Active Users:1084 Time:15/11/2024 02:18:05 AM
I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet. Joel Send a noteboard - 09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM
Specifically, what you said about the French presidency being a far more powerful position if his party also has a parliamentary majority. The US president is in a similar, if not identical, position (hence Obama screwed the pooch in not taking advantage of the Democratic House and Senate majorities while he still had them.)

Indeed. Still, there's a big difference in the sense that the US president can always appoint his own cabinet, regardless of his party's position in Congress. A French president can indeed appoint a PM pretty much at will if his party controls the parliament, and has at least a strong voice in who will get which ministry, but if his party doesn't control the parliament, whoever does (or can create a coalition that does) can become PM and the president's say in the division of the ministries becomes essentially non-existent. At that point the president is left with little concrete power, and reduced to much the same position as the kings and queens of constitutional monarchies, or the president of e.g. Germany. He has a bit more power than those - I believe he still has the nuclear access codes, and might even have a veto of some sort - but not much more.

Do NOT provoke the guy with the Football. (8 That situation does make the presidency rather anemic absent a parliamentary majority though; unless he does, in fact, retain veto power it is hard to see how it is anything more than a purely ceremonial position.

I suppose it must be possible for a president with a majority to annoy his own party so much that they decide to stop following his lead, vote in their own PM and bring him into much the same position, but I don't believe that has happened yet...

Without knowing more, my guess would be no one has enjoyed single party rule long enough for discontent with the party leader to reach that level and/or MPs lack latitude to secure re-election by opposing their party when constituents do. Honestly, if not for two party rule I am certain the party would have expelled many "Democratic" Congressmen long ago; as it is, Dems live in fear of that because nearly everyone who leaves the party does so as a preface to joining the GOP.

It is more a matter of the PM being both a member of the legislative majority AND head of state. In some ways that gives Britains PM greater (if more precarious) power than the US president. The PMs situation seems more like Obamas before 2010 or Clintons before 1994; he may need the Whip to keep a few unruly party members in line, but seldom faces an openly hostile majority (if only because such majorities tend to relieve him of that burden, by bringing down his government. :P)

Very true. Minority governments can happen, but they tend not to last very long as it only takes one lost vote of non-confidence to put an end to things. Yet another difference with the US, that... a PM can be dismissed by a simple vote of non-confidence in the House, at any time, if a majority can be found for it.

True, but both our approach and theirs are something of a mixed blessing. Impeachment DOES provide recourse for removing a president prior to the next election (one can only imagine how American government would have fared had Nixon been able to serve the last three years of his term after Watergate was discovered.) Unfortunately, since party tickets were only a constitutional amendment after the impeachment process was codified, its effectiveness has been diminished. Even when the president faced impeachment for covering up an attempt to rig the election AND the VP resigned amid bribery charges, Nixon just adroitly appointed Ford to succeed Agnew, resigned and received a full pardon for "all crimes he may have committed" (a blank check that went far beyond Watergate; that language from a member of the Warren Commission is very intriguing.) Even in that extreme case very little changed, and in any successful impeachment the presidents deputy would simply assume the presidency in his place.

On the other hand, perhaps that is well, since the head of state can only be removed for "high crimes and misdemeanors" rather than partisan or policy reasons. Removing Chamberlain on the eve of WWII was a necessity; removing Churchill in the middle of it would have been a disaster—but perfectly feasible under federal law.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 09/03/2012 at 12:29:35 AM
Reply to message
Now That Romney Is Officially the Republican Presidential Nominee: Pick the President! - 29/02/2012 08:29:02 PM 1242 Views
I have never understood the point of the Electoral College. - 29/02/2012 11:39:11 PM 690 Views
You don't think like a politician then - 01/03/2012 12:38:36 AM 733 Views
I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate. - 01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM 617 Views
what about one vote one value? - 02/03/2012 11:51:32 PM 699 Views
That has not really changed. - 03/03/2012 03:30:34 AM 883 Views
a bit simplistic and unrealistic - 02/03/2012 11:44:02 PM 659 Views
When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus - 03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM 674 Views
I have a couple quibbles. - 03/03/2012 05:23:46 AM 700 Views
Oh, certainly, I'm over-generalizing but I was already getting long-winded - 03/03/2012 06:52:04 AM 664 Views
I hate when people do that. - 05/03/2012 09:49:36 AM 642 Views
What a bunch of waffle! - 03/03/2012 10:47:19 AM 799 Views
First you complain of simplicity then of my lack of brevity? - 03/03/2012 11:18:11 AM 594 Views
A simplistic argument doesn't mean it's brief *NM* - 03/03/2012 09:55:51 PM 328 Views
Also I don't like this refrain that implies only the POTUS vote matters - 03/03/2012 03:29:58 AM 819 Views
IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college. - 03/03/2012 05:57:41 AM 621 Views
Re: IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college. - 03/03/2012 07:02:30 AM 657 Views
*is learning* - 04/03/2012 09:49:42 PM 648 Views
Re: *is learning* - 04/03/2012 09:56:16 PM 662 Views
To the extent I can (yet again) claim to speak for Europeans... - 04/03/2012 10:33:01 PM 638 Views
I've fairly limited exposure and that from some years back - 04/03/2012 11:35:12 PM 698 Views
Re: *is learning* - 05/03/2012 12:08:08 AM 700 Views
You could imitate the French. - 07/03/2012 10:40:16 PM 629 Views
That seems... unlikely.... - 08/03/2012 03:03:54 PM 636 Views
It does, doesn't it? - 08/03/2012 06:11:08 PM 833 Views
After I thought about it more, I realized France and the US are not so different in that respect. - 08/03/2012 08:51:03 PM 613 Views
More similar than the other major Western democracies at least, agreed. - 08/03/2012 09:32:55 PM 590 Views
I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet. - 09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM 669 Views
I don't know much about Norwegian politics, but you seem to be wrong. - 03/03/2012 06:18:08 PM 669 Views
Do you happen to have that link, please? - 03/03/2012 06:46:31 PM 551 Views
Sure. - 03/03/2012 06:58:07 PM 724 Views
Guess we did not read far enough. - 03/03/2012 10:38:07 PM 669 Views
Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... - 03/03/2012 11:49:44 PM 872 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... - 05/03/2012 06:56:24 AM 673 Views
Fascinating. - 05/03/2012 10:52:32 PM 653 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... - 08/03/2012 07:11:12 PM 624 Views
Many valid reasons, including those Isaac cited. - 02/03/2012 02:26:37 AM 771 Views
Most states are ignored anyway - 02/03/2012 11:56:12 PM 847 Views
Why would we do something logical? Dude, you're utterly ridiculous. *NM* - 05/03/2012 04:53:38 PM 365 Views
I'm kind of sad- does this mean Santorum won't be providing wonderful sound bites anymore? - 01/03/2012 02:22:31 PM 613 Views
Nothing has shut him up yet, why should this? *NM* - 01/03/2012 05:27:30 PM 348 Views
Maybe he'll pull a Palin and go touring around the country *NM* - 01/03/2012 07:06:02 PM 318 Views
No, it probably means we will get more and worse than ever. - 01/03/2012 11:25:25 PM 789 Views
Romney or Obama, either way, America loses. *NM* - 02/03/2012 01:10:26 AM 439 Views
Hard to dispute that either; six of one, half a dozen of the other. - 02/03/2012 01:38:07 AM 591 Views
Couldn't agree more *NM* - 02/03/2012 06:52:51 PM 357 Views
It reminds me of when Denver backed into the NFL playoffs. - 02/03/2012 09:36:13 PM 577 Views
I'd agree hope and change was extremely unrealistic - 02/03/2012 11:58:57 PM 588 Views
Romney is damaged - 02/03/2012 11:27:33 PM 604 Views
Obama is rather damaged also; it will probably come down to FL and OH, yet again. - 03/03/2012 02:23:53 AM 707 Views
I'm hoping for Rubio as VP... then FL probably won't matter - 03/03/2012 04:28:08 AM 594 Views
You should put that on your license plates. - 03/03/2012 06:41:34 AM 717 Views
Re: You should put that on your license plates. - 03/03/2012 06:51:00 AM 660 Views
Ax murderers are people, too! - 04/03/2012 08:23:41 PM 615 Views
And what are you basing all of this on? - 03/03/2012 09:54:06 PM 705 Views
The closeness of several states when Obama was far more popular, and UTs heavily Mormon neighbors. - 03/03/2012 11:44:06 PM 653 Views
Wrong - 04/03/2012 08:08:56 AM 779 Views
Higher turnout magnifies the Mormon effect. - 04/03/2012 08:08:09 PM 815 Views
Your reasoning is flawed and if you can't see it there is no hope for you - 05/03/2012 11:39:04 PM 722 Views
Yeah, I think we had that conversation already, several times, in fact. - 07/03/2012 05:36:45 AM 558 Views
Do you have any knowledge of statistics at all? - 07/03/2012 09:04:15 PM 717 Views
I hate this message board - 07/03/2012 09:06:30 PM 512 Views
Some, though it is far from exhaustive. - 08/03/2012 02:29:06 PM 697 Views

Reply to Message