American civil rights

[Luke Pemberton]

I have no idea how things are going to work out under Republican control of congress.  Having control of both houses should allow them to get some bills passed.  Whether or not Obama signs them is an entirely different question.  Obama seems to me to be an ideologue that doesn't know how to compromise.  And the Republicans don't have the majorities needed to override a veto.  I don't have much hope that we're going to see a lot of progress made over the next two years.

That sounds really messy. Here we can have a hung parliament, where one party wins the most seats but does not hold a clear majority to command the House of Commons. At the moment we have a Coalition Government with the Conservatives and Liberals holding power. At the last election the Conservatives had the most MPs voted to the commons but not enough to form a majority government. This May is our election, and as the polls stand we could have a hung parliament again, but this time it might get messy in terms of who holds the balance of power. Many political commentators have voiced that the UK could see 3 party politics for some time, and with the Nationalist vote in Scotland holding up it could become a constitutional nightmare.

[Bob B.]

Here we can have a hung parliament, where one party wins the most seats but does not hold a clear majority to command the House of Commons.

With just two major parties, it's really unlikely that could happen here in the states.  Theoretically it could because there are always a few members of congress that are elected as Independents.  However, they are often just Independents in name and will still caucus with one party or the other.  For instance, the Senate currently has two Independents that caucus with the Democrats.  In the last election, the Republicans needed to get to 51 out of 100 seats to gain control even though at 50 they would outnumber the Democrats 50-48.  This is because the two Independents were counted as voting with the Democrats.  And in the event of a tie, the Vice-President casts the deciding vote, so that would give the Democrats the tie-breaker.  The current Senate stands at 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats.

[Echnaton]

In addition to Bob's fine description of the political situation, I'll add this.  US politics are very divided today.  At the times of the Voting Rights act, for instance, the bill passed with  stronger Republican support in the House, in terms of voting percentage.  (Democrats 221-61, Republicans 112-24)  The country too is pretty divided overall and there is no issue like Voting Rights that addresses a specifically identifiable injustice to bring people together.  Today each major party is taking a more fundamentalists stance that suggests the other should in some way be purged from the government.  And of course each side blames the other for instigating the events that have lead to the stand off. 

[gillianren]

If you get the chance to see Selma then it is worth a watch. Maybe not for someone as versed in these matters as you as it still had the dramitisation factor overlaid, but as a British citizen it made for an interesting watch. I much preferred Lincoln, I felt that was less Hollywood than Selma.

Oh, I'm planning to see it on DVD, but that won't be just now, because it isn't on DVD yet.

I was always under the impression that it was JFK's personal crusade.

Nope.  He basically wasn't interested at all.  Bobby convinced him it was right, and he went along with that, but I'm not actually sure there were any subjects that he was really passionate about that we associate with him.

[Bob B.]

And of course each side blames the other for instigating the events that have lead to the stand off.

Yeah, its pretty frustrating listening to the back and forth bickering while nothing gets done.  While each side has their heels dug in, they call the other side obstructionists.  As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango.

[ka9q]

A couple of other comments on the differences between US and UK governments.

The US is the canonical example of a "presidential" system, while the UK government is the canonical example of a "parliamentary" system. The US federal government consists of three distinct branches: executive, legislative and judiciary. The President is head of the executive branch.

Unlike the UK and other countries with the parliamentary system, the President is not a member of Congress; he/she is separately elected for fixed 4-year terms (maximum of two) independent of Congress. This gives the US President considerably more independence than a UK Prime Minister, who is out of power whenever his party loses control of the House of Commons.

The Congress can still remove a US President from office through impeachment, but by design this is a difficult and time-consuming two-step process; it is not a matter of simply passing a vote of no-confidence and calling for early elections. First, the House of Representatives votes to impeach by a simple majority, analogous to a grand jury returning an indictment. The process then moves to the Senate, which holds a trial. Conviction requires a 2/3 vote. This is a very high bar, especially today.

Only two US presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew (not Lyndon) Johnson and Bill Clinton. Neither was convicted in his Senate trial. One president (Nixon) resigned to avoid almost certain impeachment and conviction. The same process can (and has) been used to remove federal judges, who normally serve for life, but again it is very difficult and time-consuming so it has only been done a few times, usually after a judge has been convicted of a serious crime like bribery.

Much time is spent in US civics classes explaining the "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" on which the US federal government is based. Most state governments have a very similar structure, though the specific names are different. The President can propose legislation to Congress, and as Bob mentioned, if he refuses to sign it into law after both houses have passed it Congress can override that veto with a super-majority vote.

One of the President's most important roles is to appoint federal judges who serve for life to give them independence from day-to-day politics, but they must be confirmed (approved) by the Senate. He also appoints ambassadors, cabinet members (what you'd call "ministers") and agency heads, also with Senate approval. The President conducts foreign policy, but treaties must also be ratified by the Senate before they take effect. (The House has no role in confirming appointments and treaties).

Although the President commands the military, in principle he cannot declare war; that power is reserved for Congress. However, since the mid-20th century the President has usurped much of Congress's war-making power; this has been a perennial issue ever since the Vietnam War.

[ka9q]

I should also say what it means for a political party to "control" a house of Congress, because it's much more than simply having the most votes on the floor. Much of the real work of Congress is done in an extensive hierarchy of committees, each headed by a chairman or chairwoman. At the beginning of each term of Congress, committee chairs are appointed and ratified by a vote that always goes right down party lines; this means that when the Democrats (or Republicans) have even a slight majority in the House or Senate, every single committee chair in the House (or Senate) is a Democrat (or Republican).

Committee chairs are extremely powerful people because they control the agenda for committee meetings and can completely block some piece of legislation they don't like, or exact concessions from other members to let it pass. So even when some bill might attract enough "defectors" from the other party to pass were it to reach the floor of the main chamber, it might never get there. This is one of the main reasons the work of Congress can grind nearly to a halt when politics are as polarized as they are today, even when one party has only a slight majority in that particular house.

And because we have a bicameral legislature, where both houses have to pass every bill before it is sent to the President, many bills can die between them when they're controlled by different parties.

People used to work around these problems with lots of compromise and quid-pro-quo, but that seems to have largely broken down in recent years with the increasing amount of polarization between the parties. There are many possible explanations, but that's a whole separate subject.

[Luke Pemberton]

Thank you all for the considered replies. They made interesting reading. I am now more knowledgeable.

[Echnaton]

Yeah, its pretty frustrating listening to the back and forth bickering while nothing gets done.

I generally prefer nothing get done in Washington since I find neither sides ideas to be particularly compelling.  So for the most part I avoid the frustration by ignoring the bickering and reducing my expectations for political good manners.  And voting for someone else when I can.

[Bob B.]

I understand how the electoral college vote works in terms of deciding the President...

Congratulations, you probably know more than many U.S. citizens.

Every now and then critics will argue that the Electoral College should be scrapped and that presidential elections should be decided based on popular vote.  They claim the Electoral College gives a numeric advantage to the smaller states.   On the other hand, the winner-take-all method of voting favors the larger states.  Personally, I prefer the weighting of the Electoral College, where each state has a number of electors equal to its number of congressional members (both houses).  Whenever I think about trying to explain it to somebody, I'm reminded of this scene from the movie It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

[Sus_pilot]

Bob - I love the allusion to IAMMMMW - it fits perfectly.

I keep having to explain to my friends that the US is a federation of states, and those states elect the President through the Electoral College.  The framers of the Constitution recognized that a straight numerical vote would have given an unfair advantage to the more populated states (New York and Massachusetts in the 1770's?).

[Luke Pemberton]

Whenever I think about trying to explain it to somebody, I'm reminded of this scene from the movie It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

That made me laugh. We had a referendum on alternative voting in the UK in 2011. It was rejected and we keep the first past the post system. I'm not sure any voting method is entirely fair, but I'm glad of one thing. At least I get a say in who I choose to lead my country, despite it not being completely perfect.

Thanks for answering all my questions. It cleared up my misconceptions.

[Echnaton]

I'm not sure any voting method is entirely fair, but I'm glad of one thing. At least I get a say in who I choose to lead my country, despite it not being completely perfect.

Any voting system will be sufficiently fair if all interested parties have an opportunity to understand the rules before the election and address unfairness at that time.  Then the rules need to be inviolate after the election with all decisions based on the prior rules.

Post election rule changes were what got Florida in trouble with the Supreme Court in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, ultimately resulting in the decision for Bush in Bush vs. Gore. 

[Echnaton]

Thanks for answering all my questions. It cleared up my misconceptions.

If you get C-Span on UK cable it might be occasionally instructive.  It is a cable network that provides live overage of Congress.  However most of the time it is like watching for the subtle color differences as paint dries.  C-Span used to carry question for the Prime Minister.  A far more lively event.  I always enjoyed watching Margret Thatcher and less so John Major. I cut my cable about that time so never got to see Tony Blair. 

There is of course live C-Span streaming these days. But it may not work for non-subscriber to cable.

http://www.c-span.org/live/

[Luke Pemberton]

Any voting system will be sufficiently fair if all interested parties have an opportunity to understand the rules before the election and address unfairness at that time.

Maybe fairness was the wrong word, but in the UK there are those that argue when a party gets a significant proportion of the popular vote and does not have an MP in the Commons, then is such a situation truly representative of the peoples' views. The Green party are a good example. Many have argued for proportional representation. However, it was pretty much thrown out in the 2011 referendum. But, I guess if one is standing for MP and rules are transparent, then that is fair for all individuals concerned.