Jamie Van Epps the US is not a Democracy. It’s a Constitutional Republic. A Republic already assumes some forms of Democracy, when in the definition it says “power is with the people and their ELECTED officials” and those elected representatives must follow the Constitution. Hence the term Constitutional Republic.
More specifically the US Presidential System vs Westminster System (the system used in most Commonwealth nations, except for Australia which has a system called the Washminster system which takes concepts and ideas from the US system and the british system)
Frederick Hashbury yep! To bad part of our Republic got taken away a little in the 1920’s when they abolished the way we originally got our senators. Which was by the state government picking our senators, with the House of Representatives there really is no need to make the senate vote a population vote. After all, a Senator represents the state, i.e. state government, and the House of Representatives represent the people. Senate represents the state, Congressmen represent the people, and the government represents the country. Too bad that kinda got ruined in the 1920’s.
The queen can recommend a member and if the queen doesn't sign a recommendation then the person being recommended cannot join the House of Lords. So essentially her majesty appoints the members of the House of Lords
+Shivam Rai I know I'm Canadian I'm also a cadet and today was a Christmas supper we did a toast to the queen and when we pass a painting of the queen in the armoury we must salute.
Yes Canada developed its system out of Westminster style government, its laws from English Common Law, and the Napoleonic Code (which is our Criminal Code and French Civil Law), as well as a few Indigenous laws and treaties. The Governor General is technically our Viceroy, since they are appointed by Her Majesty, and acts on behalf of the Crown. Our politics are much more in tune with British politics (our brand of Conservatism for example is based on Red/Blue Toryism) and the Monarchy exists as not only the foundation of Canada, but the Monarch also exists as Canada itself. So for us, to swear allegiance to the Queen, is to swear allegiance to Canada entirely.
Lot's of information left out, but good shot for an American. The HoC for instance can force through a bill should HoL reject it. See the ban on hunting with dog aka 'the foxhunting ban'
+Maha Bashri I'm shocked by this error. I appreciate the informative nature of this video, but a mistake like this casts doubt upon the facts and statistics provided by The Daily Conversation #CorrectThatShit
+Maha Bashri Actually, Andrew Johnson was impeached. Bill Clinton was also impeached. They were not removed from office, however, because 2/3 of the U.S. Senate did not vote for either president's guilt.
In the Netherlands we have a proportionel elected lowerchamber who have to approve a cabinet and can make laws, And a senate which can veto laws that is chosen proportionely by the provincial parliaments,the weight of their votes are based upon the population of their respective provinces. Both chambers are also without a voter threshold and have elections every 4 years We also have a king as head of state who does a bit of diplomacy and waves at people..
You miss a lot of the nuances of the UK system. This is fair as the UK system has been around a long time and has grown in an organic way rather than being written down.
Bro you have a king, so backwards, you also have lords?? What are the ordinary people then? Peasants?? Give Scotland and Northern Ireland independence and drop you outdated system it’s the 21 century
I've always thought that the UK system is way better than the American system. I'm Canadian and I love our political system (which is greatly similar to the UK). The American political system has become one big mess that can't get things done.
The house of Lords is made up of people from all walks of life who achieved in their particular field and invited by the prime minister to serve as members of a governing counsel. Some positions are reserved for members of the nobility and church who have vast experience.
+Ryan Herich Actually it's not. Pork barrel exists in presidential system so that the executive can "legally bribe" the legislative to do (or don't want them to do) what they want and hence checks and balance is compromise.
4:09 Do *not* call Queen Elizabeth II the "Queen of England". That is *not* one of her titles. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, not just of England. Furthermore, the supposed "seal of the Prime Minister" that you keep showing - where did you get that from? That's not real!
Precisely. The Crowned Portcullis (symbol of parliament) is what he should really be using. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Crowned_Portcullis.svg In fact, I don't believe any British government organisation use 'seals' anyway. They use 'crests' or 'arms' (shields).
Considering a majority of Western Scotland want either independence or be united with Ireland and NI has a lot of people that want a UI its doubtful she is Queen of the UK
Here in New Zealand, we have Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state. We use the Parliamentary System as most of the commonwealth. The best thing about a Parliamentary system (monarchy or non-monarchy) is that it does not give much power to the government, one bad move and the government will crumble and can be easily replaced. This therefore forces the government keep their best behaviour, the Queen could fire and dismissed the government if she needs to which had happened in Australia when their PM was fired by the Governor General and appointed a government caretaker, until after a new election. Therefore someone like Trump can never survive a Parliamentary System as they would get sacked either by their Parties, Parliament or the Queen.
Yes, it's not exactly a property of the system but (probably) a characteristic of New Zealand (parties, citizens). The author of the video left something important out of it: the prime minister is not voted in place but set in place by whoever has the majority and this who often is a coalition made of many parties and, in some cases (I'm sure Australia and Canada have them) independent members. If Prime Ministers were "selected" by vote that would be indirect election and individual MPs would cast their vote based on their electoral base or something else each member thinks. The reason why the Parliamentary System is more efficient is the requirement for parties to band together in order to create a coalition - and all the arguments, debates, fights and bickering happen before the coalition is formed. The Prime Minister then governs, almost unimpeded, according to the Government Plan proposed. If the plan doesn't work or the Prime Minister starts to rule not in accordance to it, the Parliament is dissolved and new elections are called. There are problems - Spain some years ago spent 2 years without a Prime Minister because parties would not reach an agreement. Portugal after the end of the dictatorship, in 1975, decided for the Parliamentary System and during the first year ended up having 5 Prime Ministers. These are problems and at the same time qualities of the system because they teach voters and the political class to behave democratically. The Spanish parties ended up learning they should dialogue and make concessions to one another and the Portuguese people learned how to vote (quickly, btw - from the 6th Prime Minister on, it was a normal Parliamentary Republic. In 1964 a General from the Brazilian Armed Forces decided to order his troops to take the Presidential Palace in Rio de Janeiro. Olímpio Mourão Filho was part of the Liberal faction in the armed forces and his actions were the catalysts for the coup. Mourão, however, did not want a dictatorship but to protect the Government from a possible coup by then President João Goulart. In 1966 he said on an interview that Castello (liberal, seized power as soon as the Presidency was declared vacant by Congress) should not have delayed the 1966 Presidential Elections. Mourão Filho died in the end of the 1970s complaining about the lack of democracy in Brazil. The regime would only be over in 1985 and popular presidential elections would only be held in 1989. The General wrote, before his death, "Brazil's problem is not internal, external, cultural nor economic. Brazil's problem is the Presidential system that requires the head of government to do any deal necessary to govern - and that leads to corruption." (paraphrased from memory) IMHO, he was absolutely right. In the US the system worked for a long time because there was a moral unity, a fair play even, present in the political class. Smaller conflicts were overlooked and big ones, well, lead to civil war. Already in the 20th century that characteristic started to crumble. Roosevelt was a constructive force but after his death the edifice really started falling to pieces. When in the 1970s the Protestant Ethics and the moral (politic and economic) evaporated leaving only profit as the pointing needle in society, the falling to pieces became an implosion. The terrain was bulldozed in 2010 when the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United against the Federal Electoral Commission and, using the 1st Amendment, removed almost all regulations related to campaign funding. After 2010, corporations and individuals can donate how much they want to whoever they want and there's no legal need for them to disclose the donation. The Republican Party cares nothing about Roe v Wade or the 2nd Amendment - they put all those originalists there so Citizens United v FEC won't be overturned. The Presidential system does not work, creates corruption and leads to less democracy. The Presidential system educates the citizens and the political political class for authoritarianism while the Parliamentary system educates towards democracy.
@@trollwarlord2967 There are a few details that can cause that like a party that can put forth a Prime Minister without the need for a coalition or because there are no independent seats. Independent seats are used to reduce the parliamentary presence of a supposed hegemonic party.
The reality is that parliamentary governments are more powerful in practice and guarantee the citizens less liberty than the US system. And if someone like Trump cannot survive a Parliamentary system, that only means that parliamentary systems are ultimately controlled by a tiny handful of mass media conglomerates, which in America are all (including "controlled opposition" Fox News) controlled by supporters of the same political party.
@@trollwarlord2967 it has happened here before, it's just that we rarely use the no-confidence motion and we also have fixed terms, unlike the traditional westminster style. nonetheless, the government is subject to constant scrutiny from parliament, and more importantly from the legal institutions. our courts are very upright when it comes to protecting democratic institutions and, again, unlike the traditional westminster system, they have more power to strike down laws. the concept of 'judicial review' is quite strong here, and anything that the courts deem unconstitutional (like a law prohibiting free speech, for example) will be struck down instantly. we also have measures to ensure the courts stay as unbiased as possible.
Great video loved the comparisons. However you have a slight confusion with the House of Lords. The house currently has 791 members. Of these 26 are bishops and 91 are hereditary peers. The remaining majority are life peers and are chosen by the Government and then appointed by the monarch. Life peers are chosen from people who have specialist knowledge in particular areas such as business, science, politics etc. Also as mentioned by other comments, although the Parliament of the United Kingdom has two houses, it is the lower house ie the Elected House of Commons which contains the government and opposition which has the most power. Under the Parliaments act 1911 the lords can only block a bill for 1 year or 3 months of the bill is a financial one. Personally I do like the House of Lords however it does need major reform notably scrapping the hereditary peers and barons. Also should be greater checks and balances on how Life peers are appointed. Seems too easy these days for the government to appoint ridiculous amounts of life peers who suit their parties agenda. Needs to be more control on how many can be appointed a year etc.
Ah, in theory, but in practice it's actually really difficult for the Commons to send legislation back to the Lords without some sort of amendment. It also takes a lot of time to send proposed legislation back and forth between both houses and some have argued that this has been used as a delaying tactic in itself. The technical term is filibustering and it represents a serious threat to the democratic process.
Actually, here are a few corrections. 1) There has not been a Queen of England since the 1707 Act of Union which united England and Scotland. The current title of the Queen is Her Majesty The Queen of the United Kingdom. B) Her Majesty The Queen is the Commander in Chief of the British Armed Services. However, like in most aspect of a Constitutional Monarchy, Her Majesty is advised by her Prime Minister.
Britain is not a "Constitutional Monarchy" since there is NO constitution. You have it opposite on another point- It is the "queen" who advises the "parliament" through the Prime Minister. The PM is in fact - "her first minister." They have all "pledged their allegiance" to her - not a constitution or any set of laws. Every Tuesday evening the PM must go to Buckingham Palace and after bowing/kneeling to the "queen" be advised as to her wishes. The PM must accept her wishes since she will have the final say anyway. That is a "soft assent." The PM and Parliament are also aware that they must do the wishes of "lords" as well as the "queen." In "parliament" there is no opposition to the "monarch-queen/king." All MP and everyone else in any government position must take an "oath to the monarch." They are all conservative/royalists. They cannot take a seat in "parliament" unless they are. Republican MP's from Ireland are not allowed in "parliament" because they will not take the required oath. They are republicans not royalists. No opposition allowed in "parliament."
@@niallp-s8535 we do have a constitution (Brit here to) its just not written down me or you as British citizens (note for Americans we are not described as subjects in our passports we are British citizens)so unlike an american or french person we cant go to read the constitution as its not in one single document its in numerous documents for example once the EU withdrawal is finalised and rubber stamped by parliament it will become part of the many documents that are already part of the constitution
To be honest, as an American, I prefer the Parliamentary, proportional representation system over the US' electoral college & winner take all election system simply based off 2 things: 1.) Proportional representation is more democratic as instead of 1 party taking all the seats because they won the most votes, the party that gets x % of the vote gets x% of the seats. This allows smaller parties to have an opportunity to climb through the ranks & have more equal shot @ entering gov't. 2.) In the EU, they ban &/or heavily limit private money in politics. Even the UK regulates money in politics, unlike the US, although the UK is more lenient on this issue compared to the rest of the EU. In the EU, parties get an equal amount of campaign money which is public money, not private & they also get free media time as well, in pretty much an equal amount. This creates even more opportunity for smaller parties to get into gov't. Overall, I'm really a huge fan of the European Union, it's member states & their political systems as they seem to be more progressive, more in favour of civil liberties & human rights, everyone is given an equal opportunity, green technology is (becoming) mainstream, they have high speed trains, their roads are smoother, everyone is happy, they have a fairly generous asylum system which allows people from other countries of poverty, war & chaos to get a new head start by 1stly if the refugee has no criminal record & their asylum claims are legitimate getting a job & a house to live in, then if they're on their best behavior & they don't commit any crimes, they get citizenship, stricter rules on worker protections, consumer protections, imports, environmental protections, financial institutions, regular banking, investment banking product safety & health standards, human rights protections & criminal law & justice & visaless travel is guaranteed. I'm also planning on, after I graduate High School in June, going to college in the US for the 1st 2 years, then transferring out to the European Union to study & while I'm there, considering getting permanent residence & giving up my US citizenship. This is solely based on the fact that we are no longer the land of opportunity. Our gov't has been selling out to richest people in the country & turning back much of the worker protections, consumer protections, social safety nets, human rights protections, civil liberties protections, banking & financial regulations, environmental protections & so on. In the next few years, we're also expected to have another banking crash which is probably going to be far worse than the last banking crash. Our economic recovery has been mainly fake as, most of our wealth which has been created has gone to the top 1%. In fact, since 2009, 95% of all new income in the US went to the top 1%. Nowadays, about 60% of our GDP is created on Wall St. Also, Dodd Frank, the bill which was passed to regulate the banks back in 2009/2010 is now being repealed provision by provision & little by little. So that means that the only form of banking regulation which had since the Gr8 Recession is now being repealed provision by provision & little by little which scares the fuck out of me. Not only that, the overwhelming majority of the jobs created in this country since the banking crash have been low wage, service sector jobs for major corporations such as Walmart, McDonald's Wendy's & Target & even the factory jobs that we're getting back from China don't even pay well @ all & they're incredibly shitty & dangerous, long hour jobs that make shitty, low quality products. Wages are still stagnating & most people aren't feeling the economic recovery that much @ all. This is NOT the future I want for myself @ all, so I'm afraid that I either attempt to fight the system which isn't going to be easy & possibly even dangerous & a life risking action especially if a Republican wins the presidency in 2016 which means that I could risk being beaten up by police, detained or even killed or I emigrate to another country where no such problems exist/these problems exist nowhere near this extent & start a whole new life for myself. I'm afraid & saddened that I'm going to have to pick the latter choice, as I want to live as long as I can & I want to be successful & live an enjoyable life. This is why I want to emigrate to the European Union as an exchange student, than consider permanent resident.
Actually no the US system is based on the fact that the President is the President of the States not the people. With that in mind the States holds an election for delegates\Electors to vote on behalf of the State. This Allows lesser populated States to have voice and helps maintain States Sovereignty. One thing we have to remember is that the US is 50 nation States in a Union. Article 5 US Constitution establishes that the States have the true Power.
Parliamentary system =/= proportional representation Not even remotely the same thing. I can't think of a Commonwealth nation off the top of my head that actually has proportional representation.
Just FYI the House of Lords no longer has hereditary peers in the UK as the title is no longer pasted on in the family, meaning those lords who are their presently due to inheritance are the last of their kind.
Jaffa565 Um... We still do knight people if they deserve it. Also people can still inherit their titles. The people in the pictures you see are older since they have to die to allow their title to be inherited by their heir. I know this because I have a friend who is carrying the title 'The honourable' it's a title heirs carry before their father or mother dies before they inherit it.
Elizabeth is the monarch of the United Kingdom. She is queen of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England besides the other 16 realms where she is the Sovereign. You might want to correct your mistake at about the 4:11 mark.
Libertarian, because of the history of the UKs governmental development, you should be very proud of your parliament. It was the first of its type in Europe and has been a model for numerous countries. The existence Parliament and the House of Lords is because enough of the nobles rebelled against what they considered royal overreach. The Magna Carta was the result, and the rest is history. So be proud of your country, it’s traditions and the form of government that has spread around the world.
HM Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just of England. There hasn't been a Queen of England since Queen Elizabeth I. Also, you pronounced Buckingham Palace wrong.
Michael Purser - Although true, this title is misleading, she should not be Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, as there has been no Elizabeth I preceding her. The UK did not exist when the first Elizabeth was on the throne. She can only be Elizabeth II of England and just Queen Elizabeth of the UK.
I agree it is slightly misleading, but someone not from the UK may find it confusing if I started replying to people saying that she's the first Queen of the United Kingdom as they won't be aware of British history to that much detail. So it was just a simplification. Whether she officially holds the title of Queen Elizabeth I or II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland I don't know.
You missed out that lords can be elected by the sitting on too. Also votes of no confidence can be instigated by the general public through petitions. The UK's law states that if a petition reached a certain number of signatures it must be debated in parliament
one thing really crucial you incorrectly stated was that parliament is less susceptible to change based on the whims of the people. 100% not true american congress at the end of the day also has to contend with the constitution which the uk parliament system does not posses. they can pass whatever law they would like
Pros of Parliamentary systems: 1-) Parliament has more power than even the PM on most issues except foreign policy. 2-) There are more choices: In case the two biggest parties go too far in either direction, people can vote for more moderate alternatives and force the big boys back in the middle. This encourages coalition building. 3) When a PM faces a vote of no confidence, he has two choices: call a general election or step down. The presidential version, or impeachment, is much harder to pull off. Cons: 1-) No clear-cut differences between the executive and legislative branches. The Judicial is too independent for its own good. 2-) Having too many parties (more than 5) can cause gridlocks and make it difficult for any one party to win 30% of the vote. Think Weimar Germany. 3-) When one party has a big majority, it has little incentive to listen to the complaints of smaller parties and can even outright silence them. As a results, democracies can sometimes implode into semi-authoritarian or even authoritarian regimes.
Two main kinds of that. A parliamentary republic as in Germany or a semi presidential system, in France, Portugal, Romania, and Ukraine. For the former, just take what you saw in this video and substitute president, for the latter, the president is directly elected, usually with a second round in case nobody has a majority, and they normally nominate the prime minister with the affirmation or acquiescence of parliament, can veto laws but usually only need a majority vote twice to overrule them, conducts most of foreign policy and normally conducts military affairs, and may choose some judges but normally not more than 1/3 of the judges on the highest court.
+Szymon Gorczynski Or just one month if it's anything to do with taxation or government spending, and not at all if it's any Bill that was part of the manifesto upon which the government was elected.
@@04nbod I know this was 5 years ago, but bills can be amended and passed indefinitely between the Lords and Commons, which has become known as Parliamentary ping-pong. If the Commons become tired of this they can invoke their powers under the Parliament Act of 1949 which means that the Bill will bypass the Lords and become law after 1 year. This has only ever happened less than 10 times.
+john lewis or a revolution, which almost always happen in a presidential system of government unlike Parliamentary where there are three legal ways to do it: parliament fires him, head of state fires him or his party fires him.
+Doney Hon US influenced France the French helped the US in the war against uk while they had a king since they helped France the French thought they could get rid of the king since the king was helping the US so no France is not influencing to any country
+DMPepe Well most those countries lie in europe, and all of them have rich histories with monarchies and the likes. Newer countries tend to go presidential, as there is no monarchy to have to appease. Presidential systems have emerged from former colonies and the like. Canada and the other members of the commonwealth did not break free but instead were given their independence after some time. The queen is still the head of all the commonwealth.
04:50 I wish this happened in the US... it's hard to become as disengaged and prone to spin or being emamored by personalities when your elected leader must debate his/her opposition on a weekly basis. Having our executive official so isolated hasn't really done much to act as a check on his power in the age of television and multimedia where soundbites and tweets can set an agenda and forestall honest debate.
Reasonable comparison, some inaccuracies. The Lords are mostly Life Peers, appointed not by the Queen but in her name by the incumbent government. New peers are created twice a year. They are drawn from all areas the nations life - David Putnam is a peer, so is Seb Coe and Tanny Grey-Thompson. There are a small number of hereditary peers left, their numbers were cut in 1999 and they can no longer pass the right to sit in the Lords to their hair, so their numbers are dwindling. When an election is called it is the Queen who dissolves parliament and when the winner has been established it is she who invites the leader of the winning party to form a government. While this is mostly an horary duty, if a government tried to illegally extend its life she could step in and dissolve parliament without their request/permission. This is one of the checks and balances that keeps us safe. The government could get rid of the Queen if she overstepped her powers or the people willed it, she can do the same to them. It’s a balance. Of course the other thing we subjects of HMQ have, is a head of state who is above politics, who doesn’t have to bother with winning the popular vote every few years and is thus liked, respected and admired by a the majority, as the human face of the nation across the social and political spectrum.
You are WRONG. It is impossible for "parliament" to "get rid of the Queen." In order to take a seat every MP MUST take an Oath of Allegiance to the "queen." Any attempt to "get rid of the queen" would violate that oath. "Lords" also must take an oath of allegiance. Further- "lords" would have to approve and the "queen" would have to give "royal assent." Your comment on that alone makes all your comments irrational and untrue. Since all military and police MUST take an oath of allegiance to the "queen" who would enforce "get rid of the queen?" Your whole point of any check on the "queen" is ludicrous.
This is a minor issue, but the Legislative Branch is not the 'second branch' of government, it is the first branch. It is the first branch described in the Constitution, and it is *intended* to be the most powerful, relatively speaking. This is because the Legislature is the branch that the American People have the most direct control over. It is much easier to get into contact with your representative or senator than it is to get into contact with the president, and the Representatives can be removed from office much more quickly than the President if the people dislike them.
Great video! Here's some more information specific to the UK, to make the UK Parliamentary system a bit easier to understand: 1. the population is divided into 'constituencies' based on where people live 2. in a 'general election' (the main election in the UK), the population votes for the party they want to win in their constituency. Some key factors that people consider when voting for a party include: the party's current leadership, the current party in power's performance over the past few years, the opposition parties' views and whether they've been providing valid and successful opposition to the current party in power, and every party's manifesto (a long document detailing what each party would aim to do if they would be elected into power). 3. in each constituency, whichever party gets the most votes wins. This type of voting is called 'first past the post'. 4. in each constituency, the person who represents the winning party in that constituency is known as the 'member of parliament' (MP). They now occupy a 'seat' in the House of Commons (HoC) (the lower chamber of the UK Parliament). 5. whichever party now (as a result of the general election) has the most 'seats' (i.e. MPs) in the House of Commons wins the general election. 6. all the parties have a 'leader'. The winning party's leader becomes Prime Minister (PM). The leader of the party which has the second most number of seats becomes the Leader of the Opposition. 7. The PM chooses MPs from their party or sometimes members of the House of Lords to form their Cabinet. Cabinet members advise the PM and also lead their own departments (e.g. the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the main person in charge of the party's fiscal/economic policies). Watch this great video about how laws/legislation are passed: th-cam.com/video/g5CJNLRqZXs/w-d-xo.html. In summary: 1. MPs (and especially the party in power) can suggest legislation to the other MPs in the HoC. 2. This is then debated and then voted on by the MPs (all MPs can express their views regarding any proposed legislation and the current party in power's policies - a famous example is the weekly Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) debates). More amendments are then voted on. 3. Once the MPs in the HoC are mostly happy with the legislation, this is passed on to the House of Lords (its members are not elected) for review. The House of Lords can suggest amendments (which are then reviewed again in the HoC) and if they are not happy with the legislation, they can delay it for up to one year. However, the House of Lords usually does not delay legislation proposed by the party in power that had been in their manifesto when they were campaigning in the general election, because by voting in that party in the general election, the population basically showed that they were content for that proposed legislation to be passed. This all means that the House of Lords has relatively little power. 4. The final version of the legislation is passed to the monarch (King Charles), who (by convention) always signs it. It has now been passed into law. Some key insights: - in contrast to the US, people in the UK vote for a party, not directly for the leader of the party. However, whoever currently leads that party is still a key factor for the population to consider. - it is much easier for a PM to leave office than it is for the President to leave office (via impeachment). The MPs (of all parties in the HoC) can call a 'vote of no confidence', and if the party in power loses the vote, this usually results in another general election being called. Also, if the PM comes to have very little support from the other MPs in their party because they're now being seen as incompetent, they can resign and a new 'leadership contest/election' happens when members of the party in power elect a new leader for their party, who then becomes the new PM. This happened when PM Theresa May (even though she had previously survived two votes of no confidence) failed to provide Brexit legislation that her party supported, and then she resigned. Boris Johnson won the Conservative Party Leadership Election and became the new PM. He later resigned after a few scandals and Liz Truss won the next leadership election. She later resigned after her fiscal legislation caused financial instability and her party (as well as most of the country) lost confidence in her leadership. Rishi Sunak was elected unopposed to be the next leader and PM. He lost the 2024 general election to the Labour party, which is led by Keir Starmer, who became the next PM. Hope this helps!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 The video provides an explanation of two main systems of democratic government: Presidential and Parliamentary. 00:28 The U.S. has an electoral college system where states allocate electors based on their population size. 00:57 In the UK, people directly elect representatives, and the party with the most seats in a General Election forms the government. 01:26 The U.S. President appoints cabinet officers, while UK cabinet appointments do not require confirmation. 01:56 U.S. laws require approval from both houses of Congress and the President's signature. 02:22 The UK Parliament consists of the House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords. 02:52 The U.S. Supreme Court serves as the highest legal authority, while the UK's Supreme Court has less power. 03:21 In the U.S., the President serves as both Head of Government and Head of State. 03:50 In the UK, the Monarch is the official Head of State, but the Prime Minister and Cabinet run the country. 04:17 The video highlights the role of the Monarch and the Prime Minister in the UK. 04:44 The U.S. President can be removed through impeachment, while UK leadership changes due to no-confidence votes or budget defeats. 05:12 Impeachment in the U.S. requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate, which has never happened in history. 05:40 In the UK, losing a no-confidence vote or a budget vote can lead to a General Election. 06:10 The video concludes by summarizing the key differences between the American Presidential and UK Parliamentary systems. Made with HARPA AI
Yes, this is especially important considering how much pressure/responsibility/onus the general populace puts on the president. No one seems to care enough about our legislators to vote during mid-term elections. Also... maybe consider not voting for incumbents if you don't like their policies or lack thereof, and stop voting solely on party lines.
The Congress is the first branch of government, not the second. Article one created the legislature, article two created the executive, and article three created the judiciary. This is because the founding fathers viewed the legislature as the most important.
The role of the Queen is pretty much ceremonial nowadays and the power that she does have such as dissolve parliament , appoint the prime minister etc she does by having to act by the advice of her ministers. This in effect means the Queen does what she's told by the leaders of government. Hence she's only for ceremonial purposes
History has seen elected dictators, appointed dictators and royal dictators. So many comments here seem to believe that somehow, what is more democratic is automatically more responsible and thus, is better. And yet that is clearly not the case in history. Many great leaders have been dictators or royals, and there have been plenty of elected corrupt politicians. The UK's system has been evolving since the era of William the Conqueror, and has many centuries to develop, and no its not perfect. But considering that the American Presidential system is still developing and in a far less and shorter time and is now showing its faults even more clearer than the Parliamentary system, be careful what you think is better. Just because something is more "democratic" doesn't mean its any better, especially when your electorate is uneducated.
Adolf Hitler was elected to chancellor, then the people voted him dictatorial powers where chancellor and president were combined in to Fuhrer (which just means "Leader"). If you look at what was occurring in Germany at the time, it completely makes sense why they would do it, but it also shows democracy can lead to that kind of stuff. Not going to comment on Hitler's policies or how good/evil he was, etc. I am merely pointing out that democratic systems can willingly vote for a dictator, or police state, or other stuff like that. I mean you can observe it in the US right now with people openly advocating and voting for communist policies.
Canada would have been much better. We've got a (somewhat) proper senate and not whatever a 'House of Lords' is. Most undemocratic shite I've ever heard of.
The point of the Lords is to have Experts in their respective fields to serve as a check for whatever laws are trying to be passed. If they disagree, they make a recommendation for an amendment and send it back to the Commons. If the Commons disagree, they have a to-and-fro but the Lords will always yield to the Commons in the end. Democracy.
One thing I like about our system in America is that it doesn't lock in that political parties legally have recognition in the government itself like it seems like with all the parliamentary
The UK is in no way democratic. The only vote is for one of 650 MP's who have absolutely no power. The insultingly named "commons" is over ruled by the insulting named "lords" and the insulting "royal" -"queen." who must give "royal assent" to all law. Insultingly every MP and everyone public servant must take an oath of allegiance to the "queen/king." There is no constitution. To refer to the UK as a democracy is an insult to the term and to real democracy. The USA is a very real democracy with a written constitution and the longest republic in history. Both houses and the President (head of state and commander in chief) are elected in a unique and ingenious system where every one of the 50 broad ranging states and their population have a say in the election of the President. Is it perfect - no but by far and far better than any other and particularly a insulting monarchy and a belief that some are "royal" and some are "common subjects." How dare you insult yourself and others in defending a medieval bigoted racist "monarchy."
Not true - the present Prime minister does not have a majority yet remains by making phony deals with the opposition and giving them jobs. It is not even a collision with the next party with highest vote. Since Ireland is a very small population and country to attempt to compare it with the US is nutty. Yes Proportional Representation does appear to have merit it does lead to the many small and sometime ridiculous small parties. Perhaps that is why nothing gets done in Ireland and it is a shambles. It is difficult for me to say that since I wish Ireland and its people the best but they are not likely to get it from the present system.
Givepeaceachance, the American system is purposefully less democratic. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner."
Being from Canada, i've always preferred the presidential system in the south... just seems more democratic than having the monarchy involved (even just as a symbol).
Dan Benn and yet the American People don't choose their own president. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College make the system not a fair as it seems. and to make things worse, the Cabinet which make up the policies of all government departments aren't elected. At least in Canada/UK the Cabinet Ministers are almost always MPs or in rare cases, Senators.
Yeah you're right, the electoral college definitely makes democracy a lot less direct. Probably the biggest downside of the electoral system in the US. However, in my opinion it is still the lesser of two evils.
Parliamentary system does not need to involve the monarchy... It certainly doesn't happen in Germany, who is a better example of Parliamentary system than the UK
+Luis Montanez Charles I was the last Monarch who tried to pull rank and tell Parliament how to govern. It initiated the English Civil War and Charles ended up with his head cut off. It was a great opportunity for great social change but it didn't go well. With Charles gone, England ended up with a Republic which was in character a joyless theocracy run by fanatical Puritans. In just over a decade the Monarchy was back (under Charles' son), the religious nutters were flushed out and the current form of the constitutional monarchy was created. Under this system the reigning Monarch could *in theory* overrule Parliament and do all kinds of things with their powers - but if the Queen tried anything she'd either be locked in an insane asylum or be hanging from the gallows before the end of the week. She's little more than a living mascot and any appearance of power is window dressing. I'm no fan of the royal family and in an ideal political shakeup I'd happily have them kicked out of their mansions. However as a pragmatist I cannot deny they generate a lot of useful national publicity and heaps of tourism money by enticing foreign holiday makers to come and snap pictures of them and buy some union jack themed plastic souvenir crap. Whilst they fulfil this role, we Britons are happy to keep them around.
+David Keenan If a bill doesn't get signed by the queen the bill won't be passed but if she did that all of her powers would be gone. That's her only true power and she can't even use it.
+Grz349 Howeever they were always separate from politics of the house. The change to a supreme court was only done to emphasise that the court is not political.
Democracy means "For the people, By the people" I don't see it in UK and US And add to more UK literally has House of Lords that's not democratically elected by people and sort of a Caste System
Having an appointed upper house doesn't mean the country is no longer a democracy. Canada (senate) and Germany (Bundesrat) also had appointed upper houses yet they are classified as "full democracy" (Democracy Index) the same way as the U.K. did. Besides, the power of the House of Lords is limited so they can't really block much of the laws unlike the U.S. Senate whenever opposing Democrats and Republicans get one house each under their control and start gridlock.
Another thing you missed out is not only does the uk have general elections by local elections. Which elect members for local government in different areas. You vote for the councillors who run the councils in cities, towns, villages. Which deal with things such as education, social services and more. Plus there is election of the police commissioner of each region.
As an American Id much more prefer a multi-party parliament like Canada has. I dont like the two party rule here in america because here youre either a dem or a repub. It makes us so divided and judgemental toward each other and most of our officials are in Congress take AGES to pass ANYTHING. Not to mention our widening class differences here in America. The two party presidential rule was good in theory but I believe a multi party parliamentary rule here would be far more accurate and democratic.
azzip they don't ever defend policies, they just lie and say pre rehearsed gags to get a laugh. and the opposition leader has, in the the past, tried to compete with jokes of their own. Only recently with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party has the opposition leader been serious about PMQS.
Trump would be even better I mean how do you defend raping the environment, killing Americans via taking their healthcare away, giving tax cuts to the rich while exploding the debt, trying to start WW3, his abysmal handling of the hurricanes, calling the White House a dump and a prison, picking fights with members of congress, injecting politics into the NFL, pushing our allies away, etc, etc.
Anthony Bennett Sorry but please don't defend how Trump handled the hurricanes, he sucked at it and literally threw toilet paper to Puerto Ricans thinking that would change anything lmao.
Quite good except that it gives the impression that the monarch has any real power. In practice it is a ceremonial position with respect to parliament. However it also acts as an excellent and position for international relationships, having a continuity which political leaders do not. The continuity of ancient ceremony also helps give a gravitas to the formal procedures of the upper and lower houses, which curiously never refer to each other by name, but simply to "in another place", or "an other chamber". The house of lords has very few hereditary peers now, almost all of them, with the exception of the Bishops, being appointed by parliament.
It may be worth noting that the British equivalent of the State of the Union is the queens speech, and that a general election can take place sooner with the Parliaments consent.
The Prime Minister is not the head of the British Armed forces Her Majesty the Queen has that title .After all they are her soldiers not the government's.
why do americans and even canadians, say "QUEEN OF ENGLAND ONLY", Queen ELizabeth II is also queen of scots, northern ireland, wales, canada, the UK, australia, new zealand and many other countries as depicted on bank notes and coins... H.M the queen is a constitutional monarch, head of state and millitary commander in chief,,, de jure, de facto is the UK PM,. the elected head of government of the largest UK party as elected every 5 years... australia, new zealand and canada have simmilar "westminster systems of government that is parlimentary democracies, based on the UK system"...
You answered your own question. It would be a bit long-winded to say reel off every country to which she is the queen every time you mentioned her name.
no one is moaning or whinging, she is the Queen of England of course, but also some 18 other countries... only ignorant americans would say otherwise, but they also forgett that , she is also Queen of Canada, right on their doorstep lol
We say Queen of England because of a couple reasons, 1. she lives in England, 2. Its easier to say than to list all the other countries shes the queen of, 3. Queen of England sounds better than Queen of UK, 4. To us shes just another person, we dont care about her and her status that much, no offense.
When it comes to electoral college who are those representatives that were chose to decide who become the president. Are those people from the House of Representatives and Senate, but combine?
+David Keenan Err, not exactly. Members of the military swear loyalty to the Queen, not the government, and officers get their commissions from the Queen.
Arwel Parry Yes for the Army & Air Force, not the Royal Navy. In practice the monarch is the only person who can declare war, but that's a technicality, the monarch always acts in accordance with the Prime Minister's wishes. War was never declared against Argentina. Thatcher never consulted the Queen, she just informed her of what was happening. The Belgrano was sunk only after direct orders from Thatcher.
+David Keenan I thought Navy officers and Marines swore to the Queen, while naval ratings don't, read somewhere it was a hangover from the pressed crews of the age of sail. Which was where a ship being "paid off" comes from.
TheBespectacledN00b All persons enlisting in the British Army and the Royal Marines are required by the Army Act 1955 to attest to the following oath or equivalent affirmation: “I… swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.” No oath of allegiance is sworn by members of the Royal Navy, which is actually maintained by royal prerogative, or by Royal Marines officers, who unlike their Army counterparts are not enlisted before they are commissioned. Non-Commissioned Royal Marines swear an oath of allegiance.
This is UK vs USA, not Parliamentary vs Presidential... Besides, the UK used a majority system at district level, as opposed to proportional systems (eg Germany), which are more representatives of the Parliamentary system
A presidential system is a democratic and republican system of government where a Head of Government leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch. This Head of Government is (in most cases) also the Head of State, and is called the President. In presidential countries, the Executive is directly elected by The People, and is not responsible to the Legislature, which cannot (in normal circumstances) dismiss it. Such dismissal is possible, however, in uncommon cases, often through impeachment. The title "president" has persisted from a time when such persons personally presided over the governing body, as with the President of the Continental Congress in the early United States, prior to the executive function being split into a separate branch of government. A presidential system contrasts with a parliamentary system, where the Head of Government is elected to power through the Legislature. There is also a hybrid system called semi-presidentialism. Countries that feature a presidential or semi-presidential system of government are not the exclusive users of the title of president. Heads of State of parliamentary republics, largely ceremonial in most cases, are called presidents. Dictators or leaders of one-party states, popularly elected or not, are also often called presidents. Presidentialism is the dominant form of government in the continental Americas, with 19 of its 23 sovereign states being presidential republics. It is also prevalent in Central and southern West Africa, and in Central Asia.
Mandeep Singh, he did say the Queen is the [figure] Head of State and the Prime Minister is the commander in chief in all BUT NAME! What about that didn't you understand?
Mandeep Singh Like the Queen could technically fire anyone from Parliament or vito any law, she just doesn't since she knows there'd be a revolution if she did. We'll get round to changing it. Eventually. Probably.
I am British but live in Australia. Australia has a Parliamentary system but it's actually different because Australia is a Federation and has Federal, State and local levels of government. It means in Australia wehave like 3 elections. Although, I do more of a postal vote for state and local and go to the polls for Federal.
Is there any criticism on the House of Lords? It seems like having inherited seats and actual Bishops of the church being required to serve would be controversial. Definitely wouldn't fly here in the US, but maybe it's a cultural thing?
The bishops in the House of Lords only accounts for 26 seats, and hereditary peers 6 out of 817. It is widely contested as being outdated. But being a tradition that dates back at least 700 years with the Lords Spiritual and nearly a 1000 years with hereditary peers. It's more tradition than anything else, 26 out of 817 isn't going to have much of an impact. Not to mention that all the bishops are Church of England which is considered a very liberal Christian denomination (they reject the concept of hell for example). But also religion is considered bad to be brought up or mentioned in politics. For example David Cameron received a lot of negative press in the media and by the people themselves for saying "Britain is a Christian country". Which annoyed many people as statically only 0.9% percent of the population attend Christian churches (of any denomination) regularly, regularly being more than once a month.
In the US you hear a number of politicians and presidential candidates bring up their religious beliefs. In the UK it's practically unheard of. I've heard several presidential candidates say the US is a Christian country. But it has caused no controversy in the media or with the majority of the population, like when David Cameron said that about the UK.
+SeabassVlogs It's not really as simple as that. Currently there are just over 800 members of the House of Lords. The number of Hereditary Peers, ie. those who are there because they inherited a title, is limited to no more than 92. The number of Bishops is limited to 26. Being born into the right family doesn't get you a seat in the House of Lords. A portion of the Hereditary Peers are elected by members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons combined, others are selected by existing members of the House of Lords. The remaining 700 or so are Life Peers, who are appointed based on knowledge, experience or achievement in particular fields. These titles are not hereditary. Regarding your criticism question: individually, members can be removed from the House for non-attendance, conviction for serious criminal offences, or for involvement in some sort of scandal, meaning some sort of corruption or irregular practices, not affairs or photographs involving leather and fruit. As a whole, their powers are very limited, when compared to the House of Commons. They review and debate proposed legislation and may propose amendments or delay the passing of a Bill in order to prompt Parliament to look at it again. Except in very limited circumstance they can't reject outright a Bill that has been passed by the House of Commons. They're not permitted to delay bills to do with taxation or the nation's finances. It's not a perfect system (personally I'd like to see them drop the bishops), but it can provide a limited check on the House of Commons without quite so much intrusion of party politics. All in all they're very much secondary, in terms of power and influence, to the House of Commons. Also, for what it's worth, they don't get paid. In reality it's a more complicated than I've described here, but I hope you get some idea that it's not really some medieval style bunch of aristocrats lording it over the peasants purely by virtue of birth.
One slight error in emphais you made: in the parliamentary system we have the ability to literally "throw the bums out" every 4 or 5 years, that is all of the House of Commons at once. Whereas you always have only part of the Congress up for election every two years in the US. I would argue that the parliamentary system is more democratic in that way (the people get exactly what they vote for), but the American system is more liberal (meaning it has more checks on power).
NO. Our WHOLE lower House stands for reelection every 2 years in the US. Only the Senate, which serves for six year terms, is designed so that one third is up for reelection every two years. The House provides representation based on population, the Senate based on geography.
It's absurd how the House of Lords still exists in the way that it does. How about a roomful of political/economic/industry experts rather than Prime Ministers' chums, hereditary peers, and bishops.
What I don't get is why parliamentary systems always have a monarch or president in a ceremonial role. If their powers are usually only ceremonial in parliamentary systems then what's the point? You're just wasting money on an extra political office. Just have the prime minister serve as both head of government and head of state.
That's a fair point. But I'm still in favor of having such a role. I can only speak for myself though, from a German perspective. I like that it's non-partisan. The prime minister (or in my case the chancellor) is from a party and he or she will do policy based on what their party wants, and that can create a certain disconnect if you don't agree with the policies of the prime minister/chancellor. You can see it in the US too. There will always be a lot of people that don't like the current president because of his policies. So having a head of state in a ceremonial role provides the state with an extra layer that is trying to unify people and also the system because the president then isn't bound by party politics and can do other stuff (the president usually is from a party too but he isn't actively involved in the party while in office). I'm not really good at writing down my thoughts (especially when its in a different language), but I hope you get my point. Also, I think the head of state is a great ambassador of the country abroad. The chancellor will meet other heads of state / heads of government when she travels abroad, signing deals, talking to trade representatives etc. while the president assumes a different role. When he travels abroad, he will also meet other leaders, of course. But his visits are more centered around meeting the ordinary people. Going to schools, universities, visiting charities or other people that are active in society. My last point is that the president still has to sign every bill into law. In the German case he is not allowed to veto it because he doesn't like it. The only case when he can veto a bill is when it is obviously infringing the constitution. I like having this extra layer, separate from the government. I hope you got what I was trying to say. I really like that we have this role, but its a pity that a lot of people (even a lot of germans!) don't even know that we have a president.
The House of Representatives and the Senate are actually equal. In total, there are 435 representatives. Each state receives a different number of representatives depending on the population of that state. For example, California has 55 representatives while Montana only has 3. There is a total of 100 senators. 2 are from each state. Congress is like this to give larger states more power in the House and give smaller states equal representation as the large states in the Senate.
Karthik Mahesh pls do not adopt the Presidential system. Just look at Venezuela and Brazil to have glimpse of what will happen if your country has a presidential system. In fact, most presidential systems are failures. Presidential systems are easier to fall under authoritarianism than Parliamentary systems. Democratically elected dictatorships happened in Presidential systems. Just look at Hugo Chavez in vzla or in the future, President-elect Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.
Wrong about how laws in the UK are passed. Both parties don't have to agree, there just needs to be a majority vote. The Tories currently have such a majority that they can pass any law as long as every Conservative MP votes the same way.
The Queen is Queen of Great Britain, not England. The PM does not always have a 5 year term. The PM can declare war. FYI, Canada was the first country to declare war on Japan in WWII, before USA or Great Britain.
In my opinion, the UK's system is better but I'm property basis since I'm British however there are things that must be changed in the UK. Those two of are: 1) Changing the voting system used for general elections to AMS as soon as possible. 2) Reforming the house of lords into a elected upper house which uses PR to choose the members as soon as possible
+Yeshua 7 Some people in Britain agree with you. however some people use the cultural significance argument to the support monarchy. It's very important to note that not all parliamentary governments have monarchs, several have abolished their monarchies or simply never had a monarch to first with
+Totalwarking7 1) Electoral reform is a worthy goal, but I think the Lib Dems have put that back by a couple of decades. 2) I think the House of Lords is close to right at the moment. Sure there are 92 hereditary peers & 26 Lords spiritual, but that's only 118 out of a total of 790 (at present). I'd happily see those seats disappear, but I feel there's no urgency for it. I think the system of life peers making up the balance works okay. If Lords were elected by the general public, it would grant the legitimacy to halt government legislation, & financial bills. We don't need that. We just need a second chamber that advises & recommends.
A poll taken after the election showed over 60% of the public are in favour of more proportional voting system, it's only a matter of time until electoral reform is achieved. I hope labour joins the parties which support electoral reform.
I like ancient Athen's democracy better. It was the real thing. Aristotle would not have hesitated to describe our modern "democracies" as covert oligarchies, a problem that often plagued ancient democracies as well.
@@michaels4255 Bit tricky with millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people lol. Plus Athens was very particular about who counted as a citizen and could actually participate in the democracy
@@michaels4255Only works in Athens and Switzerland (semi-direct democracy). But it would be hard to manage in large countries like the U.S. Also, representative democracy is better since it's a mix of democracy and technocracy. Representatives will listen to both the voices of their constituents as well as experts' opinion (making unpopular policies that would be of long-term benefit to the nation).
In Uk’s parliament can both house present a bill or only the House of Common can present a bill? Also since the monarch is the headstate does she sign the bill into law and what role does the prime minister do when it come to creating law?
This is NOT Parliamentary vs. Presidential Democracy Explained
It is UK Parliament vs US Presidential
yeah, but U.S. Democracy is where everyone looks at for democratic way, but they do explain in the video that that is what it is.
Jamie Van Epps the US is not a Democracy. It’s a Constitutional Republic. A Republic already assumes some forms of Democracy, when in the definition it says “power is with the people and their ELECTED officials” and those elected representatives must follow the Constitution. Hence the term Constitutional Republic.
More specifically the US Presidential System vs Westminster System (the system used in most Commonwealth nations, except for Australia which has a system called the Washminster system which takes concepts and ideas from the US system and the british system)
@@nothingbutart7473 exactly and republic is in the REPRESENTATIVE democracy as opposed to direct or parlimentary democracy
Frederick Hashbury yep! To bad part of our Republic got taken away a little in the 1920’s when they abolished the way we originally got our senators. Which was by the state government picking our senators, with the House of Representatives there really is no need to make the senate vote a population vote. After all, a Senator represents the state, i.e. state government, and the House of Representatives represent the people. Senate represents the state, Congressmen represent the people, and the government represents the country. Too bad that kinda got ruined in the 1920’s.
Lords are not really appointed by the Queen. They are recommended by the current PM, the Queen really just signs in agreement.
The queen can recommend a member and if the queen doesn't sign a recommendation then the person being recommended cannot join the House of Lords.
So essentially her majesty appoints the members of the House of Lords
+quarantine458 No. If the Queen was to deny the advice of her ministers there would be a constitutional crisis.
kwh278 yeah whatever you say
+quarantine458 It's not what I say. It's fact.
kwh278 whatever you say
The U.K. Is similar to Canada's because Canada was based on the uks
Also Canada's still under Elizabeth II monarchy
+Shivam Rai I know I'm Canadian I'm also a cadet and today was a Christmas supper we did a toast to the queen and when we pass a painting of the queen in the armoury we must salute.
Canada is a British Commonwealth. It is under the Monarchy. Most of the money has the queen on it.
@@benjifrizzell7992 Most of our coins, but other than that we just have her on the 20 dollar bill
Yes Canada developed its system out of Westminster style government, its laws from English Common Law, and the Napoleonic Code (which is our Criminal Code and French Civil Law), as well as a few Indigenous laws and treaties. The Governor General is technically our Viceroy, since they are appointed by Her Majesty, and acts on behalf of the Crown. Our politics are much more in tune with British politics (our brand of Conservatism for example is based on Red/Blue Toryism) and the Monarchy exists as not only the foundation of Canada, but the Monarch also exists as Canada itself. So for us, to swear allegiance to the Queen, is to swear allegiance to Canada entirely.
Lot's of information left out, but good shot for an American. The HoC for instance can force through a bill should HoL reject it. See the ban on hunting with dog aka 'the foxhunting ban'
No one gives a damn.
English white guy, just happen to speak Chinese.
***** HoC must push it through 3 times - if is rejected on the 3rd HoC can invoke the Parliament Act 1911
Chair Mao "but good shot for an American" - Shots fired. Us Americans... so incompetent eh?
Chair Mao Someone sure as hell does give a damn, thanks for adding! And anyone else for adding info since this vid is a snippet
Andrew Johnson not jackson that almost got impeached
Maha Bashri You are absolutely right, thanks for correcting our typo! www.wikiwand.com/en/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson
its okay
I'm glad other people noticed that too.
+Maha Bashri I'm shocked by this error. I appreciate the informative nature of this video, but a mistake like this casts doubt upon the facts and statistics provided by The Daily Conversation #CorrectThatShit
+Maha Bashri Actually, Andrew Johnson was impeached. Bill Clinton was also impeached. They were not removed from office, however, because 2/3 of the U.S. Senate did not vote for either president's guilt.
In the Netherlands we have a proportionel elected lowerchamber who have to approve a cabinet and can make laws,
And a senate which can veto laws that is chosen proportionely by the provincial parliaments,the weight of their votes are based upon the population of their respective provinces.
Both chambers are also without a voter threshold and have elections every 4 years We also have a king as head of state who does a bit of diplomacy and waves at people..
You miss a lot of the nuances of the UK system. This is fair as the UK system has been around a long time and has grown in an organic way rather than being written down.
Bro you have a king, so backwards, you also have lords?? What are the ordinary people then? Peasants?? Give Scotland and Northern Ireland independence and drop you outdated system it’s the 21 century
Lol, gotta love how the Vatican is an absolute monarchy
then there comes Socialism. and then comes Caliphate which eliminates all.
*absolute sacerdotal theocracy
FTFY lmao
thank you so much UK friends and family.
I've always thought that the UK system is way better than the American system. I'm Canadian and I love our political system (which is greatly similar to the UK). The American political system has become one big mess that can't get things done.
+Godzilla52 Presidential system will only work with a homogeneous society or in a small country.
Presidential system the way us does it (checks and balances) is way better
+Si Si not in the way USA does with French theory in set up of government
The house of Lords is made up of people from all walks of life who achieved in their particular field and invited by the prime minister to serve as members of a governing counsel. Some positions are reserved for members of the nobility and church who have vast experience.
+Ryan Herich Actually it's not. Pork barrel exists in presidential system so that the executive can "legally bribe" the legislative to do (or don't want them to do) what they want and hence checks and balance is compromise.
4:09 Do *not* call Queen Elizabeth II the "Queen of England". That is *not* one of her titles. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, not just of England. Furthermore, the supposed "seal of the Prime Minister" that you keep showing - where did you get that from? That's not real!
Exactly.
Precisely. The Crowned Portcullis (symbol of parliament) is what he should really be using.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Crowned_Portcullis.svg
In fact, I don't believe any British government organisation use 'seals' anyway. They use 'crests' or 'arms' (shields).
Inky Scrolls get triggered
Considering a majority of Western Scotland want either independence or be united with Ireland and NI has a lot of people that want a UI its doubtful she is Queen of the UK
The Queen of England.
Here in New Zealand, we have Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state. We use the Parliamentary System as most of the commonwealth. The best thing about a Parliamentary system (monarchy or non-monarchy) is that it does not give much power to the government, one bad move and the government will crumble and can be easily replaced. This therefore forces the government keep their best behaviour, the Queen could fire and dismissed the government if she needs to which had happened in Australia when their PM was fired by the Governor General and appointed a government caretaker, until after a new election. Therefore someone like Trump can never survive a Parliamentary System as they would get sacked either by their Parties, Parliament or the Queen.
india is a parliamentary system doesn't seem to happen there.
Yes, it's not exactly a property of the system but (probably) a characteristic of New Zealand (parties, citizens). The author of the video left something important out of it: the prime minister is not voted in place but set in place by whoever has the majority and this who often is a coalition made of many parties and, in some cases (I'm sure Australia and Canada have them) independent members.
If Prime Ministers were "selected" by vote that would be indirect election and individual MPs would cast their vote based on their electoral base or something else each member thinks. The reason why the Parliamentary System is more efficient is the requirement for parties to band together in order to create a coalition - and all the arguments, debates, fights and bickering happen before the coalition is formed. The Prime Minister then governs, almost unimpeded, according to the Government Plan proposed. If the plan doesn't work or the Prime Minister starts to rule not in accordance to it, the Parliament is dissolved and new elections are called.
There are problems - Spain some years ago spent 2 years without a Prime Minister because parties would not reach an agreement. Portugal after the end of the dictatorship, in 1975, decided for the Parliamentary System and during the first year ended up having 5 Prime Ministers. These are problems and at the same time qualities of the system because they teach voters and the political class to behave democratically. The Spanish parties ended up learning they should dialogue and make concessions to one another and the Portuguese people learned how to vote (quickly, btw - from the 6th Prime Minister on, it was a normal Parliamentary Republic.
In 1964 a General from the Brazilian Armed Forces decided to order his troops to take the Presidential Palace in Rio de Janeiro. Olímpio Mourão Filho was part of the Liberal faction in the armed forces and his actions were the catalysts for the coup. Mourão, however, did not want a dictatorship but to protect the Government from a possible coup by then President João Goulart. In 1966 he said on an interview that Castello (liberal, seized power as soon as the Presidency was declared vacant by Congress) should not have delayed the 1966 Presidential Elections.
Mourão Filho died in the end of the 1970s complaining about the lack of democracy in Brazil. The regime would only be over in 1985 and popular presidential elections would only be held in 1989. The General wrote, before his death, "Brazil's problem is not internal, external, cultural nor economic. Brazil's problem is the Presidential system that requires the head of government to do any deal necessary to govern - and that leads to corruption." (paraphrased from memory) IMHO, he was absolutely right.
In the US the system worked for a long time because there was a moral unity, a fair play even, present in the political class. Smaller conflicts were overlooked and big ones, well, lead to civil war. Already in the 20th century that characteristic started to crumble. Roosevelt was a constructive force but after his death the edifice really started falling to pieces. When in the 1970s the Protestant Ethics and the moral (politic and economic) evaporated leaving only profit as the pointing needle in society, the falling to pieces became an implosion. The terrain was bulldozed in 2010 when the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United against the Federal Electoral Commission and, using the 1st Amendment, removed almost all regulations related to campaign funding. After 2010, corporations and individuals can donate how much they want to whoever they want and there's no legal need for them to disclose the donation. The Republican Party cares nothing about Roe v Wade or the 2nd Amendment - they put all those originalists there so Citizens United v FEC won't be overturned.
The Presidential system does not work, creates corruption and leads to less democracy. The Presidential system educates the citizens and the political political class for authoritarianism while the Parliamentary system educates towards democracy.
@@trollwarlord2967 There are a few details that can cause that like a party that can put forth a Prime Minister without the need for a coalition or because there are no independent seats. Independent seats are used to reduce the parliamentary presence of a supposed hegemonic party.
The reality is that parliamentary governments are more powerful in practice and guarantee the citizens less liberty than the US system. And if someone like Trump cannot survive a Parliamentary system, that only means that parliamentary systems are ultimately controlled by a tiny handful of mass media conglomerates, which in America are all (including "controlled opposition" Fox News) controlled by supporters of the same political party.
@@trollwarlord2967 it has happened here before, it's just that we rarely use the no-confidence motion and we also have fixed terms, unlike the traditional westminster style. nonetheless, the government is subject to constant scrutiny from parliament, and more importantly from the legal institutions. our courts are very upright when it comes to protecting democratic institutions and, again, unlike the traditional westminster system, they have more power to strike down laws. the concept of 'judicial review' is quite strong here, and anything that the courts deem unconstitutional (like a law prohibiting free speech, for example) will be struck down instantly. we also have measures to ensure the courts stay as unbiased as possible.
Great video loved the comparisons. However you have a slight confusion with the House of Lords. The house currently has 791 members. Of these 26 are bishops and 91 are hereditary peers. The remaining majority are life peers and are chosen by the Government and then appointed by the monarch. Life peers are chosen from people who have specialist knowledge in particular areas such as business, science, politics etc. Also as mentioned by other comments, although the Parliament of the United Kingdom has two houses, it is the lower house ie the Elected House of Commons which contains the government and opposition which has the most power. Under the Parliaments act 1911 the lords can only block a bill for 1 year or 3 months of the bill is a financial one.
Personally I do like the House of Lords however it does need major reform notably scrapping the hereditary peers and barons. Also should be greater checks and balances on how Life peers are appointed. Seems too easy these days for the government to appoint ridiculous amounts of life peers who suit their parties agenda. Needs to be more control on how many can be appointed a year etc.
Pretty sure that the Lords can only delay laws now.
your right the Lord can only call a rethink but not overthrow
Ah, in theory, but in practice it's actually really difficult for the Commons to send legislation back to the Lords without some sort of amendment. It also takes a lot of time to send proposed legislation back and forth between both houses and some have argued that this has been used as a delaying tactic in itself. The technical term is filibustering and it represents a serious threat to the democratic process.
Controversy Owl I believe there is also a way of circumnavigating the House of Lords called an act of Parliament
Sock1294
I thought they were the laws we were talking about.
Sock1294 You mean the Parliament Acts. Those are specific 'Acts of Parliament' which is a term for all laws.
Actually, here are a few corrections. 1) There has not been a Queen of England since the 1707 Act of Union which united England and Scotland. The current title of the Queen is Her Majesty The Queen of the United Kingdom. B) Her Majesty The Queen is the Commander in Chief of the British Armed Services. However, like in most aspect of a Constitutional Monarchy, Her Majesty is advised by her Prime Minister.
other than this, this was a good video.
Britain is not a "Constitutional Monarchy" since there is NO constitution.
You have it opposite on another point- It is the "queen" who advises the "parliament" through the Prime Minister. The PM is in fact - "her first minister." They have all "pledged their allegiance" to her - not a constitution or any set of laws. Every Tuesday evening the PM must go to Buckingham Palace and after bowing/kneeling to the "queen" be advised as to her wishes. The PM must accept her wishes since she will have the final say anyway.
That is a "soft assent." The PM and Parliament are also aware that they must
do the wishes of "lords" as well as the "queen."
In "parliament" there is no opposition to the "monarch-queen/king." All MP and everyone else in any government position must take an "oath to the monarch." They are all conservative/royalists. They cannot take a seat in "parliament" unless they are. Republican MP's from Ireland are not allowed in
"parliament" because they will not take the required oath. They are republicans not royalists. No opposition allowed in "parliament."
patrick mcveigh it is a constitutional monarchy, the constitution just isn't written down
The constitution of the United Kingdom ARE the laws of the United Kingdom. We just don't call it a constitution.
@@niallp-s8535 we do have a constitution (Brit here to) its just not written down me or you as British citizens (note for Americans we are not described as subjects in our passports we are British citizens)so unlike an american or french person we cant go to read the constitution as its not in one single document its in numerous documents for example once the EU withdrawal is finalised and rubber stamped by parliament it will become part of the many documents that are already part of the constitution
poorly structured video in my opinion, you were jumping from UK to US back and forth, making things and terms confusing
Never thought I'd see you here
I agree
This is a top-notch. Thanks for being very explicit. I enjoyed listening to this short but highly impactful video. 👍
To be honest, as an American, I prefer the Parliamentary, proportional representation system over the US' electoral college & winner take all election system simply based off 2 things:
1.) Proportional representation is more democratic as instead of 1 party taking all the seats because they won the most votes, the party that gets x % of the vote gets x% of the seats. This allows smaller parties to have an opportunity to climb through the ranks & have more equal shot @ entering gov't.
2.) In the EU, they ban &/or heavily limit private money in politics. Even the UK regulates money in politics, unlike the US, although the UK is more lenient on this issue compared to the rest of the EU. In the EU, parties get an equal amount of campaign money which is public money, not private & they also get free media time as well, in pretty much an equal amount. This creates even more opportunity for smaller parties to get into gov't.
Overall, I'm really a huge fan of the European Union, it's member states & their political systems as they seem to be more progressive, more in favour of civil liberties & human rights, everyone is given an equal opportunity, green technology is (becoming) mainstream, they have high speed trains, their roads are smoother, everyone is happy, they have a fairly generous asylum system which allows people from other countries of poverty, war & chaos to get a new head start by 1stly if the refugee has no criminal record & their asylum claims are legitimate getting a job & a house to live in, then if they're on their best behavior & they don't commit any crimes, they get citizenship, stricter rules on worker protections, consumer protections, imports, environmental protections, financial institutions, regular banking, investment banking product safety & health standards, human rights protections & criminal law & justice & visaless travel is guaranteed. I'm also planning on, after I graduate High School in June, going to college in the US for the 1st 2 years, then transferring out to the European Union to study & while I'm there, considering getting permanent residence & giving up my US citizenship. This is solely based on the fact that we are no longer the land of opportunity. Our gov't has been selling out to richest people in the country & turning back much of the worker protections, consumer protections, social safety nets, human rights protections, civil liberties protections, banking & financial regulations, environmental protections & so on. In the next few years, we're also expected to have another banking crash which is probably going to be far worse than the last banking crash. Our economic recovery has been mainly fake as, most of our wealth which has been created has gone to the top 1%. In fact, since 2009, 95% of all new income in the US went to the top 1%. Nowadays, about 60% of our GDP is created on Wall St. Also, Dodd Frank, the bill which was passed to regulate the banks back in 2009/2010 is now being repealed provision by provision & little by little. So that means that the only form of banking regulation which had since the Gr8 Recession is now being repealed provision by provision & little by little which scares the fuck out of me. Not only that, the overwhelming majority of the jobs created in this country since the banking crash have been low wage, service sector jobs for major corporations such as Walmart, McDonald's Wendy's & Target & even the factory jobs that we're getting back from China don't even pay well @ all & they're incredibly shitty & dangerous, long hour jobs that make shitty, low quality products. Wages are still stagnating & most people aren't feeling the economic recovery that much @ all. This is NOT the future I want for myself @ all, so I'm afraid that I either attempt to fight the system which isn't going to be easy & possibly even dangerous & a life risking action especially if a Republican wins the presidency in 2016 which means that I could risk being beaten up by police, detained or even killed or I emigrate to another country where no such problems exist/these problems exist nowhere near this extent & start a whole new life for myself. I'm afraid & saddened that I'm going to have to pick the latter choice, as I want to live as long as I can & I want to be successful & live an enjoyable life. This is why I want to emigrate to the European Union as an exchange student, than consider permanent resident.
so, how is it going? did you move to the eu?
Actually no the US system is based on the fact that the President is the President of the States not the people. With that in mind the States holds an election for delegates\Electors to vote on behalf of the State. This Allows lesser populated States to have voice and helps maintain States Sovereignty. One thing we have to remember is that the US is 50 nation States in a Union. Article 5 US Constitution establishes that the States have the true Power.
Oh sorry, thought I was in the comments section, must of accidentally wondered into the essay section!
People. .plssssss add paragraphs
Parliamentary system =/= proportional representation
Not even remotely the same thing. I can't think of a Commonwealth nation off the top of my head that actually has proportional representation.
Just FYI the House of Lords no longer has hereditary peers in the UK as the title is no longer pasted on in the family, meaning those lords who are their presently due to inheritance are the last of their kind.
Jaffa565 Um... We still do knight people if they deserve it. Also people can still inherit their titles. The people in the pictures you see are older since they have to die to allow their title to be inherited by their heir. I know this because I have a friend who is carrying the title 'The honourable' it's a title heirs carry before their father or mother dies before they inherit it.
There are still 92 hereditary peers and their titles and seat in the HoL is passed to their eldest child through agnatic-cognatic succession
its sad really because the hose of lords know what there doing and they are a very British thing
Elizabeth is the monarch of the United Kingdom. She is queen of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England besides the other 16 realms where she is the Sovereign.
You might want to correct your mistake at about the 4:11 mark.
Libertarian, because of the history of the UKs governmental development, you should be very proud of your parliament. It was the first of its type in Europe and has been a model for numerous countries. The existence Parliament and the House of Lords is because enough of the nobles rebelled against what they considered royal overreach. The Magna Carta was the result, and the rest is history. So be proud of your country, it’s traditions and the form of government that has spread around the world.
HM Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just of England. There hasn't been a Queen of England since Queen Elizabeth I. Also, you pronounced Buckingham Palace wrong.
Michael Purser - Although true, this title is misleading, she should not be Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, as there has been no Elizabeth I preceding her. The UK did not exist when the first Elizabeth was on the throne.
She can only be Elizabeth II of England and just Queen Elizabeth of the UK.
I agree it is slightly misleading, but someone not from the UK may find it confusing if I started replying to people saying that she's the first Queen of the United Kingdom as they won't be aware of British history to that much detail. So it was just a simplification. Whether she officially holds the title of Queen Elizabeth I or II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland I don't know.
Sorry, I meant of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Commonwealth but TH-cam isn't working so I couldn't edit.
👍👍👍👍
Michael Purser technically there was a queen/king of England until 1707 when the crowns of Scotland and England were merged
You missed out that lords can be elected by the sitting on too. Also votes of no confidence can be instigated by the general public through petitions. The UK's law states that if a petition reached a certain number of signatures it must be debated in parliament
one thing really crucial you incorrectly stated was that parliament is less susceptible to change based on the whims of the people. 100% not true
american congress at the end of the day also has to contend with the constitution which the uk parliament system does not posses. they can pass whatever law they would like
Parliamentary system do things faster and much efficient
Yep which in turn allows them to pass more dipshit laws. While the US is not perfect we have passed dipshit laws but it is much harder to do so.
Yes
Pros of Parliamentary systems:
1-) Parliament has more power than even the PM on most issues except foreign policy.
2-) There are more choices: In case the two biggest parties go too far in either direction, people can vote for more moderate alternatives and force the big boys back in the middle. This encourages coalition building.
3) When a PM faces a vote of no confidence, he has two choices: call a general election or step down. The presidential version, or impeachment, is much harder to pull off.
Cons:
1-) No clear-cut differences between the executive and legislative branches. The Judicial is too independent for its own good.
2-) Having too many parties (more than 5) can cause gridlocks and make it difficult for any one party to win 30% of the vote. Think Weimar Germany.
3-) When one party has a big majority, it has little incentive to listen to the complaints of smaller parties and can even outright silence them. As a results, democracies can sometimes implode into semi-authoritarian or even authoritarian regimes.
@S White unfortunate comment as Brexit deal just happened!
I agree 😊👍👍👍these are nations whose system are Parliamentary democracy 🇬🇧🇨🇦🇦🇺🇳🇿🇧🇦🇧🇧🇯🇲🇨🇼🇸🇧🇵🇬 etc..
But some countries have a prime minister and a president. That's what I really want to know about.
Two main kinds of that. A parliamentary republic as in Germany or a semi presidential system, in France, Portugal, Romania, and Ukraine. For the former, just take what you saw in this video and substitute president, for the latter, the president is directly elected, usually with a second round in case nobody has a majority, and they normally nominate the prime minister with the affirmation or acquiescence of parliament, can veto laws but usually only need a majority vote twice to overrule them, conducts most of foreign policy and normally conducts military affairs, and may choose some judges but normally not more than 1/3 of the judges on the highest court.
It's great to learn about the differences that the two countries have, even though they are quite close even with the relationship they have.
0:49 Michigan is completely distorted
It's the lakes I think
3:00 Um... No. The House of Lords can only delay laws by one year.
+Szymon Gorczynski
Or just one month if it's anything to do with taxation or government spending, and not at all if it's any Bill that was part of the manifesto upon which the government was elected.
Is it even defined by time. I'm sure its the number of times they can amend a bill before its sent for Royal Assent automatically.
@@04nbod I know this was 5 years ago, but bills can be amended and passed indefinitely between the Lords and Commons, which has become known as Parliamentary ping-pong. If the Commons become tired of this they can invoke their powers under the Parliament Act of 1949 which means that the Bill will bypass the Lords and become law after 1 year. This has only ever happened less than 10 times.
@@szymongorczynski7621 Parliament Acts it can only be bandied about for 1 session
Major error: The Queen is not the Queen of England. She's the Queen of Great Britain. That's why we're a 'united kingdom'.. Basics..
Happy UK election day!
you say that the their are only two ways a president can be removed from office Impeachment and resignation. Their is a third assassination.
+john lewis or a revolution, which almost always happen in a presidential system of government unlike Parliamentary where there are three legal ways to do it: parliament fires him, head of state fires him or his party fires him.
+Harvey Aw UK and US the most influential models? No. It's UK and France.
+Doney Hon US influenced France the French helped the US in the war against uk while they had a king since they helped France the French thought they could get rid of the king since the king was helping the US so no France is not influencing to any country
*there
Even if more countries have followed the American System, one can notice how British System countries are more successful and stable
more so due to Europe than type of government
+DMPepe Every country that followed the Presidential system has failed utterly.
+DMPepe Well most those countries lie in europe, and all of them have rich histories with monarchies and the likes.
Newer countries tend to go presidential, as there is no monarchy to have to appease.
Presidential systems have emerged from former colonies and the like.
Canada and the other members of the commonwealth did not break free but instead were given their independence after some time. The queen is still the head of all the commonwealth.
+Harvey Aw The US hasn't!
+DMPepe But you do not have Checks and balances. You pass laws way to quickly and rather capriciously. No thanks!
04:50 I wish this happened in the US... it's hard to become as disengaged and prone to spin or being emamored by personalities when your elected leader must debate his/her opposition on a weekly basis. Having our executive official so isolated hasn't really done much to act as a check on his power in the age of television and multimedia where soundbites and tweets can set an agenda and forestall honest debate.
That's where the Santa clause costume came from?!!
Reasonable comparison, some inaccuracies. The Lords are mostly Life Peers, appointed not by the Queen but in her name by the incumbent government. New peers are created twice a year. They are drawn from all areas the nations life - David Putnam is a peer, so is Seb Coe and Tanny Grey-Thompson. There are a small number of hereditary peers left, their numbers were cut in 1999 and they can no longer pass the right to sit in the Lords to their hair, so their numbers are dwindling.
When an election is called it is the Queen who dissolves parliament and when the winner has been established it is she who invites the leader of the winning party to form a government. While this is mostly an horary duty, if a government tried to illegally extend its life she could step in and dissolve parliament without their request/permission. This is one of the checks and balances that keeps us safe. The government could get rid of the Queen if she overstepped her powers or the people willed it, she can do the same to them. It’s a balance. Of course the other thing we subjects of HMQ have, is a head of state who is above politics, who doesn’t have to bother with winning the popular vote every few years and is thus liked, respected and admired by a the majority, as the human face of the nation across the social and political spectrum.
You are WRONG. It is impossible for "parliament" to "get rid of the Queen." In order to take a seat every MP MUST take an Oath of Allegiance to the "queen." Any attempt to "get rid of the queen" would violate that oath. "Lords" also must take an oath of allegiance. Further- "lords" would have to approve and the "queen" would have to give "royal assent." Your comment on that alone makes all your comments irrational and untrue. Since all military and police MUST take an oath of allegiance to the "queen" who would enforce "get rid of the queen?" Your whole point of any check on the "queen" is ludicrous.
Thanks for the video. Good luck on your election UK. It will be interesting to see who you all vote for.
Lots of factual errors about how the uk parliamentary system works.
This is a minor issue, but the Legislative Branch is not the 'second branch' of government, it is the first branch. It is the first branch described in the Constitution, and it is *intended* to be the most powerful, relatively speaking. This is because the Legislature is the branch that the American People have the most direct control over. It is much easier to get into contact with your representative or senator than it is to get into contact with the president, and the Representatives can be removed from office much more quickly than the President if the people dislike them.
Thank you for the video. You've just made much easier to understand. You should do a video on political parties in US VS UK if you haven't already
Much eaiser bro the uk side is a mess prime minster dose not have a term limit whattttattatatt????
The US founding fathers did not want political parties, but they appeared any way.
Great video! Here's some more information specific to the UK, to make the UK Parliamentary system a bit easier to understand:
1. the population is divided into 'constituencies' based on where people live
2. in a 'general election' (the main election in the UK), the population votes for the party they want to win in their constituency. Some key factors that people consider when voting for a party include: the party's current leadership, the current party in power's performance over the past few years, the opposition parties' views and whether they've been providing valid and successful opposition to the current party in power, and every party's manifesto (a long document detailing what each party would aim to do if they would be elected into power).
3. in each constituency, whichever party gets the most votes wins. This type of voting is called 'first past the post'.
4. in each constituency, the person who represents the winning party in that constituency is known as the 'member of parliament' (MP). They now occupy a 'seat' in the House of Commons (HoC) (the lower chamber of the UK Parliament).
5. whichever party now (as a result of the general election) has the most 'seats' (i.e. MPs) in the House of Commons wins the general election.
6. all the parties have a 'leader'. The winning party's leader becomes Prime Minister (PM). The leader of the party which has the second most number of seats becomes the Leader of the Opposition.
7. The PM chooses MPs from their party or sometimes members of the House of Lords to form their Cabinet. Cabinet members advise the PM and also lead their own departments (e.g. the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the main person in charge of the party's fiscal/economic policies).
Watch this great video about how laws/legislation are passed: th-cam.com/video/g5CJNLRqZXs/w-d-xo.html.
In summary:
1. MPs (and especially the party in power) can suggest legislation to the other MPs in the HoC.
2. This is then debated and then voted on by the MPs (all MPs can express their views regarding any proposed legislation and the current party in power's policies - a famous example is the weekly Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) debates). More amendments are then voted on.
3. Once the MPs in the HoC are mostly happy with the legislation, this is passed on to the House of Lords (its members are not elected) for review. The House of Lords can suggest amendments (which are then reviewed again in the HoC) and if they are not happy with the legislation, they can delay it for up to one year. However, the House of Lords usually does not delay legislation proposed by the party in power that had been in their manifesto when they were campaigning in the general election, because by voting in that party in the general election, the population basically showed that they were content for that proposed legislation to be passed. This all means that the House of Lords has relatively little power.
4. The final version of the legislation is passed to the monarch (King Charles), who (by convention) always signs it. It has now been passed into law.
Some key insights:
- in contrast to the US, people in the UK vote for a party, not directly for the leader of the party. However, whoever currently leads that party is still a key factor for the population to consider.
- it is much easier for a PM to leave office than it is for the President to leave office (via impeachment). The MPs (of all parties in the HoC) can call a 'vote of no confidence', and if the party in power loses the vote, this usually results in another general election being called. Also, if the PM comes to have very little support from the other MPs in their party because they're now being seen as incompetent, they can resign and a new 'leadership contest/election' happens when members of the party in power elect a new leader for their party, who then becomes the new PM. This happened when PM Theresa May (even though she had previously survived two votes of no confidence) failed to provide Brexit legislation that her party supported, and then she resigned. Boris Johnson won the Conservative Party Leadership Election and became the new PM. He later resigned after a few scandals and Liz Truss won the next leadership election. She later resigned after her fiscal legislation caused financial instability and her party (as well as most of the country) lost confidence in her leadership. Rishi Sunak was elected unopposed to be the next leader and PM. He lost the 2024 general election to the Labour party, which is led by Keir Starmer, who became the next PM.
Hope this helps!
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 The video provides an explanation of two main systems of democratic government: Presidential and Parliamentary.
00:28 The U.S. has an electoral college system where states allocate electors based on their population size.
00:57 In the UK, people directly elect representatives, and the party with the most seats in a General Election forms the government.
01:26 The U.S. President appoints cabinet officers, while UK cabinet appointments do not require confirmation.
01:56 U.S. laws require approval from both houses of Congress and the President's signature.
02:22 The UK Parliament consists of the House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords.
02:52 The U.S. Supreme Court serves as the highest legal authority, while the UK's Supreme Court has less power.
03:21 In the U.S., the President serves as both Head of Government and Head of State.
03:50 In the UK, the Monarch is the official Head of State, but the Prime Minister and Cabinet run the country.
04:17 The video highlights the role of the Monarch and the Prime Minister in the UK.
04:44 The U.S. President can be removed through impeachment, while UK leadership changes due to no-confidence votes or budget defeats.
05:12 Impeachment in the U.S. requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate, which has never happened in history.
05:40 In the UK, losing a no-confidence vote or a budget vote can lead to a General Election.
06:10 The video concludes by summarizing the key differences between the American Presidential and UK Parliamentary systems.
Made with HARPA AI
I thought the King/Queen is the commander-in-chief in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
2:13
Actually, according to the constitution, the legislative branch is the FIRST branch of government.
Yes
Yes, this is especially important considering how much pressure/responsibility/onus the general populace puts on the president. No one seems to care enough about our legislators to vote during mid-term elections. Also... maybe consider not voting for incumbents if you don't like their policies or lack thereof, and stop voting solely on party lines.
The Congress is the first branch of government, not the second. Article one created the legislature, article two created the executive, and article three created the judiciary. This is because the founding fathers viewed the legislature as the most important.
This is a very dank explanation. Thank you.
The role of the Queen is pretty much ceremonial nowadays and the power that she does have such as dissolve parliament , appoint the prime minister etc she does by having to act by the advice of her ministers. This in effect means the Queen does what she's told by the leaders of government. Hence she's only for ceremonial purposes
to be fair, "does what she's told" is what EVERY democratic leader does. All heads of state have huge teams of advisers.
he Queen's official residence is St. James Palace.
Elizabeth Mallard the official residence is Buckingham Palace. The but Queen has residences in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland
No it's not.
Thank you! This video was very fun and informative :)
History has seen elected dictators, appointed dictators and royal dictators.
So many comments here seem to believe that somehow, what is more democratic is automatically more responsible and thus, is better.
And yet that is clearly not the case in history. Many great leaders have been dictators or royals, and there have been plenty of elected corrupt politicians.
The UK's system has been evolving since the era of William the Conqueror, and has many centuries to develop, and no its not perfect. But considering that the American Presidential system is still developing and in a far less and shorter time and is now showing its faults even more clearer than the Parliamentary system, be careful what you think is better.
Just because something is more "democratic" doesn't mean its any better, especially when your electorate is uneducated.
Skeptical Chris You are absolutely right. A clear example can be all the democratically elected dictators that Latin America has had, and still has.
+Euro System yes and no , weimar republic never was really democratic because the president was overpowered
Meanwhile in Switzerland
Adolf Hitler was elected to chancellor, then the people voted him dictatorial powers where chancellor and president were combined in to Fuhrer (which just means "Leader").
If you look at what was occurring in Germany at the time, it completely makes sense why they would do it, but it also shows democracy can lead to that kind of stuff.
Not going to comment on Hitler's policies or how good/evil he was, etc. I am merely pointing out that democratic systems can willingly vote for a dictator, or police state, or other stuff like that. I mean you can observe it in the US right now with people openly advocating and voting for communist policies.
Considering the changes that the queen has seen Britain through over the years, her advice would probably be quite useful.
I don't think the UK is the best example for a Parliamentary System
Canada would have been much better. We've got a (somewhat) proper senate and not whatever a 'House of Lords' is. Most undemocratic shite I've ever heard of.
The point of the Lords is to have Experts in their respective fields to serve as a check for whatever laws are trying to be passed. If they disagree, they make a recommendation for an amendment and send it back to the Commons. If the Commons disagree, they have a to-and-fro but the Lords will always yield to the Commons in the end. Democracy.
Yeah Canada or India would be better examples..
Considering the UK was the first country to have a parliamentary system I disagree
India
At 5:11 it says "Impeachment Trial of Andrew Jackson 1868". It was Andrew Johnson who had an impeachment trial not Andrew Jackson.
One thing I like about our system in America is that it doesn't lock in that political parties legally have recognition in the government itself like it seems like with all the parliamentary
Sorry. What are you trying to say? Can you be more specific.
? Can you explain how the parliamentary system “locks in” parties?
The UK system is more democratic
But still absolutely awful.
The UK is in no way democratic. The only vote is for one of 650 MP's who have absolutely no power. The insultingly named "commons" is over ruled by the insulting named "lords" and the insulting "royal" -"queen." who must give
"royal assent" to all law. Insultingly every MP and everyone public servant must take an oath of allegiance to the "queen/king." There is no constitution.
To refer to the UK as a democracy is an insult to the term and to real democracy. The USA is a very real democracy with a written constitution and the longest republic in history. Both houses and the President (head of state and commander in chief) are elected in a unique and ingenious system
where every one of the 50 broad ranging states and their population have a say in the election of the President. Is it perfect - no but by far and far better
than any other and particularly a insulting monarchy and a belief that some
are "royal" and some are "common subjects." How dare you insult yourself and others in defending a medieval bigoted racist "monarchy."
the irish method of voting is more democratic than both the US and UK as we use a method named PR
Not true - the present Prime minister does not have a majority yet remains by making phony deals with the opposition and giving them jobs. It is not even a collision with the next party with highest vote. Since Ireland is a very small population and country to attempt to compare it with the US is nutty. Yes Proportional Representation does appear to have merit it does lead to the many small and sometime ridiculous small parties. Perhaps that is why nothing gets done in Ireland and it is a shambles. It is difficult for me to say that since I wish Ireland and its people the best but they are not likely to get it from the present system.
Givepeaceachance, the American system is purposefully less democratic. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner."
its a wonderful video explain how Parliamentary [UK] vs. Presidential [US] works
Being from Canada, i've always preferred the presidential system in the south... just seems more democratic than having the monarchy involved (even just as a symbol).
Dan Benn and yet the American People don't choose their own president. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College make the system not a fair as it seems. and to make things worse, the Cabinet which make up the policies of all government departments aren't elected. At least in Canada/UK the Cabinet Ministers are almost always MPs or in rare cases, Senators.
Yeah you're right, the electoral college definitely makes democracy a lot less direct. Probably the biggest downside of the electoral system in the US. However, in my opinion it is still the lesser of two evils.
Parliamentary system does not need to involve the monarchy... It certainly doesn't happen in Germany, who is a better example of Parliamentary system than the UK
Dan Benn yet the us president votos bills and the British monarchy doesnt. the uk system is better.
Yet the people elect the president to do just that, he's not just a figurehead. Your point is invalid. Also, it's veto not voto.
Both systems can be bought via lobbying!
Less so in the UK compared to the US..
much much less so in the UK
This is a really good video! I finally understand the way parliaments work. It was really helpful to have my own US government as the comparison.
I don't understand why the British people allow for the Monarch to have so much power. It's ridiculous.
+Luis Montanez The Monarch dosent have much power. We're fine with her.
The monarchy in Britain has "theoretical" power
If she abuses it, she could removed from power in an instant.
+Luis Montanez Charles I was the last Monarch who tried to pull rank and tell Parliament how to govern. It initiated the English Civil War and Charles ended up with his head cut off.
It was a great opportunity for great social change but it didn't go well. With Charles gone, England ended up with a Republic which was in character a joyless theocracy run by fanatical Puritans. In just over a decade the Monarchy was back (under Charles' son), the religious nutters were flushed out and the current form of the constitutional monarchy was created.
Under this system the reigning Monarch could *in theory* overrule Parliament and do all kinds of things with their powers - but if the Queen tried anything she'd either be locked in an insane asylum or be hanging from the gallows before the end of the week. She's little more than a living mascot and any appearance of power is window dressing.
I'm no fan of the royal family and in an ideal political shakeup I'd happily have them kicked out of their mansions. However as a pragmatist I cannot deny they generate a lot of useful national publicity and heaps of tourism money by enticing foreign holiday makers to come and snap pictures of them and buy some union jack themed plastic souvenir crap. Whilst they fulfil this role, we Britons are happy to keep them around.
+Luis Montanez
What power? She can't propose or veto legislation, & she doesn't control the armed forces.
+David Keenan If a bill doesn't get signed by the queen the bill won't be passed but if she did that all of her powers would be gone. That's her only true power and she can't even use it.
Nice work explaining the presidential and parliamentary from the 2 most prominent countries that utilize them.
Might be worth noting the Uk supreme court was previously part of the house of lords
+Grz349 Howeever they were always separate from politics of the house. The change to a supreme court was only done to emphasise that the court is not political.
Presidential system all the way. It's nice being able to elect our head of government/state.
"How does a bill become a law?"
*cue School House Rock*
I'm just a bill...on capitol hill.
Democracy means "For the people, By the people" I don't see it in UK and US
And add to more UK literally has House of Lords that's not democratically elected by people and sort of a Caste System
Having an appointed upper house doesn't mean the country is no longer a democracy.
Canada (senate) and Germany (Bundesrat) also had appointed upper houses yet they are classified as "full democracy" (Democracy Index) the same way as the U.K. did.
Besides, the power of the House of Lords is limited so they can't really block much of the laws unlike the U.S. Senate whenever opposing Democrats and Republicans get one house each under their control and start gridlock.
Another thing you missed out is not only does the uk have general elections by local elections. Which elect members for local government in different areas. You vote for the councillors who run the councils in cities, towns, villages. Which deal with things such as education, social services and more. Plus there is election of the police commissioner of each region.
Best explanation I've ever seen. Thank you.
You're welcome. Wish I had more time on this project, I think I could've made it better...
As an American Id much more prefer a multi-party parliament like Canada has. I dont like the two party rule here in america because here youre either a dem or a repub. It makes us so divided and judgemental toward each other and most of our officials are in Congress take AGES to pass ANYTHING. Not to mention our widening class differences here in America. The two party presidential rule was good in theory but I believe a multi party parliamentary rule here would be far more accurate and democratic.
Too much change, too quickly, is bad.
Efficiency shouldn’t be the end all be all of governance.
Canada is nearly as much of a two-party state as America. We don't have proportional representation.
This is gonna be fun! (Grabs popcorn and looks at comments)
I'll like to see Obama defending his policies every week.
azzip they don't ever defend policies, they just lie and say pre rehearsed gags to get a laugh. and the opposition leader has, in the the past, tried to compete with jokes of their own. Only recently with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party has the opposition leader been serious about PMQS.
Trump would be even better I mean how do you defend raping the environment, killing Americans via taking their healthcare away, giving tax cuts to the rich while exploding the debt, trying to start WW3, his abysmal handling of the hurricanes, calling the White House a dump and a prison, picking fights with members of congress, injecting politics into the NFL, pushing our allies away, etc, etc.
@@thackythac
👆 Found a CNN/MSNBC zealot. Reality eludes you. Facts are not your friend.
Anthony Bennett all of what he said is facts lol what about it is wrong
Anthony Bennett Sorry but please don't defend how Trump handled the hurricanes, he sucked at it and literally threw toilet paper to Puerto Ricans thinking that would change anything lmao.
5:12; in 1868, the president who was on the verge of being impeached was Andrew Johnson, not Jackson.
Quite good except that it gives the impression that the monarch has any real power. In practice it is a ceremonial position with respect to parliament. However it also acts as an excellent and position for international relationships, having a continuity which political leaders do not. The continuity of ancient ceremony also helps give a gravitas to the formal procedures of the upper and lower houses, which curiously never refer to each other by name, but simply to "in another place", or "an other chamber".
The house of lords has very few hereditary peers now, almost all of them, with the exception of the Bishops, being appointed by parliament.
It may be worth noting that the British equivalent of the State of the Union is the queens speech, and that a general election can take place sooner with the Parliaments consent.
The Prime Minister is not the head of the British Armed forces Her Majesty the Queen has that title .After all they are her soldiers not the government's.
john ellis officially yes. But she hands those powers to the PM. Of course Her Majesty has the absolute power and can take it back if needs be.
He said the PM was in all BUT name
That's why they call their Naval ships and aircrafts as Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
Terrible idea to chose US and UK, both of which are rare among their own version.
why do americans and even canadians, say "QUEEN OF ENGLAND ONLY", Queen ELizabeth II is also queen of scots, northern ireland, wales, canada, the UK, australia, new zealand and many other countries as depicted on bank notes and coins...
H.M the queen is a constitutional monarch, head of state and millitary commander in chief,,, de jure,
de facto is the UK PM,. the elected head of government of the largest UK party as elected every 5 years...
australia, new zealand and canada have simmilar "westminster systems of government that is parlimentary democracies, based on the UK system"...
You answered your own question. It would be a bit long-winded to say reel off every country to which she is the queen every time you mentioned her name.
then just say , Queen of UK when refering too the UK and queen of canda etc when in reference or simply , just the queen...
Oh please, everyone I know refers to her as the Queen of England. OK I'm in England but you're just looking for a reason to whinge.
no one is moaning or whinging, she is the Queen of England of course, but also some 18 other countries...
only ignorant americans would say otherwise, but they also forgett that , she is also Queen of Canada, right on their doorstep lol
We say Queen of England because of a couple reasons, 1. she lives in England, 2. Its easier to say than to list all the other countries shes the queen of, 3. Queen of England sounds better than Queen of UK, 4. To us shes just another person, we dont care about her and her status that much, no offense.
Honestly UK government makes the US one look so simple.
I left more confused than when I started the video lol
When it comes to electoral college who are those representatives that were chose to decide who become the president. Are those people from the House of Representatives and Senate, but combine?
Elaborate?
Umm, the queen is the commander in chief.
+Tn7mu3
Not in practice. In practice the Prime Minister commands our armed forces.
+David Keenan Err, not exactly. Members of the military swear loyalty to the Queen, not the government, and officers get their commissions from the Queen.
Arwel Parry
Yes for the Army & Air Force, not the Royal Navy. In practice the monarch is the only person who can declare war, but that's a technicality, the monarch always acts in accordance with the Prime Minister's wishes.
War was never declared against Argentina. Thatcher never consulted the Queen, she just informed her of what was happening. The Belgrano was sunk only after direct orders from Thatcher.
+David Keenan I thought Navy officers and Marines swore to the Queen, while naval ratings don't, read somewhere it was a hangover from the pressed crews of the age of sail. Which was where a ship being "paid off" comes from.
TheBespectacledN00b
All persons enlisting in the British Army and the Royal Marines are required by the Army Act 1955 to attest to the following oath or equivalent affirmation:
“I… swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.”
No oath of allegiance is sworn by members of the Royal Navy, which is actually maintained by royal prerogative, or by Royal Marines officers, who unlike their Army counterparts are not enlisted before they are commissioned.
Non-Commissioned Royal Marines swear an oath of allegiance.
You also forgot that with the Parliamentary Act of 1911 and 1949, the House of Common can pass a law against House of Lord's will
This is UK vs USA, not Parliamentary vs Presidential...
Besides, the UK used a majority system at district level, as opposed to proportional systems (eg Germany), which are more representatives of the Parliamentary system
A presidential system is a democratic and republican system of government where a Head of Government leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch.
This Head of Government is (in most cases) also the Head of State, and is called the President.
In presidential countries, the Executive is directly elected by The People, and is not responsible to the Legislature, which cannot (in normal circumstances) dismiss it.
Such dismissal is possible, however, in uncommon cases, often through impeachment.
The title "president" has persisted from a time when such persons personally presided over the governing body, as with the President of the Continental Congress in the early United States, prior to the executive function being split into a separate branch of government.
A presidential system contrasts with a parliamentary system, where the Head of Government is elected to power through the Legislature.
There is also a hybrid system called semi-presidentialism.
Countries that feature a presidential or semi-presidential system of government are not the exclusive users of the title of president.
Heads of State of parliamentary republics, largely ceremonial in most cases, are called presidents.
Dictators or leaders of one-party states, popularly elected or not, are also often called presidents.
Presidentialism is the dominant form of government in the continental Americas, with 19 of its 23 sovereign states being presidential republics.
It is also prevalent in Central and southern West Africa, and in Central Asia.
WRONG: the queen is the commander in chief, but she mostly leaves it up to the prime minister. she's not really into drama. ya know.
once again. . . he said "in all but name" as in defacto. your both on the same page
In the words above the illustration at approximately 5:09, it was Andrew Johnson, NOT Jackson (!), who was impeached in 1868.
Errr? The Queen is the Head of State as well as the Head of the Armed Forces. Get your facts right!!! Oh god!
Mandeep Singh yeah, this guy doesn't totally understand the UK government
Mandeep Singh, he did say the Queen is the [figure] Head of State and the Prime Minister is the commander in chief in all BUT NAME! What about that didn't you understand?
Mandeep Singh Like the Queen could technically fire anyone from Parliament or vito any law, she just doesn't since she knows there'd be a revolution if she did. We'll get round to changing it. Eventually. Probably.
I am British but live in Australia.
Australia has a Parliamentary system but it's actually different because Australia is a Federation and has Federal, State and local levels of government. It means in Australia wehave like 3 elections. Although, I do more of a postal vote for state and local and go to the polls for Federal.
Is there any criticism on the House of Lords? It seems like having inherited seats and actual Bishops of the church being required to serve would be controversial. Definitely wouldn't fly here in the US, but maybe it's a cultural thing?
The bishops in the House of Lords only accounts for 26 seats, and hereditary peers 6 out of 817.
It is widely contested as being outdated. But being a tradition that dates back at least 700 years with the Lords Spiritual and nearly a 1000 years with hereditary peers. It's more tradition than anything else, 26 out of 817 isn't going to have much of an impact.
Not to mention that all the bishops are Church of England which is considered a very liberal Christian denomination (they reject the concept of hell for example). But also religion is considered bad to be brought up or mentioned in politics. For example David Cameron received a lot of negative press in the media and by the people themselves for saying "Britain is a Christian country". Which annoyed many people as statically only 0.9% percent of the population attend Christian churches (of any denomination) regularly, regularly being more than once a month.
In the US you hear a number of politicians and presidential candidates bring up their religious beliefs. In the UK it's practically unheard of.
I've heard several presidential candidates say the US is a Christian country. But it has caused no controversy in the media or with the majority of the population, like when David Cameron said that about the UK.
+SeabassVlogs
It's not really as simple as that.
Currently there are just over 800 members of the House of Lords.
The number of Hereditary Peers, ie. those who are there because they inherited a title, is limited to no more than 92.
The number of Bishops is limited to 26.
Being born into the right family doesn't get you a seat in the House of Lords.
A portion of the Hereditary Peers are elected by members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons combined, others are selected by existing members of the House of Lords.
The remaining 700 or so are Life Peers, who are appointed based on knowledge, experience or achievement in particular fields.
These titles are not hereditary.
Regarding your criticism question: individually, members can be removed from the House for non-attendance, conviction for serious criminal offences, or for involvement in some sort of scandal, meaning some sort of corruption or irregular practices, not affairs or photographs involving leather and fruit.
As a whole, their powers are very limited, when compared to the House of Commons.
They review and debate proposed legislation and may propose amendments or delay the passing of a Bill in order to prompt Parliament to look at it again.
Except in very limited circumstance they can't reject outright a Bill that has been passed by the House of Commons.
They're not permitted to delay bills to do with taxation or the nation's finances.
It's not a perfect system (personally I'd like to see them drop the bishops), but it can provide a limited check on the House of Commons without quite so much intrusion of party politics.
All in all they're very much secondary, in terms of power and influence, to the House of Commons.
Also, for what it's worth, they don't get paid.
In reality it's a more complicated than I've described here, but I hope you get some idea that it's not really some medieval style bunch of aristocrats lording it over the peasants purely by virtue of birth.
One slight error in emphais you made: in the parliamentary system we have the ability to literally "throw the bums out" every 4 or 5 years, that is all of the House of Commons at once. Whereas you always have only part of the Congress up for election every two years in the US. I would argue that the parliamentary system is more democratic in that way (the people get exactly what they vote for), but the American system is more liberal (meaning it has more checks on power).
NO. Our WHOLE lower House stands for reelection every 2 years in the US. Only the Senate, which serves for six year terms, is designed so that one third is up for reelection every two years. The House provides representation based on population, the Senate based on geography.
It's absurd how the House of Lords still exists in the way that it does. How about a roomful of political/economic/industry experts rather than Prime Ministers' chums, hereditary peers, and bishops.
That’s just as insane lmao
The Queen is the Commander-in-chief in title/name but it's the Prime Minister who exercises the role on behalf of the Queen.
And they are both non-democratic.
GCPgray for more info.
Stability > Democracy
USSR>USA
UK > United Soviet State of America Union
What I don't get is why parliamentary systems always have a monarch or president in a ceremonial role. If their powers are usually only ceremonial in parliamentary systems then what's the point? You're just wasting money on an extra political office. Just have the prime minister serve as both head of government and head of state.
That's a fair point.
But I'm still in favor of having such a role. I can only speak for myself though, from a German perspective. I like that it's non-partisan. The prime minister (or in my case the chancellor) is from a party and he or she will do policy based on what their party wants, and that can create a certain disconnect if you don't agree with the policies of the prime minister/chancellor. You can see it in the US too. There will always be a lot of people that don't like the current president because of his policies.
So having a head of state in a ceremonial role provides the state with an extra layer that is trying to unify people and also the system because the president then isn't bound by party politics and can do other stuff (the president usually is from a party too but he isn't actively involved in the party while in office). I'm not really good at writing down my thoughts (especially when its in a different language), but I hope you get my point.
Also, I think the head of state is a great ambassador of the country abroad. The chancellor will meet other heads of state / heads of government when she travels abroad, signing deals, talking to trade representatives etc. while the president assumes a different role. When he travels abroad, he will also meet other leaders, of course. But his visits are more centered around meeting the ordinary people. Going to schools, universities, visiting charities or other people that are active in society.
My last point is that the president still has to sign every bill into law. In the German case he is not allowed to veto it because he doesn't like it. The only case when he can veto a bill is when it is obviously infringing the constitution. I like having this extra layer, separate from the government.
I hope you got what I was trying to say. I really like that we have this role, but its a pity that a lot of people (even a lot of germans!) don't even know that we have a president.
Because presidents and monarchs can act as independent mediators in parliamentary systems.
Great video! Shame you never mentioned the General Election which is actually taking place today.
The House of Representatives and the Senate are actually equal. In total, there are 435 representatives. Each state receives a different number of representatives depending on the population of that state. For example, California has 55 representatives while Montana only has 3. There is a total of 100 senators. 2 are from each state. Congress is like this to give larger states more power in the House and give smaller states equal representation as the large states in the Senate.
Indian system seems similar to UK except the monarch.. But i like the US system more..
Karthik Mahesh pls do not adopt the Presidential system. Just look at Venezuela and Brazil to have glimpse of what will happen if your country has a presidential system. In fact, most presidential systems are failures. Presidential systems are easier to fall under authoritarianism than Parliamentary systems. Democratically elected dictatorships happened in Presidential systems. Just look at Hugo Chavez in vzla or in the future, President-elect Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil.
Ireland also have presidential system
@@ravindranathnikunj6164 No Ireland still uses the Parliamentary system
@@shyshy4273 Look at America, the most successful nation on Earth.
Wrong about how laws in the UK are passed. Both parties don't have to agree, there just needs to be a majority vote. The Tories currently have such a majority that they can pass any law as long as every Conservative MP votes the same way.
Poor switzerland all alone with its half direct democracy...
The Queen is Queen of Great Britain, not England. The PM does not always have a 5 year term. The PM can declare war. FYI, Canada was the first country to declare war on Japan in WWII, before USA or Great Britain.
In my opinion, the UK's system is better but I'm property basis since I'm British however there are things that must be changed in the UK.
Those two of are:
1) Changing the voting system used for general elections to AMS as soon as possible.
2) Reforming the house of lords into a elected upper house which uses PR to choose the members as soon as possible
Presidential is better
+Ryan Herich In your opinion
+Yeshua 7 Some people in Britain agree with you. however some people use the cultural significance argument to the support monarchy.
It's very important to note that not all parliamentary governments have monarchs, several have abolished their monarchies or simply never had a monarch to first with
+Totalwarking7
1) Electoral reform is a worthy goal, but I think the Lib Dems have put that back by a couple of decades.
2) I think the House of Lords is close to right at the moment. Sure there are 92 hereditary peers & 26 Lords spiritual, but that's only 118 out of a total of 790 (at present). I'd happily see those seats disappear, but I feel there's no urgency for it.
I think the system of life peers making up the balance works okay. If Lords were elected by the general public, it would grant the legitimacy to halt government legislation, & financial bills. We don't need that. We just need a second chamber that advises & recommends.
A poll taken after the election showed over 60% of the public are in favour of more proportional voting system, it's only a matter of time until electoral reform is achieved. I hope labour joins the parties which support electoral reform.
The opposition is the party that doesn’t support the government. It doesn’t include a party that supports the government but isn’t in the cabinet.
The two greatest forms of democracy.
I like ancient Athen's democracy better. It was the real thing. Aristotle would not have hesitated to describe our modern "democracies" as covert oligarchies, a problem that often plagued ancient democracies as well.
@@michaels4255 Bit tricky with millions, if not hundreds of millions, of people lol. Plus Athens was very particular about who counted as a citizen and could actually participate in the democracy
@@michaels4255Only works in Athens and Switzerland (semi-direct democracy).
But it would be hard to manage in large countries like the U.S.
Also, representative democracy is better since it's a mix of democracy and technocracy. Representatives will listen to both the voices of their constituents as well as experts' opinion (making unpopular policies that would be of long-term benefit to the nation).
In Uk’s parliament can both house present a bill or only the House of Common can present a bill? Also since the monarch is the headstate does she sign the bill into law and what role does the prime minister do when it come to creating law?