A Civilised Executive? (Food Banks Split)

[Forty Two]

The PM can't do anything without the support of his/her party. That support can be withdrawn at any moment (as it has three times in the last six years or so in Australia). The PM only has executive power whilst ever the government MPs Grant it to them.

He is head of government and not elected by a vote of the people.

He or she is elected by the people, just not as the head of government.

No, he or she is elected by the Parliament, and the Parlement members are elected by the people IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. It's no more an election by the people than Paul Ryan was elected by the People to the post of Speaker of the House.

Re-read what I wrote.

The Australian Constitution states that the political party with the majority in the House of Representatives will be invited by the Governor-General (representing Australia's head of State, the Queen) to form the government. The Prime Minister is chosen as leader, through a vote by members of his or her parliamentary party. http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-1_u-104_t-2 ... government

The Prime Minister is the head of government and he is not elected to that position by popular vote. It is a vote of the members of parliament. Isn't that correct?

Let's establish that first, and then we can talk about the powers and authority of the Prime Minister.

You have a prime minister. He was elected by your legislature. That's accurate. He was not popularly elected by a vote of the people. He only got votes in the district he ran in. That's accurate. So, if the US ran its system like Oz, then the US Congress would choose the President, like it chooses the Speaker of the House. That's accurate.

The PM has no more inherent power than any other MP. They are granted their power conditionally by the other MPs. As I said, that power can be revoked at any point if the PM acts outside the wishes of the party.

That doesn't change the fact that he or she is the head of government, the chief executive and the head of legislature ,and is not given that position by direct vote of the people.

I never said they were.

Then you're not arguing against the point I raised. The point I raised ,which is the subject of this thread, is that the head of government of parliamentary democracies like the UK/Canada/Oz is no more elected by popular vote than the President of the United States, and in fact they are LESS SO. In the US, our head of government IS elected by a vote of the States, which base their votes on popular elections in those states. So, the US at least HOLDS a popular election which is part of the equation as to who becomes the head of government. It's not just a vote of the representatives in the legislature.

[pErvinalia]

He is head of government and not elected by a vote of the people.

He or she is elected by the people, just not as the head of government.

No, he or she is elected by the Parliament, and the Parlement members are elected by the people IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS. It's no more an election by the people than Paul Ryan was elected by the People to the post of Speaker of the House.

Re-read what I wrote.

The Australian Constitution states that the political party with the majority in the House of Representatives will be invited by the Governor-General (representing Australia's head of State, the Queen) to form the government. The Prime Minister is chosen as leader, through a vote by members of his or her parliamentary party. http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-1_u-104_t-2 ... government

The Prime Minister is the head of government and he is not elected to that position by popular vote. It is a vote of the members of parliament. Isn't that correct?

Of course. I never said anything different.

The PM has no more inherent power than any other MP. They are granted their power conditionally by the other MPs. As I said, that power can be revoked at any point if the PM acts outside the wishes of the party.

That doesn't change the fact that he or she is the head of government, the chief executive and the head of legislature ,and is not given that position by direct vote of the people.

I never said they were.

Then you're not arguing against the point I raised.

Yes I am. You have been arguing that the PM is the seat of executive power in parliamentary democracies. Hermit and I have been trying to explain to you that the Government MPs are the seat of executive power (while ever they hold a majority in the Parliament).

[Forty Two]

I have not argued that the Parliament doesn't hold the executive power. I've said exactly that it does, multiple times, so you're not "explaining" anything to me that I don't already know and haven't already clearly stated here. You have a two branch system, and the Parliament holds executive AND legislative power.

That means the Prime Minister is both the head of government AND the head of the legislature, which would be analogous to an American system that had the President serve as head of government/executive branch AND Speaker of the House (head of the legislature).

So, the MPs have both executive and legislative power, their head - their chief executive - their head of government - is the PM. And, the PM is also the guy who appoints the government ministers and agency heads -- "chief appointer" just like the President appoints HIS government in the US.

So, they aren't identical, but they serve MOST of the same functions, with the PM having more power in some senses, and less in others. But, the PM is the head of government and the chief executive, even though you have two branch, rather than a three branch system.

So - I don't think we actually disagree here, or at least not by much, and certainly, it seems, not on the issue I originally raised.

[pErvinalia]

From your first post in this thread:

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament.

You are wrong. The MPs don't select the executive. They ARE the executive.

[Forty Two]

From your first post in this thread:

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament.

You are wrong. The MPs don't vote in the executive. They ARE the executive.

I have said multiple times that the executive powers are held by the parliament. Everyone knows that. It's a two branch system. Come on, man. In that sentence by "select the executive" I'm referring to a person who is selected - the guy who heads the government - the guy who is the chief executive. I've been very, abundantly clear on this point.

You can agree with me that the sky is blue and the moon orbits the earth. The Prime Minister is the chief executive. He is the head of government. He is not elected by popular vote, he is chosen by the Parliament I think you've already acknowledged that, so we aren't in dispute.

[Brian Peacock]

Do you have an upper house/senate in Canada?

Yes, unelected though. Supposedly there for "sober second thought". The senate reviews and votes on legislation passed by the commons. Senate reform has been an issue for the last few elections.

If unelected, how are they chosen?

Appointed by the sitting PM.

"House of Commons" -- Commons. Commoners.

Head of State is a hereditary monarch with the title - Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Obtains her position because King George the VI decided not to pull out of The Queen Mother some time in July or August of 1925. It's unknown whether he was banging her doggy style or missionary.

Beneath the monarch is the nobility - the "peers." We're all entitled to a jury of our "peers." A noble is judged by other nobles, not the commoners. LOL. But, I digress. The nobility have rights to stand for election to the House of Lords, dining rights in the House of Lords, position in the formal order of precedence, the right to certain titles of nobility, and the right to an audience with the monarch. These are the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons.

Beneath the peers, you have the gentry, full of baronets, knights, esquires and gentlemen.

Beneath them, are the commoners. Those folks with the right of commonage. Originally, that meant the people who had a right to pasture animals on common land. The commons. Now, that means just the common people in general. Nowadays, peasants are part of the commoners group, but back in the day, they were the poor tenant farmers and such.

So, you've got your House of "Commoners" - and their laws are reviewed the "House Lords" who are unelected, and then you've got all these dukes and other nobility running around, and an actual monarch. The Prime Minister holds head of government power, but he's technically appointed by the queen who by tradition appoints the guy or gal who the parliamentarians choose.

That's the way the US should do it, if they wanted to be an actual democracy without an oppressive system of classes.

In a constitutional sense the Monarch is the UKs head of state and has no influence over the executive or the legislature, the PM is the head of the government. The Commons comprises the main body of the legislature and the Lords is a revising and amending body only with no law-making power (the commons can overturn Lords amendments to proposed legislation on a Bill's third reading). The ranks of the 'nobility' have no constitutional power or influence. Everyone is subject to the law, which is administered by an independent judiciary, even a Lord.

[Hermit]

The Prime Minister is the chief executive. He is the head of government. He is not elected by popular vote, he is chosen by the Parliament I think you've already acknowledged that, so we aren't in dispute.

Sure. We are not disagreeing about what your president and our prime minister have in common. The salient point lies in the differences between them. To the extent that you are ignoring, downplaying or denying the differences between the heads of governments in a presidential system and a parliamentary one, as well as the structural and procedural differences of the executive thereof, you are trying to fly a leaden kite. Or, to use an expression you may be more familiar with: Your dog don't hunt.

[Tero]

Fuck democracy. Fucking pesants telling their betters what to do. Fuck 'em.

Well, they got the circuses. Now waiting for bread from Trump.

[pErvinalia]

From your first post in this thread:

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament.

You are wrong. The MPs don't vote in the executive. They ARE the executive.

I have said multiple times that the executive powers are held by the parliament. Everyone knows that. It's a two branch system. Come on, man. In that sentence by "select the executive" I'm referring to a person who is selected - the guy who heads the government - the guy who is the chief executive. I've been very, abundantly clear on this point.

You can agree with me that the sky is blue and the moon orbits the earth. The Prime Minister is the chief executive. He is the head of government. He is not elected by popular vote, he is chosen by the Parliament I think you've already acknowledged that, so we aren't in dispute.

The most important difference between the Prez and the PM is that the PM's power can be revoked at any moment by his party for any reason at all (and the unelected Governor General, as well), while the Prez can only be removed if he does something illegal and/or particularly egregious to warrant impeachment. So in that regard a Prez is a far more powerful chief executive than a PM. Of course, a Prez has far more democratic warrant than a PM, though.

[Forty Two]

The Prime Minister is the chief executive. He is the head of government. He is not elected by popular vote, he is chosen by the Parliament I think you've already acknowledged that, so we aren't in dispute.

Sure. We are not disagreeing about what your president and our prime minister have in common. The salient point lies in the differences between them. To the extent that you are ignoring, downplaying or denying the differences between the heads of governments in a presidential system and a parliamentary one, as well as the structural and procedural differences of the executive thereof, you are trying to fly a leaden kite. Or, to use an expression you may be more familiar with: Your dog don't hunt.

I've not ignored differences - I've stated them outright. Like, for example, in addition to executive power of head of government, the Prime Minister is "head of the legislature" which is a power the President in the US does not have.

However, whatever differences there are, and there are some, the fact remains that your head of government is not popularly elected, and yet ya'll go on and on about how "undemocratic" the US is. The reality is, and what you refuse to admit, is that neither type of system is a pure democracy, because there is a need to check and balance all areas of state and government power. So, you don't have mob rule in parliamentary democracies any more than in a representative republic like the US. You have a representative government where power is held by elected representatives.

If we were to "fix" the US system to be more like the parliamentary system, then we'd just have the US Congress (our Parliament, albeit not exactly the same), pick the President by vote of a majority of representatives. That would then, according to the parliamentary folks, make the US MORE, not less, democratic, right?

[Forty Two]

From your first post in this thread:

Not correct. In parliamentary systems, generally speaking, the public only votes for their member of parliament (equivalent of Congressman in the US). The MPs then select the executive by vote of Parliament.

You are wrong. The MPs don't vote in the executive. They ARE the executive.

I have said multiple times that the executive powers are held by the parliament. Everyone knows that. It's a two branch system. Come on, man. In that sentence by "select the executive" I'm referring to a person who is selected - the guy who heads the government - the guy who is the chief executive. I've been very, abundantly clear on this point.

You can agree with me that the sky is blue and the moon orbits the earth. The Prime Minister is the chief executive. He is the head of government. He is not elected by popular vote, he is chosen by the Parliament I think you've already acknowledged that, so we aren't in dispute.

The most important difference between the Prez and the PM is that the PM's power can be revoked at any moment by his party for any reason at all (and the unelected Governor General, as well), while the Prez can only be removed if he does something illegal and/or particularly egregious to warrant impeachment. So in that regard a Prez is a far more powerful chief executive than a PM. Of course, a Prez has far more democratic warrant than a PM, though.

Indeed, I do not dispute that there is no "at pleasure" service concept in the US Presidency. But, any dereliction of duty can be can be raised as a high crime or misdemeanor. Misdemeanor of office doesn't mean "misdemeanor" like a bar fight. It's a "mis-demeanor" of office - not demeaning oneself in office. Yes, it has to be serious, but the seriousness of an offense is determined by Congress. If Congress votes that Trump has committed an impeachable misdemeanor then it's an impeachable misdemeanor. There is no body, not even the Supreme Court, that can review that political decision. If the President refused to leave office after an impeachment vote kicks him out, there would be a constitutional crisis.

There is a tug-of-war constantly in the US system between the branches - has the Judiciary "legislated from the bench," or are they within their "interpret and apply the law" mandate? Has the executive branch usurped lawmaking power, or are they within their delegated authority under law passed by Congress? Who has the power to "declare" war (congress) and who has the power to commit troops or forces to military conflict short of "war"?

It's a function of the separation of powers. three separate parts of government each with technically equal dignity, and each having authority over the others in the arenas assigned to them. But around the edges, there is a push and pull as to what power is within which branch of government's authority. You really don't have as much of that in a parliamentary system, as the lawmaking and executive/enforcement branches are in one.

Anyway... we are in agreement. Good!

[Hermit]

The Prime Minister is the chief executive. He is the head of government. He is not elected by popular vote, he is chosen by the Parliament...

... you are ignoring, downplaying or denying the differences ...

I've not ignored differences - I've stated them outright. ... However, whatever differences there...

OK. Downplaying it is then. Bye.

[Forty Two]

The Prime Minister is the chief executive. He is the head of government. He is not elected by popular vote, he is chosen by the Parliament...

... you are ignoring, downplaying or denying the differences ...

I've not ignored differences - I've stated them outright. ... However, whatever differences there...

OK. Downplaying it is then. Bye.

The issue in this discussion was never "are there significant differences between the Prime Minister position and the Presidential position."

The issue was how the head of government is elected, and whether one system is more or less democratic than the other. pErvin was correct when he said that the election of the President is more democratic than the election of the Prime Minister.

[pErvinalia]

President vs Prime minister isn't the "system". In terms of executive power, US vs Australia is best represented by President vs Parliament. Notwithstanding her Maj.

[Forty Two]

President vs Prime minister isn't the "system". In terms of executive power, US vs Australia is best represented by President vs Parliament. Notwithstanding her Maj.

The President isn't the "system" here in the US either. It's an entire executive branch. The issue under discussion was the level of democracy in relation to the election of the head of government