Outdated Constitutional Laws?
As a Brit, from a European perspective, the Second Amendment in the USA Constitution would seem outdated; but most Americans would disagree…
Notwithstanding that the British Constitution is ‘unwritten’, one of many weird aspects of the British Constitution is that it is illegal for an MP (an elected politician to the House of Commons) to resign his seat.
To get around this problem, rather than changing the Constitution (which would seem the most logical thing to do) when an MP wishes to resign he is appointed to one of the two ‘legal fiction’ offices for profit; either the Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, or the Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. Although both offices are unpaid, they have been considered by a court of law, for this purpose, to be ‘offices of profit’ and as such disqualify the MP from sitting in Parliament.
FYI: Legal Definition of ‘Legal Fiction’ in English Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction
The video below explains in more detail:-
Why it’s Illegal to Resign from the British House of Commons: https://youtu.be/VG4Rt51ZzSc
Are there facets of your Constitution, in your country, that you consider outdated?In Westminster, London, each year when the Queen re-opens Parliament the MPs are summoned to the House of Lords by the ‘Black Rod’ to hear the Queen’s speech. The post of Black Rod was created in 1350, but since the 17th century the Black Rod has the door slammed in his face, and has to knock on the door of the House of Commons 3-times before he’s let in to convey the message that the Queen want’s their audience.
The ritual of slamming the door in the face of Black Rod stems back to the failed attempt by King Charles I to arrest five MPs in the House of Commons in 1642; the Kings actions was seen as a breach of the Constitution, and was one of the major factors that led to the English Civil War later that year (1642-1651).
Video of Black Rod having door slammed in his face: - https://youtu.be/9o65Ap7nC8w
You will also note in the above video that as well as the Black Rod wearing a sword, the Serjeant at Arms (who carries the Mace) also wears a sword; these days, he/she being the only person allowed to be armed (with sword or mace) inside the House of Commons.Also, in the House of Commons, MPs must not stand between the two red lines on the floor of the house when speaking. The two red lines are two swords lengths in width; and it’s designed to prevent heated debates Government and opposition from becoming physically violent; a tradition dating back to a time when everyone carried swords.
Tour of the House of Commons: https://youtu.be/3P3THUM62MY
I really don't have a solid answer if there is anything outdated in our constitution while leaning toward there is not. It has an interesting history and I believe is well written while formulated by some brilliant minds well educated, logical, and with foresight. That is evident to me as there is provision to amend the constitution. The the history surrounding it is very interesting. There are twenty-seven amendments while the first ten aimed at individual liberties and rights had to be there to be ratified.
The challenge with being outdated or not goes toward interpretation where there are too views - Orginalism vs. Living Constitutionalism. I have been trying to wrap my brain around that for sometime now, yet I see both have merit and I think our Supreme Court Justices do too, though they stick to their guns at times on their position.
The following is one link of many on those two views. It is lengthy and I have only skimmed or pre-read it.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ … ext=facpub
A short version is following:
https://www.swindlelaw.com/2017/10/orig … -heritage/
Opening the door to why do we even have one as compared to the UK there was an immediate need for one after the Revolutionary War to form a federal government that the sovereign states with their wise leadership representing its people would agree to. The bulk of it is based on organization, yet for all to agree it moved toward individual liberties/rights to be ratified.
As to the U.K. was there ever a need for one? Seems from little I know the government is steeped in history based on a monarchy going back centuries with its many traditions as shown with your recent posts. I see most countries have a constitution while there are some that are unwritten or uncodified including Canada and Sweden.Thanks tsmog, fascinated read, and thanks for the links about Originalism vs. Living Constitutionalism; something I was unaware of, so I’ve learnt something new by browsing through your links on the subject.
I guess in essence the Magna Carta (signed by King John in 1215) which contains 63 rules of rights and liberty (and which is the foundation of the British Constitution) isn’t greatly different to the American Constitution in some respects, except for being a lot older?
With respect to the UK I guess that perhaps it has to largely be the ‘Living Constitutionalism’ as our Constitution isn’t based on a single document and is forever evolving. So it must be a challenging task when our Supreme Court is asked to interpret the Constitution. Notwithstanding that the founding document of our Constitution (the Magna Carta) is just too old and out of date for modern society for Originalism to be applicable.
What is Magna Carta? https://youtu.be/7xo4tUMdAMwThanks for the video giving enough info to understand the impact of the Magna Carta. I liked how it influenced Jefferson and our Constitution, though from little bit of study on the Constitution I know there was a lot of influence of British law and philosophy impacting the founders of it. Think Locke. Those founders, authors, and who ratified it gave a lot of consideration and debate into the document.
Yep, as you say “there was a lot of influence of British law and philosophy impacting the founders of it” (American Constitution).” and of course British law and philosophy in itself is based on and heavily influenced by the Magna Carta.
I often wonder what democracy would be like today if King John hadn’t had been forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215; would we for example have ‘trial by our fellow peers “ (trial by jury), and would concepts like ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom to protest’ have developed in the way they did?
In writing this, it makes me think of the ‘Butterfly effect’ (science theory): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
In browsing the Magna Carta some of the more clauses include:-
Clause 8: No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband……
Clause 12: sets the concept of “No taxation without representation” e.g. that the people should have a say about laws which affect them.
Clause 17: The establishment of a juridical system, separate from the King (separation of powers).
Clause 20: Establishes the principle in law of ‘proportionality’ e.g. prevented the King from giving harsh punishments for minor crimes.
Clause 39: “No free man shall be seized, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, exiled or ruined in any way, nor in any way proceeded against, except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.
Clause 40: “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” E.g. the concept that there should be justice for all people and that that legal processes should be free from bribery, corruption and delay.
Clause 45: The establishment of the concept of an independent judiciary that applies the law of the land; this clause in conjunction with clause 17 being the beginning of a system of independent courts and judges that many countries have today.
http://www.magnacartalegacy.org/magnacarta.htmlAs you can see here in California I am not able to sleep right now ha-ha . . . Thanks for the link to the Magna Carta giving me insight. That led me to look at the actual text found at the British Library. I will read one day when I am ambitious, yet as said I see its influence on the founders here creating the Constitution. Of course I am still learning on that.
I, too, am a fan of the Butterfly Effect. I have forgotten most of what I have read . . . old guy stuff ha-ha. I have a great book titled Connections. by James Burke that offers a lot of information of how one thing led to another and things happening simultaneously on the other side of the globe. I should read it again.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55024.Connections
I also wonder and have looked into Chaos Theory, the Cusp of Catastrophe, and the also ponder Entropy when thinking "What the heck is on going on" ha-haYes, James Burke, I like his work, and Quantum Physics is a subject I find fascinating.
Off topic . . . I just read through the Magna Carta seeing, yes, Liberty is central to it as well as rights. I got lost on some of the traditions/history stuff like the many titles, heirs, and 'fees'. I presume that 'may' mean tax.
Reading it it brought a thought . . . what about voting and representation for the common man. Was that something novel much later in history? I think that is a fundamental cornerstone to democracy.Heirs and titles are part of the ‘feudal system, and yes one of the central aspects of the Magna Carta related to the issue of taxes in that King John was keen to raise large sums of money from his Barons to pay for his expensive war campaigns in Europe.
And yes democracy as we know it today came much later. At the time the Magna Carta was signed England, as with most of Europe, was under the ‘feudal system’:-
The Feudal system was established in England (from Europe) in 1066 when the Normans (French Vikings) from Normandy invaded and occupied England.
Essentially, under the ‘feudal’ system:-
• All land belonged to the King
• The King awarded land to his barons (Lords, mainly of Norman descent), as reward for their support and loyalty to the King.
• The Barons employed Knights, as loyal defenders of the Realm.
• The Anglo-Saxons, whose lands had been taken from them, became the peasants, surfs and slaves.
The Barons, Lords and Knights were all ‘Freemen’ who had legal rights and were protected by law in the Magna Carta.
Most of the peasants were surfs, and were the property of their Lord of the Manor; they had no rights and couldn’t own land, but they rent land from the Landlord in exchange for growing food for the landlord to use and sell.
THE FEUDAL SYSTEM: https://youtu.be/gz0SnpHreIs
The feudal system in England began to diminish in England following the Black Death in 1348, after the start of the centralisation of government began; but it didn’t finally die out until 1660. The establishment of the House of Commons was in 1341.
The roots of the House of Lords is much order, that dates back to the 7th century when the Angles, Saxons and Jutes from Germany invaded and occupied England, pushing the Celts to Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
From around the 7th century Anglo-Saxon Kings consulted ‘witans’ (councils) composed of religious leaders and the monarch’s ministers; when William the Conquer occupied England in 1066 he adapted the Anglo-Saxon system, which eventually by around the 13th century evolved into Parliament, initially just the House of Lords advising the King, and in 1341 the creation of the House of Commons (commoners).
Initially, all the power resided with the House of Lords, but over the centuries the House of Commons gradually took more and more power away from the Lords and King, until eventually it became the more powerful chamber.
Also, voting and representation didn’t really come for the common man until the ‘Representation of the People Act of 1918’ when for the first time all men over the age of 21 could vote regardless to whether they owned land or not. Although the first of several ‘Reform Acts’ in 1832 started to extend the voting rights, it was still limited to only men who owned property until the 1918 reforms.
Although ordinary men and women over the age of 18 can now vote for fellow commoners to represent them in the House of Commons (and over the age of 16 in Scotland and Wales for local elections); the House of Lords hasn’t changed a great deal over the centuries e.g. all the politicians in the House of Lords are unelected, appointed either for life or hereditary e.g. there are still 92 hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords, along with 26 bishops.
Another historic big shakeup in British Society was the Domesday Book of 1086. The Domesday Book being nationwide census of England and Wales so that William the Conqueror could apply taxes across his lands based on who owned what.
For example, in Uley (a small village not far from Bristol, where I lived as a child) had 5 landowners in the Domesday Book of 1086; and as an example the details of one of them in the Domesday book reads:-
Land of Hugh de Montfort
Households
• Households: 7 freemen. 14 smallholders.
Land and resources
• Ploughland: 2 lord's plough teams. 1.5 men's plough teams.
• Other resources: Meadow 1 acres. Woodland 8 pigs. 1 mill.
Livestock
• Livestock in 1066: 2 cobs. 7 pigs. 100 sheep.
• Livestock in 1086: 2 cobs. 3 pigs. 20 sheep.
Valuation
• Annual value to lord: 4 pounds in 1086; 4 pounds in 1066.
Owners
• Tenant-in-chief in 1086: Hugh de Montfort.
• Lord in 1086: Hugh de Montfort.
• Lord in 1066: Bondi <of Raynham>.
What was the Domesday Book? https://youtu.be/yRR3M0XIWPYThe English Civil War 1642-1651 (A war between the King and Parliament) was also a major turning point in the development of democracy in England.
Tension between King Charles I and the House of Commons had been brewing for some time; but the flash point was when in 1642 King Charles burst into Parliament in an attempt to arrest five MPs (elected politicians). Since that date no King or Queen has been allowed to step foot in the House of Commons; hence the role of ‘Black Rod’.
After 9 years of civil war the King was overthrown and beheaded, and for 10 years after that England was a Republic, ruled by Oliver Cromwell, the politician who led the civil war against his king.
Ten years later, on the death of Oliver Cromwell, Parliament reinstated a monarchy, putting King Charles son on the throne, King Charles II; albeit from that time Constitutionally, the outcome of the wars established the precedent that an English monarch cannot govern without Parliament's consent.
During the English Civil War, Bristol (where I live), a walled city with castle, was on the side of the King; so when the King was defeated, Olivier Cromwell had Bristol castle demolished, as he did with all other castles that were used against him during the civil war.
What caused the English Civil War? https://youtu.be/8BuWiwph1xkThanks again! I find history very interesting and wish I paid more attention when younger, alas work and all that stuff. What I see is how much history over centuries has formed so much in your neck in the woods whereas here it is only centuries. hmmmm . . . You have not only enlightened me as well as Chris57, yet sparked desire to know more. Thanks!
Reference your comment “….what about voting and representation for the common man. Was that something novel much later in history?”
ROTTEN BOROUGHS
In England, from 1432 until the Reforms of 1832 the only people eligible to vote were ‘Freeholders’ who paid at least 40 shillings in taxes per year (equivalent to £2,500 ($3,400) per year). A Freeholder being men who either owned their land outright or who held it in a lease for the duration of their life, or the lives of other people named in the lease. Thus during this 400 year period less than 3% of the population had the right to vote.
Thus, only men who owned land had the vote; and to keep political control in their favour, the landowners had considerable influence over who would represent their interests in Parliament e.g. voting was by a show of hand (not secret), and a wealthy landowner (Lord of the Manor) could terminate the lease of a freeholder if that freeholder didn’t vote in the way the Lord of the Manor wished.
Hence the problem of the ‘Rotten boroughs’, particularly during the Industrial Revolution (prior to the Reform Act of 1832) when newly emerging industrialised cities and towns didn’t have any political representation in Parliament. For example in 1831, of the 406 MPs elected to Parliament, 152 were elected by fewer than 100 voters, and 88 by fewer than 50 voters.
For example, back in 1831:-
• The rotten borough of Old Sarum in Wiltshire, had just 7 voters to elect 1 MP.
• The rotten borough of Plympton Erle, Devon, had 40 voters for one MP seat in Parliament, which from the mid-17th century until the Reform Act of 1932 was controlled by the Treby family.
• The rotten borough of Callington, Cornwall, with 42 voters to elect 1 MP, who was controlled by the Rolle family.
If you’ve ever watched the Blackadder TV Series, several of those episodes featured the rotten boughs (seat in Parliament).
A Rotten Candidate for a Rotten Borough: https://youtu.be/Tkb9SIe4WWoLike the video and the punch line of the pauper shall we say drove the point home for me. It both brought a giggle and a lot of questions too as I pondered the history you shared above.
Voting here in the U.S. also has its history/timeline. One thing is voting is controlled by the states in a sense. Yes, there were Constitutional Amendments, thus making it national law. And, there are federal laws. The Constitutional Amendments are:
The 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote in 1870. But many weren't able to exercise this right. Some states used literacy tests and other barriers to make it harder to vote. (Notice it was 'Men')
The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave American women the right to vote.
The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes. The tax had been used in some states to keep African Americans from voting in federal elections.
The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age for all elections to 18.
Voting is a big issue today here. Some states that are Republican/Conservative controlled are changing their laws that restricts voting to an extent based on many factors one being the security of it. The Democrats/Liberals say that they will inhibit unfairly minorities from being able to vote. Hot Issue!
What opens the door to this is of course is that Trump's loss was due to election fraud and one main thrust is the wide usage of mail-in voting with the last election. It is a complicated and Hot Topic socially, politically, and of course at that legislative level while media plays an important role in educating the masses using emotion as a trigger. Here, I see it is a question of Liberty and Freedom at play.
Let me assure you I am no expert on that subject being more of an observer happy with how elections are handled here California. I always voted since I was able to. 2007 I learned there was mail-in voting and switched to it.I note from your comments that you had the poll tax as well; eliminated in 1964 by the 19th Amendment! How long had the poll tax existed in the USA before that date?
There have been two attempts to introduce the poll tax in Britain; both ending in the revolt of the people and the demise of the tax:-
First attempt by King Richard II (only 14 years old at the time) introduced the poll tax to help pay for the 100 years’ war with France. However, the introduction the poll tax in England led to the ‘Peasants Revolt’ of 1381, and the abolition of the tax: - https://youtu.be/RCTJNiPyr1U
The second attempt in 1990 by Margaret Thatcher to introduce the poll tax let to mass demonstrations and riots across the whole of Britain, with around 30% of the population refusing to pay the tax (civil disobedience); resulting in the resignation of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, and the poll tax being abolished.
The Poll Tax Rebellion 1990: https://youtu.be/wdW3GNM089A
Yep, on CNN I watched the last USA Presidential Election with great interest, so I became fully aware of the alleged election fraud; and the attempts by the Republican States since to disenfranchise voters in future elections! Which as you surmise, all plays into Liberty and Freedom.Honestly, when I did the peek to share about voting here I had to look up what the poll tax was. I did not know at one time it was instituted. It essentially meant you had to pay it to be able to vote.
Voting to me is the bedrock of Democracy. In other words no voting, no Democracy. Just for info below is a link to the timeline of voting here. It spans 1776 - 2019 while one must remember today it is a Hot Topic. Worth a skim.
https://www.civiced.org/voting-lessons/voting-timelineA poll tax is a tax of a fixed sum on every liable individual (typically every adult), without reference to income or resources. I note from your comment that in the USA you had to pay the poll tax in order to vote, thus disfranchising minority groups!
In Britain there wasn’t the same link:
• The 1st time the King tried to introduce the poll tax in England in 1381 most people didn’t have the vote anyway, and
• The 2nd time the UK Government tried to introduce the poll in 1990, for the brief period (just two years) that the poll tax existed before it was abolished again, people who refused to pay the poll tax (30% of the population) still had the vote.
I found your timeline for voting rights in the USA fascinating; quite interesting how the USA and UK have followed a similar path over time. For example:-
• 1918, in the UK, women over the age of 30 who owned property were given the vote; at the same time the requirement for property ownership for men was dropped, allowing all men over 21 to vote!
• Then in 1920, all women in USA are given the vote.
• Finally, in 1928 in the UK, the requirement for women to own property in order to vote was abolished and the voting age of women was lowered to 21.
• The voting age was lowered to 18 in the UK in 1970 and in the USA in 1971.
• The voting age in Scotland reduced to 16 in 2015.
• The voting age in Wales reduced to 16 in 2020.
"I became fully aware of the alleged election fraud; and the attempts by the Republican States since to disenfranchise voters in future elections"
I'm curious; from the perspective from across the pond, what do you see as attempts to disenfranchise voters? A requirement for ID, proving who you are? Laws that prohibit haranguing people in line to vote?
What do you see when you look to the US, that you call voter disenfranchisement?....What do you see when you look to the US, that you call voter disenfranchisement?...
A quick pick from across the pond:
- one vote in Kansas counts more than one vote in California (examples)
- voting district arrangement (Gerrymandering)
- relocating/concentrating of polling stations
Probably more, but that is a 2 minute list.
Ah - i forgot : Attempts to delegitimize Mail-in-ballots
All comes from an outdated voting system, that may have served its purpose 200 years ago, but not for a modern democracy. And at that time there were white people who celebrated their democratic rights while slaves had no say in this. It is a somersault of history that the 2 dominant parties have switched sides on this.
All issues could be solved by direct proportional voting. Possible today. But that won´t be coming soon ??I don't know how GB is set up - does Scotland or Wales have the same voice as England or does a Scottish resident have the same voice as an English one? We are a republic of states, not a single entity, thus Kansas has (nearly) the same vote as other states. It is adjusted for population, but only to a degree - Kansas, as a state of the Republic, has an outsized vote considering it's population.
Gerrymandering certainly exists.
How does relocating voting stations to fit population mean disenfranchising? Should every 1,000 square meters have a polling station? What about people that live hundreds of miles from such a place (obvious answer is to mail the ballot in, but beyond that?)
As far as I know no attempts have been made to delegitimize mail in ballots. Efforts HAVE been made to make them secure, though - if delegitimizing means they need not be legal, from citizens legal to vote then yes, the effort is there to delegitimize.
It appears that you are picking up media reports, mostly liberal, that whine about voting security and making a decision based on that. Is that the root of the disagreement?... Should every 1,000 square meters have a polling station?...
Can only speak for Germany. I don´t remember any election (federal, state, local) where the polling station was not in walking distance (max. 2 km). And i am sure that every polling station even in remote communities is within easy cycling reach (5 km).
Most polling stations are in public schools or kindergardens. And all elections are on Sundays, not in the middle of a busy work week.
If you need a tighter net of polling stations, then set it up. I have the impression that the opposite is happening in the USA. (Are you saying that media reports are wrong, even when something swaps over to German news outlets?)
A real issue seems to be how to register in the USA. Don´t know how to solve this. This is easy going in nanny state Europe. We are all registered (almost from birth), so nobody has to be called to register. We get our polling station assignment via mail.
As long as there is a large gap between what you call public vote and electoral vote you definitively have disenfranchisement of voters (California or Maine votes are less worth than a vote from dried up prairy land - no offense please ;-)).It is not possible in the US to provide a polling station within every 5 km circle. Not even if we exclude the mountaintops. So we do the best we can and the vast majority of people don't have to travel more than a few miles...but there ARE those that are hundreds of miles from any poll. In my own medium sized state I know of a few people living in the Snake River Canyon, with access only by boat - it just isn't possible to provide them with a convenient polling place.
Registering - it has been many years since I had to register to vote, but it was a matter of visiting the DMV (for a driving license) and filling out the paperwork. I had to supply ID and proof of residence, but that's it. If you never have to register, what happens when you move? Do you not have to provide proof of residency so that you don't cast a vote in two or more places?
Sorry, but California has a great many more electoral votes than Kansas. As a state, it's vote, with those many electoral votes, goes a lot further than that of Kansas. Kansas gets 6 (my state of Idaho gets 4) while California gets 55. That's why a few populous states virtually control our elections in spite of being a republic of states.
Just so non-Americans are sure about the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, hall not be infringed."
Not only outdated but badly stated. At the time, there was no standing army in the US. If the British came back, it would be necessary for the people to fight, so they should keep a weapon at home. But this was to help a well-regulated militia to resist - not allow you to wander the streets with a gun in your pocket.When different of the gun written was about a musket and ball took a minute to reload. To America having more guns than citizens and some military guns at that. It is obviously really outdated. Since America has half of the world's entire offensive war budget. Goes to common sense of fire fights fire or be a slave from the centralist side. My personal good sense says both side dropped their arms. My uncommon sense say they won't. And I must live under the radar and grey area of all this nonsense.
Well yeah, with respect to the 2nd Amendment, from a European perspective most would agree with you; but from an American perspective (right or wrong) the 2nd Amendment is still relevant in today’s American society; Europe and the USA are different cultures with different attitudes and values.
As a footnote, the Normans so dominated the Anglo Saxons that modern English was affected. Animals that were expensive to rear and eat used French for the meat - beef, for example, whilst the animal kept its Anglo Saxon name - cow.
I let warriors knock themselves out. I only take the good bits from every culture and good value. Just ignore negatives things like banks, wars, stealing and Pharma drugs, let eat their soils. The world is a chamgin.
Yep, the birth of the English Language: The blend of languages from the Norman (French) upper-classes and the Anglo-Saxon) peasants; such as pigs are farmed by the Anglo-Saxon peasants, but pork is eaten by the Norman Lords.
That’s why many words in the English language has two words; for example.
• In Anglo-Saxon you “Go”, while in Norman you “Proceed”.
• Thinking (Anglo-Saxon) = Pensive (Norman)
• Kingly (Anglo-Saxon) = Royal (Norman)
• Almighty (Anglo-Saxon) = Omnipotent (Norman)
• Brotherly (Anglo-Saxon) = Fraternal (Norman)
• Motherly (Anglo-Saxon) = Maternal (Norman)
• Fatherly (Anglo-Saxon) = Paternal (Norman)
• Sisterly (Anglo-Saxon) = Sororal (Norman)
• Ask (Anglo-Saxon) = Enquire (Norman)
• Lord (Anglo-Saxon) = Liege (Norman)
• Lovesome (Anglo-Saxon) = Amorous (Norman)
And the list goes on: A long and comprehensive list can be seen here: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_E … variations
Don’t Kill the Messenger
The Position of the Speaker of the House was created in 1377, and at the time was a thankless job e.g. their original function was to communicate the House of Commons opinions to the King, and potentially faced the anger of the monarch. Although, no speaker was actually executed by the king for bringing bad news, five were subsequently executed because of their close association with a former king after a new monarch had succeeded.
Therefore, it’s a tradition (to this day) that when a new speaker is elected that they have to be dragged to the Speaker’s chair.
Why is The Speaker of The House of Commons Dragged to The Chair? https://youtu.be/1tNClpaG5XwThis is an interesting aspect of English law and does sound weird. I was not aware that the British MP cannot resign his seat but I think some anachronistic provisions in the unwritten constitution need to be amended. I wonder if there is a provision to amend the constitution by say 2/3 majority of parliament.
Good question:
No there is nothing in the British Constitution to say how the constitution can be amended.
In practice, any constitutional amendments of such nature e.g. getting rid of the anachronistic provisions so that MPs can resign would require approval by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
That being said, as the British Constitution is unwritten and based largely on traditions and customs, and ancient laws, it’s constantly evolving as new traditions are created e.g. the formation of the ‘Salisbury Convention’ in 1948. The Salisbury Convection being where the House of Lords can NOT block Legislation passed in the House of Commons, if that Legislation was in the democratically elected Governments ‘Election Manifesto’.
If/when the interpretation of the constitution is in question (as has happened quite frequently in recent years) the Supreme Court has the final say.
... Do you not have to provide proof of residency so that you don't cast a vote in two or more places? ...
Yes, you are supposed to register. Authorities will not necessarily check if you have moved from one location to another. But your favourite "walking distance " polling station only moves with you, if you register your new residence.
California 55 / 39,5 mill. = 1,39 / mill.
Kansas 6 / 2,9 mill. = 2,06 / mill.
Idaho 4 / 1,8 mill. = 2,22 / mill.
I understand you need 3 people in California to have the weight of 2 voters in Idaho. :-) wilderness - lucky guy - so much more influence :-)But you need to have 14 Idaho's to have the voting power of California, and as I pointed out we are a republic of states. Each state is semindependent (which is going down every year) and in theory carries the same weight as any other state.
So the state of Idaho, with it's 4 electoral votes, cannot begin to compete with the state of California with it's 55. Personally, I'm satisfied with the arrangement; it gives recognition to the state as well as to every person in it, with a balance of state vs individual I am satisfied with.
States in the US vote overwhelmingly Republican, while the people vote slightly Democrat. It would not do to have the vote go overwhelmingly Republican, but neither is it reasonable (IMO) to have a half dozen states control the other 44. So, a reasonable balance.Wow, wilderness, quite a discussion on the issue of voting overnight, while I was away from the computer. So in reading through all the comments by you and Chris; I’ll try to add my ‘two pennies worth’ below!!!
The perception I get from across the pond (and it is only a perception) is that since the last Presidential Election a number of Republican States are changing the electoral laws within those States that will disenfranchisement some voters’ e.g. changes to the postal ballot system which will make it harder for (or less likely that) minority groups such as blacks and Hispanic etc., will vote; discourage voting from a group of society that would be more inclined to vote Democrat!
I understand from your stance that that is not the case, and that it’s a Liberal press to blame for that impression; so it would be interesting (and educational) to hear the views from you and other Americans on the topic.
Moving onto the other points in these discussions:-
Where You Ask “Does Scotland Or Wales Have The Same Voice As England”:
In the UK seats are based on population size, so with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales having a smaller population than England they have fewer seats in the UK Parliament:-
The current number of seats (constituencies) in the UK Parliament by Nation:-
• 533 constituencies in England
• 59 in Scotland
• 40 in Wales
• 18 in Northern Ireland.
However, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each also have their own Governments, elected by their own people; so laws across the four nations can differ quite significantly e.g. the Scottish Government voted to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 in Scotland in 2015, and in 2020 the Welsh Government did likewise.
POLLING STATIONS
Where you say “Should every 1,000 square meters have a polling station?”; well in Britain there isn’t a polling station every 1,000 square meters, but there is generally a polling station within 1,000 meters radius of the vast majority of the population e.g. on polling day public buildings such as libraries and schools are used as polling stations so that just about everyone is within walking distance (5 minutes’ walk) of a polling station.
MAIL-IN-BALLOTS:-
While watching the Presidential Election live one common complaint seemed to be the complexities of the mail-in-ballot in some States e.g. having to put the ballot in a sealed envelope inside another sealed envelope that had to then be signed across the seal; and if it wasn’t sealed up properly, even if the ballot paper itself was properly completed, the ballot wouldn’t be counted?
We do have mail-in-ballots as an option in the UK, but it’s just a simple case of putting your ballot in the official envelope and popping it in the post box in good time for the post office to deliver before close of vote on polling day.
REGISTERING TO VOTE:-
Voter registration does seem to be a big issue in the USA, which must disenfranchise minority groups!
In the UK it’s not an issue, people are registered almost from birth, and when you reach voting age, when an election is due you are automatically sent a voting card through the post reminding you to vote and telling you where your polling station is. And if you’re a university student living away from home then you get a choice to either use the postal vote to vote in your home town/city or vote in person at your place (city) of study.It just is not possible in the US to put a polling place within 5 minutes walk from every person. Not even from a tenth of them. The country is too large and the population too spread out; the population density of the US is 35 people per square km while the UK is 275. I think it would be very difficult to put one within a 5 min walk from everyone even in a city setting - there just aren't than many empty locations to set up a poll, and it would change every year. I live in a suburban setting, in a housing development, and vote in a church building...that is the closest possible place and is at least a 20 minute walk.
How do you verify that the ballot received in the mail actually contains the vote of the person it is addressed to? And how to you verify that that person is legal to vote, and will only vote once (does your mail get forwarded to a new address?)? How do you verify that the person you are mailing the ballot to actually lives at that address and is still legal to vote?
It is questions like these that ignored by one side here, with that side screaming that if anyone asks them, or seeks to limit that kind of fraud, they are "disenfranchising" others.Yeah, I understand that for a given percentage of the population that making available polling stations within easy reach in the USA would be pragmatic; but to say “The country is too large and the population too spread out”, and then citing how low the USA population density is compared to the UK to confirm your point, doesn’t give a complete picture e.g. according to Wikipedia the population density of London is only 14,670 persons per square mile; while the population density of New York is more than double, at 29,302.37 persons per square miles.
Yeah, the USA is far larger and sparser than the UK, with a lower overall population density; but a high percentage of people don’t live spread out, they live in high population density urban areas, just like cities anywhere else in the world.
Although I am mildly surprised that living in a suburban setting that the nearest suitable place for a polling station is over 20 minutes (1 mile) walk away. But I’m not totally surprised because my understanding and perception of American Urban layout is that it is designed for the car and not pedestrians e.g. it’s easier to drive everywhere rather than just walk, for example kids are famously bussed into schools in the famous American school buses!
Whereas in Britain (even in rural areas) there are often schools within walking distance from most homes; so that the kids can walk to school - hence why we don’t generally have school buses in Britain.
Polling day in the UK is always on a Thursday; so when it comes to polling day, the schools needed for the polling stations are closed for the day – the kids get a day off school.
As regards your second point “How do you verify that the ballot received in the mail actually contains the vote of the person it is addressed to?”
In the UK electoral fraud is minimal, and has never altered the outcome of any election; therefore a lot of it is done on ‘trust’ e.g. when I turn up at my appointed polling station to vote, I don’t need to give any proof of ID, I just give my name, and my name is crossed off the list so that no one else can use that name to vote.
As regards postal votes; to use the postal vote you have to make your request in good time, and your postal vote is sent to the address you give, and your name marked on the electoral role accordingly so that you can’t subsequently vote in person, unless you’ve left it rather late to post your vote and decide to hand it in in person at your designated polling station.
So to request a postal ballot to be sent to your old house, when you know you’re moving to a new house, you’d have to be a right clutts. With a postal vote you have to include with your voting paper a simple declaration with your date of birth and signature, reminding you of electoral fraud. But your signature is only to sign a legal document (declaration), so your signature is not crossed checked, just your date of birth. But otherwise the postal ballots are accepted on faith because electoral fraud isn’t an issue in the UK e.g. nothing serious enough to alter an election result.
The short video below shows how the postal voting is done in the UK; I’d be interested to learn how it may differ from how it’s done in USA!
How to complete a postal vote (UK): https://youtu.be/OzjqqqyL2OE
Although since the last General Election the Conservatives have muted the idea of introducing ID as a requirement at polling stations, it’s been met with a high level of political resistance because everyone knows that the more hurdles you add to the voting system the fewer people vote; and in the UK its generally accepted that low voting turnout does generally befit the Conservatives.
As Chris for Germany said, and as I said previously for the UK, people are registered almost from birth; and in the UK the records are frequently updated e.g. Every October, and whenever an Election is imminent, our Local Government posts a letter to every householder listing all residents in the house, and their date of births; and its responsibility of the householder to report any changes to it e.g. you’ve just moved so you’re the new occupants, or your wife has just come home with a new baby, who needs to be added to the register. Hence, when you then reach voting age, next time there’s an election you will automatically be sent a voting card informing you of your designated polling station.
I like the idea of automatic registration, where our citizens do not have to constantly burdened with documents when their social security and proof of local residency in on file. The Republicans put up impediments designed to discourage citizens chasing after a problem that exists only in their own minds. This was not even an issue 15 years ago, but with the election of Barack Obama and his extraordinary win in 2008, NOW we have a problem that did not exist previously.
The attempt by the Republicans will only make the resolve of those that they attempt to discourage all the greater to overcome impediments and cast a ballot.
The Republicans are going beyond making voting more difficult for those that don't follow them but creating a situation in many state legislatures where they can nullify the popular vote and declare a contrary winner within the state legislatures they control, just this side of total tyranny.
The state exists only with the the permission of those living in it, there should be a conflict between the objectives of the "State" and the majority of the people in it. People take precedence over territory.
It is certainly not "liberal bias"......
You are fortunate that you do not have to deal with anything comparable in your society.Problem, Credence, is that we have always had a problem with voting and Democrats have consistently ignored it and claimed it wasn't there.
You don't want to register to vote, meaning that you can vote multiple times because you are registered in multiple places. That's a problem...but you wish to ignore it and pretend it isn't there. You don't want the "impediment" to register...meaning anyone can vote any time. That, too, is a problem that you wish to ignore.
Finally, your idea of an "impediment" is to take 5 minutes once every few years to verify your ID and residency. Once more, that is a problem that you wish to ignore and pretend isn't there. That's not an "impediment"; it's part of living in the world today.As usual, you equivocate and deliberately avoid the point.
No - that is the point. What you term "impediment" or "disenfranchisement) is nothing more than reasonable security procedures necessary to ensure there is no (or very little) fraud.
Yeah, it does make life easy. In the UK a National register that lists everyone (virtually from birth), which these days with the Internet makes it easy for you to double check that you are properly listed under the correct address; although I can imagine some on the right shouting ‘infringement of liberty’?
The National Register isn’t just for voting it’s also used to randomly pick jurors and to ensure that the bill for the local taxes are addressed to the correctly named householder.
Is that so?
Isn´t voter representation per state already misaligned in the Senate? Then why amplify this even more in the house? Doesn´t look fair to me.Butting in . . . Consider your senate thought from the perspective of our Chambers' design; the House is the representative voice of the people and the Senate is the representative voice of the state.
Is disagreement with our concept of state sovereignty and our Electoral College the reason you think the voter representation in the Senate is misaligned?
GAGA, I understand the 2 house system. And German system is not that much different in having our Bundesrat (federal council) represent the (Länder) states and the Bundestag the people.
I am argueing disenfranchising of voters for the house. If it was not, then why all this Gerrymandering?
As much as the USA can be proud of their founding fathers to come up with a constitution and alongside organisation that was modern for its time and lasts until now. But we are more than 200 years later. You don´t have to finish the crop harvest in October, go to church on Sunday and then ride your horse to a polling station and find out on Tuesday who should be assigned to walk to Washington DC and elect the president. This is outdated.
The remnents are that it takes 14 Idahos for 1 California. 25 mill. in 14 Idahos to represent the same as 39 mill. in California. Makes virtual 14 mill. voters disenfranchised me think.
The issue is, that these boundaries in election systems and voting rights foster certain political stances.
In the USA it is the conservative stance.
In Germany we have discussion about lowering the voting age. Going from 18 to 16 will mean that young folks vote mostly green and thus will benefit the environental party.
What is happening in the USA and Germany is the same: creating structures that benefit not all, but only certain political parties. At least that is how i see it."The remnents are that it takes 14 Idahos for 1 California. 25 mill. in 14 Idahos to represent the same as 39 mill. in California. Makes virtual 14 mill. voters disenfranchised me think."
The option is to simply allow California, with a vastly different philosophy and culture, to control everything Idaho does. California can pass laws to satisfy their citizens...but wishes to pass those same laws to control Idahoans. Do you find that reasonable?Pardon me, wasn´t that what the Senate is for? In the Senate Idaho has the same say as California has.
For us foreigners it is not that interesting how states get along among each other. It is the USA as a whole and its administration that attracts our attention. And for electing the president i have the impression that the coastal, densely populated states are underrepresented.Sakes, Wilderness, drop the sagebrush rebellion stuff.
How does California control Idaho? It is reality the Donald Trump lost in California, yet won in Idaho. Was the entire country to subordinate itself to the wishes of a handful of country people? You exaggerate, there is no solution to your impossible gripe short of secession. But I can see that "small town people" resentment, a brooding, that is part of your argument."How does California control Idaho?"
How about excessive gun control laws? How about the murder of innocent children (though I personally disagree)? How about excessive taxation to give it all away in the form of welfare? How about bringing in millions of foreign citizens to be supported by Americans?
C'mon Credence; you have to know and understand that liberal policies (such as some of those being promoted in California) do not sit well in Idaho. There is a massive difference, growing every day, between the culture of the concrete jungles and that of the prairies and mountains.
As I mentioned, California (or any other of the "concrete jungle" states) are welcome to make all the controlling laws they wish...for their own states. Leave out the other 45 or so that don't want them. But they won't - instead they make federal laws to impose controls they like on all areas and people.
"You exaggerate, there is no solution to your impossible gripe short of secession."
Are you following the footsteps of Esoteric and Valeant now? I made no mention of secession; that comes purely from you.
Gerrymandering is a bad practice, but I don't see its connection to this discussion. And, since House membership is population-based, I don't understand what it is that you see as disenfranchising.
GAGerrymandering is for house membership, what the electoral college is for the presidential election. Both distort the weight, the personal influence of a voter in a nationwide decision. Yes, i do see a connection.
One aspect that I can see, that doesn't sit well with people on this side of the pond is that in the USA it is the 'States' who elect the President, not the people (popular vote)!!!
I understand your point; this concept does show a cultural difference. In your case, (a European view), I think that two cultures are involved. Most basically, I think it is a clash of conservative vs. liberal cultural perspectives, but also, I think the European difference might be our differing views on state sovereignty. I am unaware of any comparable European example to that of our state's sovereignty.
GABritain may come closest, but even if is pretty far removed.
Or maybe my own ignorance of European politics is showing and even Britain is completely different. I just think or such things as Ireland using the Euro while the rest uses the pound that seems similar to what our states sovereignty.
*edit* Or perhaps a better equivalency would be the 28 countries comprising the EU, with the President being chosen by the council rather than a popular vote of all the people in the Union.Yeah, I think wilderness has got it; the EU President is a good comparison:-
• The EU President is elected by the EU Council, and approved by the EU Parliament.
• The EU Council being the 27 Heads of States; the 27 Governments of the 27 countries that belong to the EU.
• The EU Parliament is elected by the people of the EU.Wait. I'm missing something. Each country is permitted one official (the "heads of States") to vote on the choice or President; each country gets one vote regardless of the population of that country. This is hardly "equal representation" for each person; the Swedish person hardly has the same voice as the German or French citizen.
But how is the Parliament chosen? By the people, yes, but are there more Germans in the Parliament than there are Swedes? Is it apportioned by population (as our House of Representatives is) or by country?The distribution of seats in the EU Parliament is "degressively proportional" to the population of the member states e.g. smaller member States (countries) are allocated more seats than would be allocated strictly in proportion to their population.
There are 705 MEPs (Members of European Parliament); Germany (being the largest Member State) has 96 MEPs, France has 79 MEPs, Sweden has 21 MEPs, and Malta, Luxembourg and Cyprus (with the smallest populations) each have 6 MEPs.
For Germany 1 MEP is elected per 864,783 inhabitants; for Malta 1 MEP is elected per 82,260 inhabitants.
But when it comes to the EU Parliament State representation becomes less important, as debates and decisions are influenced by the politic; the chart below shows the various political parties elected to the EU Parliament using Proportional Representation.
Yeah, Chris is right when he says that the EU Parliament doesn't have any real executive influence, and to some extent, not much Legislative Power. But I think I may be more optimistic for the EU than Chris in that since its birth the EU has gone through a similar evolutionary path that the British Parliament went through e.g. the gradual transference of power (over time) from the unelected EU Commission (civil service), the Heads of Governments, to the elected Parliament. Just like over the millennia power gradually transferred from the King and the House of Lords to the House of Commons in Britian.
The EU’s origins goes back to the creation of the EEC in 1956 as an experiment in ‘peace in our time’ in the aftermath of world war two, in an attempt to bind waring nations together in a legal framework that would make war within Europe more difficult and less attractive.
Initially all power was with the civil service (EU Commission) and Heads of States (Member State Governments) had the veto; so that any country could block any Legislation that they didn’t like.
The EU Parliament wasn’t created until 1979, and at first had no powers whatsoever other than to refuse to approve the EU budget. But over time the Heads of State gave up their veto and the Parliament has gradually gained more powers.
The current situation is that any Legislation introduced by the civil service (EU Commission), for it to become law has to be passed by both the Heads of States on a qualified majority e.g. 55% and by Parliament, usually on a simple majority. Unless it’s a constitutional change, in which case both the Heads of Governments, and the Parliament need to approve the changes by a two-thirds majority?
Only the Civic Service (EU Commission) introduces Legislation, but both the Heads of States and the Parliament can put proposals to the EU Commission for suggested Legislation.
How does the EU pass new laws? https://youtu.be/8C0Kq7ioOpk
What are the difference types of EU Laws? https://youtu.be/CZAC_uEJWfY
The working majority within the EU Parliament is 353 MEP's which means that currently at least three different political parties have to work together to pass legislation.
In above EU Election 2019; the German MEPs elected by political party is as follows:-
• Centre-right (EPP) = 29 German MEPs
• Greens (EFA) = 22 German MEPs
• Centre-left (S&D) = 16 German MEPs
• Populists (EFD) = 11 German MEPs
• Liberals (ALDE) = 7 German MEPs
• Left (GUE/NGL) = 5 German MEPs
• Others = 4 German MEPs
• Independent = 2 German MEPsArthur, whow, that is some comprehensive abstract on how the EU parliament is composed.
As you sense correctly, i am very sceptical about the EU.
The EU should serve as a laissez faire institution for economic and financial interaction, easing border traffic for goods and people.
But instead they waste taxpayers money by coming up with ridiculous norms about the curvature of a banana or other crap. The EU in its inital setup was to create economic ties and level inequalities between members. This caused corruption, to say the least. Example: Mafia organisations in Italy benefitting strongly from subsidies on tomatoes...
This corruption seed never left the EU structure, even as it grew to todays size.
I want to see the EU as a vehicle to foster economic ties. But that is it. For this reason the UK should not have left the EU. For all the the corruption and mismanagement in the EU i almost have sympathy for the Brexiteers.
I got carried away about the EU. I think the EU is a bad example for functioning democratic principles.Yeah, I am passionate about the EU; so our views on this subject will differ.
When it was just a trading block, the EEC (European Economic Community) I wasn’t that interested in the EU as I didn’t see it being that different to the other experiment that was created at the same time for the same reason (the EFTA, European Free Trade Association); other than EFTA was bound by voluntary agreements and the EEC was bound by Legislation, enforced by the European Court; albeit I did see the EEC as being ultimately stronger because voluntary agreements are easier to break than legal agreements e.g. “when the going gets tough the tough gets going”.
However, when the EU Parliament was created in 1979 my interest in the EU was peaked because I could see where that was heading e.g. the evolutionary transformation from just a trading block (common economic market) to a fledgling nation (country). And from that time forth I’ve taken a close and keen interest in the EU’s development over the decades.
In actual fact, in spite of all the corruption and mismanagement that you reference, as I am a staunch Socialist I actually trust the EU to make laws more than I trust a British Conservative Government, especially when it comes to things like ‘workers rights’ and health and safety at work etc. So personally I’m happy not to see the EU as a laissez faire institution.
Interestingly, where you say “But instead they waste taxpayers money by coming up with ridiculous norms about the curvature of a banana or other crap.” The myth about the EU law on the ‘curvature of bananas’ was actually fake news published by Boris Johnson when he was a journalist; which was one of the reasons why Boris Johnson was sacked as a journalist e.g. writing fake news (lies) in what is normally a reputable British Newspaper.
One example where Britain’s membership was beneficial is back in the 1980’s when Britain was still pumping raw sewage straight into the sea, which contravened EU laws; and it was only after Britain was prosecuted in the EU court that Britain finally cleaned up its act.
Britain may have left the EU for now, but it may only be a matter of time (perhaps a generation or two) before England is re-seeking membership. The vast majority of Scottish people voted to remain in the EU and if Scotland does get its wish to break away from British rule and become an independent country, Scotland’s desire is to apply for EU membership. Likewise, if Sinn Fein achieves their ambition of reuniting Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland, England will become even more isolated in Europe.
On top of that society in England is deeply divided over Brexit, and will be a generation before the scares heal. Politically in England, the core policy of the Liberal Democrats is for re-joining the EU, and although they may not win enough votes to form a government outright, it’s likely that in some future General Election they will win enough votes to hold the ‘balance of power’; and one of their terms for forming a coalition would be for there to be another referendum on the EU, and if that coalition is with Labour, then Labour may well be sympathetic to another referendum.
So history isn’t over yet.... The myth about the EU law on the ‘curvature of bananas’ was actually fake news published by Boris Johnson ...
I have to correct myself. Not bananas but cucumbers.
A list for entertainment:
- cucumbers had to be straight or only slightly curved to be a good EU cucumber
- wood cutting was regulated to the branch hole diameter
- how much salt in bread
- honey has to have the electric conductivity of 0,8 microsiemens/cm
- one size clothing (kind of difficult for tall Dutch and not so tall Portugese
- timing of when a pizza has to be eaten in a restaurant after coming out of the oven.
- 52 pages of rules on how toddlers pacifier chains should look like
- EU law forces all regional administrations to create local cable car laws. Especially interesting in states with no cables cars.
- employers have to warn their employees about potential sun burn at their workplace.
Some are probably plain jokes like: Viagra is reimbursed for EU employees.
My favourite is the pacifier anecdote. Anyways a lot of rules are created just because people are sitting somewhere and have to justify their existance. The EU is perfect reflection of this guys ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_lawChris, It was bananas and not cucumbers; although I did get one fact slightly twisted:-
The ‘fake’ story about the EU banning bendy bananas was a fake article written by a journalist in the British Sun Newspaper in September 1994; Boris Johnson repeated the story as part of his election campaign in 2016. The Sun newspaper is a right-wing British Newspaper that supports the Conservative party, and thrives on propaganda.
One of many ‘fake’ stories that Boris Johnson wrote about the EU was in writing as a Journalist for the British Newspaper the ‘Daily Telegraph’ in 1991 where he wrote an article with the headline “Italy fails to measure up on condoms” and going on to say “Brussels bureaucrats have shown their legendary attention to detail by rejecting new specifications for condom dimensions”.
Boris Johnson (now the UK Conservative Prime Minister) was actually sacked for the first time in 1987 as a journalist from British Newspaper ‘The Times’ for fabricating a story about King Edward II and his gay lover. He was sacked a second time as a journalist in more recent years for similar offences, but I can’t find the details at this time.
Most, if not all, that you reference are likely to be Euro-myths; there are 100’s of them, many stemming from the British press over the years, and over the years a lot of them from Boris Johnson himself.
For Particular EU laws that I have been interested in, I have followed their progress through the EU institutions e.g. the EU food standards during the long drawn out attempt to a trade agreement with the USA – American food standards (or the lack of them) being a major stumbling block in the negotiations.
There’s a lot of useful info on the EU Commission’s website, and the EU Parliament website. And I’ve never actually seen any real EU laws that didn’t have a good purpose – so if you can quote chapter and verse for any then I would be interested.
However, under the old CAP (Common Agricultural Policies) the Food Mountains and lakes back in the 1980s were a joke (a Prime example of where EU policy didn’t work, leading to disastrous results). The policy started out with good intentions e.g. store food when it’s plentiful so that there would be plenty of food during the lean years, to counteract the food shortages that were common across Europe during the first half of the 20th century, but by the 1960s, because of improved and more efficient modern agriculture, food shortages was no longer a problem in Europe, so we no longer had the lean years; hence the build-up of huge food mountains for food that we would never need. But that problem has now been rectified, albeit it took a long time for the EU to respond to the issue and resolve it.
• https://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedki … nanas.HTML
• https://euobserver.com/news/149607
• https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 … d-politics
• https://indianexpress.com/article/world … t-5843739/
Also:-
• EU Parliament Website: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en
• EU Commission Website: https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en
This short and concise video puts the EU Parliament politics in a nutshell:-
The political groups of the European Parliament: https://youtu.be/1GY5paQfAaI
I think the EU example might be a different thing. But like you, I don't know either. My thought is just a perception.
[EDIT] Well, Arthur's reply seems to prove I was right—maybe I don't know. ;-)
GAOne of the perks of these forums, isn't it? Sometimes we learn something new!
Reference your comment “I just think or such things as Ireland using the Euro while the rest uses the pound that seems similar to what our states sovereignty.”
Ireland is the Republic of Ireland (southern Ireland); and independent country that is part of the EU; hence why their currency is the Euro. The Republic of Ireland won its independence from Britain during the Irish civil war in the 1920s.
However, Britain retained rule over Northern Ireland e.g. that part of Ireland is still part of the UK, and hence they use the pound in Northern Ireland as their currency.
The problem comes with Brexit e.g. as part of the 1998 peace treaty (The Good Friday Agreement) there can be NO border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; but because of Brexit there has to be a border somewhere between the UK and the EU, at the moment the border between the UK and the EU is down the Irish sea between the island of Ireland and mainland Britain; separating Britain from Northern Ireland, leaving Northern Ireland in precarious situation with no immediate solution in site?
Post-Brexit border reignites tensions in Northern Ireland: https://youtu.be/0WAdB6rSk5sAnd I learn something new. Seems like I had at least some knowledge of that as I questioned the different currencies when we visited a few years ago, but had forgotten what little I knew.
Politics is a wonderful tool to create confusion.
wilderness - you have a point. The EU is a mess when it comes to voting power of the people. People do elect the parliament, but the parliament has no real executive influence, not even much legislative power.
At the end of the day the president of the EU is the product of Germany and France sitting together, having coffee and bargaining on who is going to take influential positions.
Ourcome was German Von der Leyen for president of the EU and French Christine Lagarde for president of the central bank. Imho both ladies are crooks, Largarde having been convicted for negligent misappropriation of public funds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_soit_qui_mal_y_pense
Today nobody is talking any more about the guy who came up front from the election. When it comes to voter disenfranchisement, the EU has its own burden to carry, but the EU only, not the member nations.Then it really does very similar, and perhaps even more so when the individual countries of the EU are compared to the individual states of the United States. Neither the EU nor the US is an homogenous conglomerate; both are a union of states/countries.
It does point out the reasons for the US Presidential voting system rather well, though. Your countries are run over by Germany and France; if the US operated the same way just a handful of states would control the Presidency. Instead every state, and to a lesser degree every person, does have a say, with the voices of a few states being the loudest and the voices of individuals in the other states being louder. A balance that seems to work as our Presidents are almost always elected from the other party every 8 years (incumbents always have a huge advantage at the 4 year mark). Not always, but usually.Question: Is the composition of the electoral college (sum of house and senate) adapted to the population size of the states? The house has 435 members since 1911 and each state gives another 2 for the senate.
What happens if one state is gaining much population while others loose population? Will this immediately change the house distribution and thus the electoral college? Did this ever happen?
I looked up Idaho and California.
Both states had some 90.000 inhabitants when they joined the union. But at the time (1890) when Idaho joined, California already had 1.2 mill. The ratio is some 13,3 and is quite close to your 14 Idahos ;-)
From 1890 to 2020 population rose 20 fold in Idaho, but 32 fold in California. Apparently the electoral college has not changed in the past 100 plus years. Enlighten me please.
For this topic we may not be talking about an outdated constitution but more about old numbers never updated..Each state gets a number of electoral votes equal to the number of Senators + Representatives it has.
Every state has 2 Senators, but the number of representatives (the "House") varies by population. There are 435 representatives, apportioned according to the population of each state, with a minimum of 1. The number for individual states is adjusted every 10 years when a national census is conducted, always with a total of 435.Thanks, but then they don´t do a good job to do the state portioning every 10 years.
Seems to me that it is stuck in 1900 :-) Why does it drift apart so much?Without doing the math I would guess that those 2 from Senate are making the difference. When the population rises those do not, making the ratio between states change. The result will be that California has many more, but the ratio between the states falls because those 2 did not increase.
That is as intended (as I see it anyway); the electoral votes was never intended to be a straight reflection of population. Doubling the population (in relation to other states) will not result in doubling the number of electoral votes because the 2 from the Senate do not double. An effort to give the state more power than it's population would indicate, but only to a degree. Population still rules the day, just not quite as strongly.
It is also possible that the census was not complete. I don't know the timeline between the census and adjusting numbers - it should certainly be no more than a year, but could well take more than a month or so, and the last census was in the same year as the last election. If that's true then Idaho is due to pick up a vote or two while California will lose a small number. Idaho has grown enormously the last few years while California is bleeding residents.
(There is also a drive going on to count foreign citizens, here illegally or not, for purposes of gaining electoral votes. Just another way to push the numbers where they do not belong, IMO. Why would you count foreign citizens for purposes of voting in the US?)You are right, the senate seats help a little. Still remains a large difference which eventually accounts for the overall difference between peoples votes and electoral college representation.
A remark:
For us foreigners it is important how the president of the USA and his administration are elected. The USA has a standing army and the selfesteem of a superpower. A comparison to how questionable voting disenfranchising is in other countries or organisations like the EU seems void. The EU does not have a standing army.
Ga, check out Canada, I have heard that their provinces are a Confederation and may have more independence from the central government than states do here.
Related Discussions
- 56
Religion, Politics, and Government. What do you think?
by Tim Mitchell 2 years ago
What role does religion play in politics today while considering history? Which comes first – God, Religion, Government, or Political Party? Does it matter? How powerful/influential is it? One thing I consider is there is both a liberal view and conservative perspective with both religion and...
- 41
Really Now-Do You Think That The Government Cares About You?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 21 months ago
Americans, do you believe that the Democratic & Republican parties care for their constituents or do they care to advance their monetary holdings & furthering their own clout? Democrats & Republicans are both sides of the same coin sociopolitically. In reality, they will say...
- 15
The Two Party System is the Root of Most of America's Problems
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
I've read countless numbers of threads about partisan political talking points over the years. They range from abortion, gun control, immigration, social justice, healthcare, protected classes of people, voting rights, and national defense; just off the top of my head. About half of...
- 6
Trump may disavow the Klan but supports its British Counterpart?
by Credence2 6 years ago
In November 2017, the President of the United States, Donald Trump caused controversy by re-broadcasting three anti-Muslim videos shared by Jayda Fransen. The re-tweets were responded to by Fransen and Paul Golding with the statement "God Bless you Trump! God Bless America!".[82][83]...
- 18
Should Trump extend an olive branch to Theresa May to save her job as PM ?
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
Should Trump extend an olive branch to Theresa May to save her job as PM ?Trump might be able to help her stay put by talking to her about a great trade deal with America- thus calming those calling for her to be ousted.
- 163
American Constitution outdated and irrelevant in the 21st century.
by Sophia Angelique 11 years ago
Here are some quotes from the article below:"“America is in danger, I think, of becoming something of a legal backwater,” Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia said in a 2001 interview. He said that he looked instead to India, South Africa and New Zealand.""In a...