Parliament vs Congress

[SomeRandom]

So as I’m from a commonwealth country, I’m more familiar with the parliamentary system.
But I wonder how they stack up against each other?

The House of Commons, which I think in the US would be the equivalent of the Senate? Or Congress? Whichever has all the debates happening lol. I think the former is far more entertaining to watch, even in my country lol.
I also think it fosters a much healthier debate culture among the MPs than I’ve seen happen in the senate. That they’re all acting like drunk crazies, trying to see who gets insulted by the speaker the most, only adds to the experience lol

Then you have the so called “whips.” Party members who’s job it is to ensure that members are voting how the party wants. Pretty identical in both systems, as far as I can tell.

Then you have the actual leaders. The President for the yanks and the PM for well the commonwealth countries lol
With the recent stepping down of a Mr Johnson in mind, I honestly think the parliamentary system is better (if only slightly) in this case. The leader can only be leader if he or she doesn’t stray that far from the party’s line. If the party thinks they’re too awful to continue, then they can effectively vote them out. Adding a bit of uncertainty that I’m not sure exists within the US equivalent
I mean I know impeachment is a thing, but your president seems to be a position of relative certainty and a bit untouchable. Though I suppose they can be rendered ineffective through other means.

I’m not entirely sure how the Supreme Court works in the US. So I’ll leave that one for someone more versed on the topic.

Thoughts? Comments? How unbelievably wrong I am?
Best top 10 insults you’ve heard within a political debate among leaders?
All are welcome, just be civil lol

 

[Rival]

A no-confidence vote seems easier to hold in the UK; I'm not sure how it works in the US, if there is such a thing. It's a very quick process. Also the intraparty elections if a PM stands down, while not democratic per se, are also pretty rapid.

 

[Alien826]

The House of Commons is closer to the House of Representatives than the Senate, though the Senate is not close to the House of Lords in many ways. Perhaps the two combined?

In a Parliamentary system you are dealing with the ruling party (or a combination of parties) and the Prime Minister is part of that party and can be replaced by the MPs without disturbing the Parliamentary majority or losing the position of Prime Minister, as another MP of the same party can (and will) be appointed. The President is separately elected and can't be replaced without difficulty, as we have seen recently.

Another difference between the US and UK systems is the ability of the ruling party in the UK to resign and call another election. They can't do that in the US. The election dates are fixed.

Probably the worst thing about the US system (IMO) is that the minority party in the Senate can stop any legislation passing at all if the majority party has less than 60 seats out of 100. It's more complicated than that in reality, but see recent history.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

A no-confidence vote seems easier to hold in the UK; I'm not sure how it works in the US, if there is such a thing. It's a very quick process. Also the intraparty elections if a PM stands down, while not democratic per se, are also pretty rapid.

The thing which comes to mind for me in the US is impeachment, which is started by a simple majority vote of "yes" in the House, then goes to the Senate, and if two-thirds of the Senate vote yes, the President is convicted with impeachment (impeached).

The hard part is that, the Senate vote will have to be bipartisan, to get two-thirds of the vote. And the Republicans and Democrats often vote with their Majority and Minority leaders. So here's how a real, full impeachment might play out:

1. The House does their investigative work and later on, the vote is successful.

2. A trial is made in the Senate, hearing from both sides. In a successful conviction, leaders McConnell and Schumer would tell the people under them to their respective sides to vote yes, and most of their side would typically follow.

3. In the two Trump trials, there wasn't the votes to convict as in the Senate, McConnel didn't urge his side to vote yes.

 

[joe1776]

Tough call. Like trying to morally compare Jack the Ripper to Machine Gun Kelly.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The thing which comes to mind for me in the US is impeachment, which is started by a simple majority vote of "yes" in the House, then goes to the Senate, and if two-thirds of the Senate vote yes, the President is convicted with impeachment (impeached).

The hard part is that, the Senate vote will have to be bipartisan, to get two-thirds of the vote. And the Republicans and Democrats often vote with their Majority and Minority leaders. So here's how a real, full impeachment might play out:

1. The House does their investigative work and later on, the vote is successful.

2. A trial is made in the Senate, hearing from both sides. In a successful conviction, leaders McConnell and Schumer would tell the people under them to their respective sides to vote yes, and most of their side would typically follow.

3. In the two Trump trials, there wasn't the votes to convict as in the Senate, McConnel didn't urge his side to vote yes.

There are also a couple of additional nuances that I may not have explained well:

1. If the House vote is successful but the Senate vote isn't in impeaching, it is sometimes called "Impeached but not convicted", and of course, the President stays in office in that instance.

2. Sometimes when the Majority or Minority leader in the Senate ask their own people under them to vote a certain way, the term for that is "whipped".

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

So it gets really convoluted, but technically the House impeaches, and conviction is up to the Senate.

 

[Nakosis]

So as I’m from a commonwealth country, I’m more familiar with the parliamentary system.
But I wonder how they stack up against each other?

The House of Commons, which I think in the US would be the equivalent of the Senate? Or Congress? Whichever has all the debates happening lol. I think the former is far more entertaining to watch, even in my country lol.
I also think it fosters a much healthier debate culture among the MPs than I’ve seen happen in the senate. That they’re all acting like drunk crazies, trying to see who gets insulted by the speaker the most, only adds to the experience lol

Then you have the so called “whips.” Party members who’s job it is to ensure that members are voting how the party wants. Pretty identical in both systems, as far as I can tell.

Then you have the actual leaders. The President for the yanks and the PM for well the commonwealth countries lol
With the recent stepping down of a Mr Johnson in mind, I honestly think the parliamentary system is better (if only slightly) in this case. The leader can only be leader if he or she doesn’t stray that far from the party’s line. If the party thinks they’re too awful to continue, then they can effectively vote them out. Adding a bit of uncertainty that I’m not sure exists within the US equivalent
I mean I know impeachment is a thing, but your president seems to be a position of relative certainty and a bit untouchable. Though I suppose they can be rendered ineffective through other means.

I’m not entirely sure how the Supreme Court works in the US. So I’ll leave that one for someone more versed on the topic.

Thoughts? Comments? How unbelievably wrong I am?
Best top 10 insults you’ve heard within a political debate among leaders?
All are welcome, just be civil lol

In the US, I suspect most of the actual politicking happens behind the scenes.
However you can watch what happens in session live, though nothing currently going on until July 11th.
Congressional Chronicle - Members of Congress, Hearings and More | C-SPAN.org

 

[SomeRandom]

In the US, I suspect most of the actual politicking happens behind the scenes.
However you can watch what happens in session live, though nothing currently going on until July 11th.
Congressional Chronicle - Members of Congress, Hearings and More | C-SPAN.org

True.
Like I said it’s kind of boring in comparison to the House of Commons. Mostly because they have the best most eloquent insults lol

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In a parliamentary system, a lot of this is really much simpler. First, there really is no separate "executive branch." The government is formed by the party who can "command the confidence" of the House of Commons -- almost always the party with the majority of seats, sometimes supported by smaller parties with at least some shared agenda.

Getting rid of a government, in a parliamentary system, is much, much easier -- all it takes is for the government to lose a vote in the House of Commons on a bill respecting either Budget or Throne Speech, or one explicitly designated as a "confidence" motion. If such a vote is lost, the Prime Minister is required to inform the head of state (Queen, or Governor General, or Vice-Regal appointee), who can either ask another party if they can command the confidence of the House, or to dissolve Parliament and call for a new election. In the latter case, a new election would be held, usually within about 45 days or so.