Continuing Stargate

[Commander Thor]

Here's my opinion
*gets a shotgun to politics in general*

capiche?

[EvilSpaceAlien]

The Presidential system also puts more power in the hands of the voter, however, as we directly (electoral college notwithstanding) choose our executive. I much prefer that to a Parliamentary system which lets the ruling party control the legislature and executive at their whim.

That said, I do like the Proportional Representation system more than the US/UK Single-member District system.

I guess there's just a different mentality when it comes to politics here in Sweden and by extension, the UK as the system is basically the same. Here we do not vote for the person, we first and foremost vote for the party and their politics. How do you otherwise explain that while our current Prime Minister has an approval rating of around 60%, the opposition is still ahead in the polls by 6-9%, even though their leader only has an approval rating of something like 20%?

[s09119]

I guess there's just a different mentality when it comes to politics here in Sweden and by extension, the UK as the system is basically the same. Here we do not vote for the person, we first and foremost vote for the party and their politics. How do you otherwise explain that while our current Prime Minister has an approval rating of around 60%, the opposition is still ahead in the polls by 6-9%, even though their leader only has an approval rating of something like 20%?

Different mentalities are going to be the death of mankind one day, but my paper is done and passed in, so that's finally out of the way. We're back in business.

[Aewon]

Whether or not the presidential candidate lies, the people are still the ones who choose the person sitting in the executive office. Bureaucrats (I hate trying to spell that word) are a problem in just about every country regardless of the system anyway, and as for not voting, it's like my dad always used to remind me: if you don't vote in the election, you don't have the right to complain later.

1. They don't decide anything beyond that, and when the next government is just as bad they forget all the bad decisions the last government did, so instead of trying something new, they vote for the party that led the government in the previous term. That's how it is in Norway, anyway. If Jens Stoltenberg isn't the Prime Minister, it's Kjell-Magne Bondevik. Right now it's the former.

2. But how can I vote when I can't trust anything they say? Unless I'm voting blind, but that's just as bad as not voting, if not worse. I was going to vote for the Green Party in a school election at high school, but then I learned that they were against Norway having a military. I still voted for them, since I had to vote for someone, but with a sour taste in my throat.

Heh, maybe I should have voted for the communist party (it's not as if it really mattered), just to get back at them. At least they want us to be strong military.

[JamesPeterson]

1. They don't decide anything beyond that, and when the next government is just as bad they forget all the bad decisions the last government did, so instead of trying something new, they vote for the party that led the government in the previous term. That's how it is in Norway, anyway. If Jens Stoltenberg isn't the Prime Minister, it's Kjell-Magne Bondevik. Right now it's the former.

2. But how can I vote when I can't trust anything they say? Unless I'm voting blind, but that's just as bad as not voting, if not worse. I was going to vote for the Green Party in a school election at high school, but then I learned that they were against Norway having a military. I still voted for them, since I had to vote for someone, but with a sour taste in my throat.

Heh, maybe I should have voted for the communist party (it's not as if it really mattered), just to get back at them. At least they want us to be strong military.

Does any political party ever seem to have all the answers? It's a "lesser of two evils" game everywhere, not just Norway.

[Gamma626]

I love the series! Keep up the good work.

[RubberJesus]

I guess there's just a different mentality when it comes to politics here in Sweden and by extension, the UK as the system is basically the same. Here we do not vote for the person, we first and foremost vote for the party and their politics. How do you otherwise explain that while our current Prime Minister has an approval rating of around 60%, the opposition is still ahead in the polls by 6-9%, even though their leader only has an approval rating of something like 20%?

the reason we directly elect the president instead of using the parliamentary system is to maintain a balance of powers between the three branches of our government, if we let congress (or parliament, same difference) choose the executive then the legislative branch will gain too much power, congress would be able to write and pass laws with out fear of presidential veto, they would also by extension completely control the judicial branch and be able to appoint judges to the supreme court as they please, which would enable the legislative branch to pass unconstitutional laws without fear of them getting overturned, the legislative branch would control the military and be able to declare war. In fact hypothetically if we did let our legislative branch choose the executive branch then the legislative branch could completely remake the government into a military dictatorship or any type of government they wanted to in a few years time.

[EvilSpaceAlien]

the reason we directly elect the president instead of using the parliamentary system is to maintain a balance of powers between the three branches of our government, if we let congress (or parliament, same difference) choose the executive then the legislative branch will gain too much power, congress would be able to write and pass laws with out fear of presidential veto, they would also by extension completely control the judicial branch and be able to appoint judges to the supreme court as they please, which would enable the legislative branch to pass unconstitutional laws without fear of them getting overturned, the legislative branch would control the military and be able to declare war. In fact hypothetically if we did let our legislative branch choose the executive branch then the legislative branch could completely remake the government into a military dictatorship or any type of government they wanted to in a few years time.

For starters, we don't let the parliament choose the executive. The leader of the party who gets the most seats in the parliament after a general election, is made Prime Minister most of the times. The exception is coalition governments such as the one who won the election 2006. The parliament has no say in the matter of who is made Prime Minister. It's all up to the voters.

Our supreme court is not responsible for matter pertaining to the constitution. Instead we have the Comitee on the Constitution, which consists of elected officals from the parliament. All political parties in the parliament must be represented and the leader is traditionally someone from the biggest of the opposition parties.

[RubberJesus]

For starters, we don't let the parliament choose the executive. The leader of the party who gets the most seats in the parliament after a general election, is made Prime Minister most of the times. The exception is coalition governments such as the one who won the election 2006. The parliament has no say in the matter of who is made Prime Minister. It's all up to the voters.

Our supreme court is not responsible for matter pertaining to the constitution. Instead we have the Comitee on the Constitution, which consists of elected officals from the parliament. All political parties in the parliament must be represented and the leader is traditionally someone from the biggest of the opposition parties.

That could never work in the U.S. for a lot of reasons, the party in control of our congress can change every 2 years and be controlled by two different parties at once, so any prime minister would only have a two year term, and that's if one can be decided at all if two different parties control each house of congress. The parties do decide which candidates they run in the elections only the entire party votes in a primary, our government was actually meant to be partyless, our first president was independent.

and doesn't the queen technically appoint the prime minister in the U.K.?

I really don't think the US and UK systems of government are comparable, though they achieve about the same results their internal structures are too different, we have separate branches of government to deal with legislative and executive powers that way the head of state has no say in which laws are made although he can veto laws (but a veto can be overturned by congress), the U.S. government is designed to avoid concentrating too much power in one group or individual at the sake of efficiency.

[EvilSpaceAlien]

That could never work in the U.S. for a lot of reasons, the party in control of our congress can change every 2 years and be controlled by two different parties at once, so any prime minister would only have a two year term, and that's if one can be decided at all if two different parties control each house of congress. The parties do decide which candidates they run in the elections only the entire party votes in a primary, our government was actually meant to be partyless, our first president was independent.

and doesn't the queen technically appoint the prime minister in the U.K.?

I really don't think the US and UK systems of government are comparable, though they achieve about the same results their internal structures are too different, we have separate branches of government to deal with legislative and executive powers that way the head of state has no say in which laws are made although he can veto laws (but a veto can be overturned by congress), the U.S. government is designed to avoid concentrating too much power in one group or individual at the sake of efficiency.

I don't know if the queen appoints the prime minister in the UK. I'm from Sweden. Until 1975 the King or Queen needed to gives his/her approval to the prime minister before he/she could assume office, but after the change in the consitution back in 1975, the prime minister is solely elected by the people, and the king only has ceremonial powers.

And yes, I agree that it's hard to compare the two systems. They're just too different from eachother.

[eckersas]

wish we could choose who to be prime minister then we would not have brown incharge, the man has no personality at all

[bradly08]

wish we could choose who to be prime minister then we would not have brown incharge, the man has no personality at all

Plus he has screwed over the country in soo many ways...

[Garth Claw]

At the end of the day, any system designed by Humans to govern Humans is going to go wrong, now and then given how we can be. All we can do is ensure that we
a) stay involved in politics
b) hold the politician to account
c) balance the requirements of the group against those of the individuals
d) balance the long term against the here and now

If we take the UK parliament, it has been evolving for the last 400 years, getting a bit better with each step we and the politicians take i.e. removal of unnecessary political representatives, votes for women, end of slavery, proposal to make the house of lords more reflective of the general population.

[Commander Thor]

How about my theory?
Military leadership. no more of these "Many Lice"...
(Taking latin and species of tic into account)

[AVFan]

Wow, this yellow background is crazy bad looking lol. Hopefully it's only for April Fools/Easter.

I think s09 may have gotten another paper too haha. Said he was gonna get a new episode out last weekend, but no dice. Ah well, take your time s09. No rush.