what the founding fathers called "the excesses of majoritarianism".

Who would listen to anything Wyoming had to say, if not for the electorial college? You would have a state without voice. (More than one, actually, you would have three or four states with a voice.)

The main argument I hear for doing away with it is, "But that means we are not a TRUE DEMOCRACY!"

True. The word democracy doesn't appear in the U.S. Constituion. We are a republic. We were always a republic. (And to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands.....)


And now a break-down of the other terms I used to describe the U.S. Government:

Our executive branch is the President. He appoints judges, and signs legislation.
The power of the executive branch is vested in the President, who also serves as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The President appoints the Cabinet and oversees the various agencies and departments of the federal government.
In order for a person to become President, he or she must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years of age, and have resided in the United States for at least 14 years. Once elected, the President serves a term of four years and may be re-elected only once.

Our judicial branch interprets law. Term is maxed by human life span.
The judicial branch hears cases that challenge or require interpretation of the legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President. It consists of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. Appointees to the federal bench serve for life or until they voluntarily resign or retire. The Supreme Court is the most visible of all the federal courts. The number of Justices is determined by Congress rather than the Constitution, and since 1869, the Court has been composed of one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The legislative branch creates law.
The legislative branch of the federal government consists of the Congress, which is divided into two chambers (Term is either 2 or 6 years. ) -- the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each member of Congress is elected by the people of his or her state. The House of Representatives, with membership based on state populations. Members of the House of Representatives are elected for two-year terms, and Senators are elected for six-year terms.

[missioncontrol]

Are you allowed to put Government and work in the same sentence?

[Stingray]

Q: So how does your government work?
A: Poorly

-S

[Dexter]

A system that is so uniquely fair, it could only be American.

ROTFLMAO!! Thanks for that, I needed a good howl. I was actually going to rent a comedy DVD but I think I've had my ration for the day

[SeaMonkey]

(no flaming others--there are enough other threads for that).

[danny_galaga]

oz is much the same, except that WE'VE had a leader sacked by our governor general (and hence by the queen)!!

When I was in OZ in May 04 & Dec 03, I remember reading how there is a big movement to remove the Union Jack from the Australian flag.

[jbox]

Australia

I agree that little johnny spiked the referendum, but on the whole it was just a "change the flag" anyway (ie. a diversion from domestic issues).

And before certain people wet themselves with their excitement, ()  we also protect the 'sovereignty' of our states, we just do it in a way which "smooths out perterbations, and also gives a clearer winner". We have set it up so that the PM in this country is taken from the party which got democratically elected based on the total national population (clear winner), but in order to then actually pass any *legislation* they must have support from the state representatives (protection from the 'big' states). That is, out of our two houses one is based on simple population and the other is not (all states have equal numbers, territories have a few guys as well). So while people living in Sydney complain that people in Hobart have 'unfair' representation in one house, each of their single votes count exactly the same as each other for deciding who is actually in charge.

At the moment Australia has 4 main parties, and several bits and pieces (in order of current strength):
Liberals - believe that strong businesses are most important
Labour - believe that strong unions are most important
Nationals - believe that strong farmers are most important
Greens - believe that breathing is most important
Family First - believe that religion is most important
Democrats - believe in destroying their own party
One Nation - believe that suburbia is most important
Socialists - believe that the other parties suck
Independants - "     "      "       "         "        "

The Liberal/National alliance is currently "in government", although the Liberals are damn close to having the numbers by themselves. Come July the government will have more control over the country than any other for over 20 years.

By contrast, most (all?) state governments are currently Labour dominated. Generally certain matters are supposed to be left completely to the states themselves, but the current federal government is doing its best to basically run a Liberal agenda at the state level as well by using the "over-ride" clause in ways it wasn't supposed to. Not that Labour never did, as it is often the case that the states and the country have different parties in charge, which gives me some small hope people aren't complete idiots. 

Unfortunately right now the federal Labour party is in shambles because they are too busy trying to blame each other for their complete slaughter last election than to actually re-unite and be an actual opposition to the government. I would hope that even the staunchest supporters of the Liberal party would agree that it is bad to not have *anyone* holding them to account for whatever it is they're currently up to.

We have compulsory voting, which is good because the government does try to pander to as many people as possible then. And we use IRV, which is good because then *most* of our votes count no matter who wins. Personally, I would prefer something a little more mathematically safe (like condercet), but I doubt that will get changed any time in the near future. 

We currently have a 1.5 tiered health care system, guarenteed low-interest government loans for university, a GST, gerrymandering, a heap of petrol tax, a conservative media, lots of Kangaroos and the metric system.    The vast majority of Australians opposed the Iraq war, but are still afraid of foreigners (they call them "boat people" and "illegal refugees") so they kept Johnny in power anyway. Sorry about that. 

so is the queen your figurehead as well? having no real power but is on all your money?

Actually, a court case can *theoretically* be appealed back to England, but our court system has to approve the appeal first, so it is never going to happen.

oz is much the same, except that WE'VE had a leader sacked by our governor general (and hence by the queen)!!

Just to be clear about this - the governor general dissolved the government because they failed to pass their BUDGET and the PM refused to step down to make way for a more moderate leader (who could get the extra senator or two on side with a compromise budget). It's not like the PM beat him at golf one day so he decided to get even!

Anyone want any sand?

[danny_galaga]

Australia


By contrast, most (all?) state governments are currently Labour dominated.

all

Just to be clear about this - the governor general dissolved the government because they failed to pass their BUDGET and the PM refused to step down to make way for a more moderate leader (who could get the extra senator or two on side with a compromise budget). It's not like the PM beat him at golf one day so he decided to get even!

yeah, so....oz is much the same, except that WE'VE had a leader sacked by our governor general (and hence by the queen)!!   

doesn't matter why, it still happened. the liberals could see that if they pushed and kept supply blocked then something freaky would happen...

[fredster]

(no flaming others--there are enough other threads for that)

Man, that is funny.

Make a thread about the function of government and expect on one to flame. Wow.

Flame baiting - "So how does your government work?"

[menace]

Fredster--do you appreciate the irony that the only "flame baiting" in this thread was done by you talking about no "flame baiting"?

So far (as expected) most people are flaming their own governments --I find it interesting to see how other people's democracies are set up--cause you always think there must be a better way but after review we all have the same problems--just in slightly different fashions. 

One thing I've admired about the US system is the fixed terms in office and the fact that more officials are elected as opposed to appointed.  Our senate is the biggest sham in history--100+ people with exceptional power who have absolutely no obligation to the voters--and we pay them large sums of money to do this--best job in the world if you can get it i guess...

What made me think of this was every now and again some canadian comdey show gets it in their head to send a guy down south and ask them questions about canada--virtually no one knew how canada was organized--some even congratulated us on our move to a 24hr clock (up from the 20hr clock they thought we were using )  I'm still curious how other european countries work (aside from the obvious google answers)

[danny_galaga]

A woman's right to vote, emancipation, affirmative action, and prohibition are examples of sweeping progressive changes to our culture, that was born of the fertile soil that is our electorate system. Issues that would not have fared as well under a single popular vote.

That is how my government works.

interesting then that the british abolished slavery decades before the US and that new zealand was the first country to allow women to vote...

[SeaMonkey]

A woman's right to vote, emancipation, affirmative action, and prohibition are examples of sweeping progressive changes to our culture, that was born of the fertile soil that is our electorate system. Issues that would not have fared as well under a single popular vote.

That is how my government works.

interesting then that the british abolished slavery decades before the US and that new zealand was the first country to allow women to vote...

Agreed. The U.S. and U.K. have a long history of differing culture. Starting pretty much on day one, due in part to the politics of the day and also due in part to the people that left there, for here.

A pretty complex discussion could ensue on just this single point, actually.

[fredster]

Ok, just wait.

Soon the "my government is better stuff will start".

interesting then that the british abolished slavery decades before the US and that new zealand was the first country to allow women to vote...

zing to the US from The Aussies (didn't match thread of "So how does your government work?") because it's not his government.

In the US, even if you 50.1% of the total popular vote, you can still lose the presidency.

  From Canada.

Maybe our view of flaming is different. I respect that.

The US government works as effectively as any. We have our problems, but the structure is sound.  We change leaders within our laws and without bloodshed.

Our government is too large IMO. We expect it to do more than maybe it can or should. 

My government is held within boundries and also reflects the values of most of the people it serves.

My government for the most part is fair.  We tolerate decenting opinions.

[jbox]

Maybe our view of flaming is different. I respect that.

Perhaps, but if you could point out which of those two comments was untrue, I will be happy to agree they were "flames". I believe those posters were merely pointing out historical facts in response to the suggestion that the electoral college system is the best way to improve the representation of minorities. For example, the proposition "It also protects the future from dictatorship"  was not backed with a technical explination, such as how it prevented US citizens being locked up without charge throughout the century ("those who need it most"). Technically that makes the original poster a troll, rather than a flamer.

From my experience in this country the notion that a politician will represent their electorate and fight tooth and nail is a myth. Far more important to them is the party that paid for their ticket. Recently there was a huge debate about the federal govt trying to build a national nuclear waste dump in SA, and the SA Liberal members got told not to oppose the measure (or else). Sure, the occassional member can make a big deal on a religious policy or two, but do you know which party policies your local member will vote against?

[SeaMonkey]

For example, the proposition "It also protects the future from dictatorship"

[itismejs]

USA
leader (official) : Dick cheney
leader (unofficial): Bush

[jbox]

Lots of good things happened because we are here, and because of who we are.

For the record I agree with everything else you just said, except for the part where you think it is possible to build a tyrant-proof system.

[fredster]

Perhaps, but if you could point out which of those two comments was untrue,

Because it didn't relate to YOUR government.  See, the thread is to discuss YOUR government.

was not backed with a technical explination,

That would be found in the federalst papers.  The themes of the US government were discussed for several years (from 1776 to 1786) before the drafting of the consitution.  Most of the concepts our outlined by the founding fathers in their writings.  These writings have been used to interpret the constitution's points in law.  For instance, many people point to the federalist papers and other coresponence of Jefferson for the basis of the "separation of church and state", which is not specifically defined .

[SeaMonkey]

Lots of good things happened because we are here, and because of who we are.

For the record I agree with everything else you just said, except for the part where you think it is possible to build a tyrant-proof system.

Oh yeah...that brings us back to the fourth branch of our government...an armed citizenry......heh.

I don't think anything is "tyrant-proof" and to be perfectly honest, I think Jefferson's ideas about Constitutional implementation, would have brought us closer to that than Hamilton's.

For example, if the State had the most power, and the Federation was weaker, then the most important legislation affecting you, would be State legislation. Further, the County would have more power than the State, and the Township would have the most power to restrict freedom, of them all. This idea of Jefferson's would have put the strongest legislative powers "at pistols reach".

It's built on the idea that a town only has "power" because its citizens say it does. A county, in like kind, derives it's power from the cities agreement, that said power exists. A state, then, becomes a mechanism of county agreement. And the federal government, springing up on what few ideals the states making up the union can agree on at any given time.

So the legislation that could most restrict freedom would have to also be the most local. After all, you could hardly get 50 counties to agree on how to best procede with gay unions, and why should they? They are different communities. Jefferson's plan would have protected us MORE than the Hamiltonian model that emerged, IMO.

[jbox]

Perhaps, but if you could point out which of those two comments was untrue,

Because it didn't relate to YOUR government.

(sigh) I see, so bias towards your POV is okay, but bias against is flame bait? 

Exhibit 1:

A woman's right to vote, emancipation, affirmative action, and prohibition are examples of sweeping progressive changes to our culture, that was born of the fertile soil that is our electorate system. Issues that would not have fared as well under a single popular vote.

Fair's fair fredster, since the USA is not a single popular vote than by your logic that comment is flame bait if it comes from a USA citizen. Some of the responses were from countries that *do* have a single popular vote and also have the equal rights legislation being discussed, so by your logic the responses were actually *not* flames.

was not backed with a technical explination,

As SeaMonkey correctly pointed out almost all power ultimately boils down to two irreducible forms - the first is the choice to take life, and the second is the choice to give up your own. No document can regulate those two choices, and hence no document can ever prevent a tyrant from eventually taking control of your country. Armed citizenry is an attempt to try to dilute the first choice from just the army to everyone. However, it is much harder to remove people's fear for their own lives, and indeed a productive society needs at least a healthy dose of that to avoid breaking down into anarchy. 

I was just trying to suggest that there is no government system yet which is the best so long as humans continue to be involved in running it. Little Johnny sending our soldiers overseas in order to get better trading rights is a great example of a failure of our system, so I never meant to imply I thought our system was perfect either.

SeaMonkey please accept my apology if you did find my comments offensive. I would like to think that the people actively participating in this topic are more interested in a constructive dissection of the differences between governments (and the consequences we can observe thereof), and hope that at least some of my rebuttle was of interest. 

[SeaMonkey]

SeaMonkey please accept my apology if you did find my comments offensive. I would like to think that the people actively participating in this topic are more interested in a constructive dissection of the differences between governments (and the consequences we can observe thereof), and hope that at least some of my rebuttle was of interest.