I think I would hate that. The PM very likely doesn't even come close to reflecting a majority of the citizens, then. I guess it's kind of similar to how the Electoral College was originally envisioned in the U.S. though.
Donald Trump
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
I think I would hate that. The PM very likely doesn't even come close to reflecting a majority of the citizens, then. I guess it's kind of similar to how the Electoral College was originally envisioned in the U.S. though.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
If you are able to sell your house for more because there was once a resident who later earned a vote for president in the general election then I'm going to really cash in by voting for myself.I can't vote in the primary - NJ is a closed state and I'm unaffiliated.
I'm voting for Chris Christie in the general election - he used to live in the house I own and I'm looking to cash in.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Sounds similar to how the Speaker of the House is elected. We do everything better than Canada. We are even better at creating a corrupt and ridiculous system for electing our president.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Why should he? It's not an executive position.
It's not? I guess I figured it was more or less analogous to the U.S. President, even if not exactly equivalent.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
It's hard to find a complete equivalent in the US system. The PM is simply the head of our government. The head of state is the Queen, as represented by the Governor-General. All almost entirely ceremonial as the G-G has no real power. They just agree with the government. Our parliament is bicameral, like yours, but the Senate is also largely ceremonial, and except for their involvement in endless scandals over personal expenses, the senators do little but rubber stamp legislation passed by the lower house(the Commons).
The Prime Minister is essentially the majority leader, except that since there's only one House that has any power, there's only one majority leader. He or she is picked internally, generally ahead of an election, in a system that somewhat resembles closed primaries. If one has a party membership, one can be involved in the process. Unlike in the US, our federal and provincial political parties don't always match up. Some parties on the federal level have no branches in certain provinces(for example, our left wing NDP party does not have a local affiliate in the largely francophone province of Quebec), while some provincial parties have no federal equivalent(like Saskatchewan Party, currently ruling that province). Even more confusing is that two provinces have a Liberal Party that is not affiliated with the federal Liberal Party. In the case of British Columbia, the provincial Liberal Party is actually on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the federal Liberal Party.
Long story short, the PM is the leader of the governing party, and as such, can be replaced at any point by his or her party at any given point, with no need for an election. I don't recall a time when this happened in Canada, but it did happen recently in Australia, who have a very similar system to ours. The PM at the time, Tony Abbott, lost the support of his own party, who opted to replace him with a rival, Malcolm Turnbull. This was a vote inside the party, and the change happened without a new election.
Who is in charge of making sure the laws which are passed get enforced? Via administration (for public policies) and via enforcement (for civil/criminal law). And who's in charge supervising the military and deciding on foreign policy? And selecting the judges? Those are all major roles of the President/executive branch, in the U.S.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
In theory, the Queen(as represented by the G-G) and the cabinet. Since the PM is heading and a part of the cabinet, he or she is included there. This goes for foreign policy too. Of course, in reality the PM isn't simply first among equals as it originally was in the UK, and his or her opinion carries more weight than that of a random member of the cabinet.
In theory, the G-G appoints supreme court judges, based on advice from the Cabinet.
So, perhaps I should qualify my earlier statement. The office of the Prime Minister is not an executive position per se. Certainly not on its own. The Prime Minister cannot go against the parliament or against his own party. He or she cannot veto laws, and if legislation introduced by the PM does not pass, it will generally mean that the PM either has to resign and allow a party vote on a new one, or ask for the parliament to be dissolved, upon which a new election takes place. In essence, if the PM does not have the confidence of the House(ability to pass major legislation, but not absolutely all legislation), they will no longer be the PM.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
JimLes out here smartsinn
Both DNC and RNC are private organizations
The superdelegate idea reflects the basic underlying fact that our party politics is not fundamentally democratic, or constitutional republican for that matter.
Both the DNC and RNC organizations are tightly-held private organizations, and the superdelegates are there to make sure the people don't interfere with management.
The superdelegate idea reflects the basic underlying fact that our party politics is not fundamentally democratic, or constitutional republican for that matter.
Both the DNC and RNC organizations are tightly-held private organizations, and the superdelegates are there to make sure the people don't interfere with management.
I think the Republican party has hit an all time low.
Trump is disgusting. Period.
Shameful. Shameful. Shameful.
What started as a joke candidacy has become a mockery of the American people. If you support Trump, like you really like the idea of him as our President, please consider beating your head in with a hammer. You're dumb. It isn't any more complicated than that. You're the problem. You're the scum of our nation. You are why democracy is doomed.
Enjoy your authoritarian demagogue. Enjoy making America a joke again.
You need a daddy and you think Trump as president will be your daddy. Grow the **** up!
This is sad.
Trump is disgusting. Period.
Shameful. Shameful. Shameful.
What started as a joke candidacy has become a mockery of the American people. If you support Trump, like you really like the idea of him as our President, please consider beating your head in with a hammer. You're dumb. It isn't any more complicated than that. You're the problem. You're the scum of our nation. You are why democracy is doomed.
Enjoy your authoritarian demagogue. Enjoy making America a joke again.
You need a daddy and you think Trump as president will be your daddy. Grow the **** up!
This is sad.
But I read somewhere recently (I think CNN?) that if Trump wins then he has no chance against Hilary.... so I guess my question is "is this a moot point"?
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Give me a break.
I'm no Trump supporter, but to say Trump supporters are the scum of the earth and the problem with democracy is hot air. Some of the most kind-hearted, brilliant, successful, and FULL of philanthropy people I know are staunch Trump supporters.
And let me tell you something. If they stood toe to toe with anyone here and gave their chapter and verse as to why they support him, you'd find it very difficult to refute their positions (I've been there with them).
The problem is the two-party system and how it's manipulated by so many artificial factors that no "good man" wants to even run for President. The system is what makes a mockery of our "democracy."
I'm no Trump supporter, but to say Trump supporters are the scum of the earth and the problem with democracy is hot air. Some of the most kind-hearted, brilliant, successful, and FULL of philanthropy people I know are staunch Trump supporters.
And let me tell you something. If they stood toe to toe with anyone here and gave their chapter and verse as to why they support him, you'd find it very difficult to refute their positions (I've been there with them).
The problem is the two-party system and how it's manipulated by so many artificial factors that no "good man" wants to even run for President. The system is what makes a mockery of our "democracy."
Okay, I guess one more.
How GF described Trump and his supporters is very close to how I feel <insert Hillary>.
So what does that say?
We are f'd no matter?
No. It means we get to choose between career "establishment" politicians or the Donald... because the system keeps the would-be great Presidents away from the cauldron.
How GF described Trump and his supporters is very close to how I feel <insert Hillary>.
So what does that say?
We are f'd no matter?
No. It means we get to choose between career "establishment" politicians or the Donald... because the system keeps the would-be great Presidents away from the cauldron.
candrew
Well-Known Member
After a two term administration they say the next president is a direct referendum on the previous president not only in policy but in style and temperament.
Do two more polar opposites exist on this earth other than Donald Trump and Barack Obama?
