So true. These idiots have been a thorn in attempting to govern our country rationally since day 1. Slaves who can’t vote counting as 3/5 of person should have clued the non-3rd world hell-hole states that union with those states wasn’t worth the trouble.
A point often forgotten is that the “slaves counting as 3/5 of a person” was a concession to the free states. The slave states wanted the slaves to count as full persons for the purpose of the congressional representation. The free states were the ones who insisted on the 3/5 clause so that the slave states wouldn’t have as many congressional representatives as they would otherwise have been entitled to.
Which sort of goes to my point that it was an awful arrangement, concession or not. As any 18th or 19th century slave owner would have gleefully pointed out, slaves were property and inferior beings incapable of participating in government, even if allowed. The fact that the Northern states had to accept the horrible 3/5th clause that allowed the South to count the slaves for representation purposes as a “concession” should have told them all they needed to know about the stubborn irrationality of the slave states and the nonsense they were in for in attempting to run a country with them.
Speaking of which, I don’t know anything about anything, but India uses a variation of the Westminster system as well, doesn’t it? Does it take a similar stance with respect to bills being restricted to “one topic”, suitably construed? If so, those making arguments for American exceptionalism based on size should note that India’s population blows America’s out of the water…
Of course women and men without property were counted as whole persons for the purposes of representation and they weren’t really thought of as being fit to govern themselves either. I’m not sure what that says about the rationality of the United States as a whole but such silliness wasn’t limited to the southern portion.
Where do you get the idea that in a parliamentary system people do not directly elect their representatives? Some voting systems, such as where representatives are selected from party lists in numbers proportional to votes cast for the party, are not direct, but in Britain (for one) people elect their local MP quite as directly as as Americans elect a representative or a senator.
So far as I can see, the way bills get structured in congress has no very special connection to any peculiarities of the U.S. constitution or U.S. society (unless, perhaps, it is somehow connected with all the difficulties that the constitution places in the way of getting any laws passed at all). Even the corruption and the horsetrading for votes with which it is associated could perfectly well happen in other ways. I suspect that it is just a dysfunctional political tradition that happens to have grown up in America for historically contingent reasons.
America (and, I am sure, all other democracies, and non-democracies, come to that) has lots of dysfunctional political traditions. They are not all the fault of the Founding Fathers.
Yes, it uses a parliamentary system. Good question on whether it also observes the one-topic rule; I’m fairly certain the answer is yes, but I can’t say for sure.
There’s another important detail of the US system not shared by the Westminster democracies we haven’t considered: in Westminster systems (except possibly Australia), the lower house essentially has complete control of bills covering appropriations and spending.
In the US, appropriations bills can only be introduced in the House of Representatives, but the Senate still has to pass them. In Westminster systems, not only do appropriations (and generally, spending) bills have to originate in the lower house, they can generally pass them over the objection of the upper house.
For example, the UK House of Lords can block passage of an appropriations bill, but if the House of Commons then passes the same bill again it goes for Royal Assent regardless (I think they have to wait 6 or 12 months, but can’t recall off the top of my head).
Similarly, appropriations bills in India must originate in the Lok Sabha, the lower house, and the Rajya Sabha gets 14 days to offer amendments, which the Lok Sabha can agree to or ignore at its discretion.
Bearing this in mind, the one-topic rule is essentially required in the Westminster system, or else the lower house would simply include appropriations in every bill.
^
Indias RajaSabha is pitiful.
Of the top of my head I can only think of Pakistan as a country with a Westminster style of givernment where the Senate has real power.
The Aussie Senate?
The Australian Senate has significant power, but primarily of review, and it’s capacity to refer Bills to Senate committes. The Senate can introduce Bills, but not appropriation Bills, though this isn’t common.
Because of the electoral system it is usual for the government to not have a majority in the Senate, instead relying on minor party support. Only half the Senate falls vacant at most general elections and with proportional voting typically the 6 Senate places for each state get split 3:3 between Libs and Labs or more usually 3:2 with a minor party getting the last place. A major party winning 4 seats in one state at a half senate election is essentially a mathematical impossibility as they would need to get 66.66% of the vote.
Over a couple of elections the minor parties can build up to holding 2 seats in every state giving them Senate voting power well above their popular vote.
The threat of a double dissolution election usually keeps the Senate minorities from overplaying their hand. In that case the 12 state spots are up for election and proportional voting means each state is more likely to go 6:6 or 7:5 to the magors, potentially wiping out the minors totally.
So there is relatively little that the Senate can make happen, and a fair bit they can stop happening.
Governments are made, lost and controlled in the House of Representatives and the Senate takes the rough edges off their legislation. The odd moment of higher theatre notwithstanding.
Don’t know. I thought that in these systems, the people vote for parties, and the parties select representatives. Comments in this thread seemed to confirm that notion.
If that’s not how it works, then I no longer know what the difference is supposed to be between parliamentary systems and the US system that would make it more likely for parliamentary systems to be able to make sense of and enforce a one-topic rule.
Why doesn’t it happen?
I don’t know much about how things work in these parliamentary systems. How is it that in these systems, a group in power who wants to keep X happy does not tend to pass laws designed specifically to make X happy?
You must be reading a different thread.
In any case the mechanics of the electoral systems are independent from the legislative procedures.
I presume there is no constitutional reason why a US Bill could not restricted to a single topic, without earmarks, if Congress wanted. That they don’t would suggest that both parties consider that current situation to be in their own best interest.
I think you’ve been confused because that’s only 1 of 2 choices Australian voters have when voting for the Senate.
In the interests of fighting ignorance, I suggest you start with this Wikipedia article and then take this demo on how to vote to see what it practically translates into on the ballot papers.
The context was that Lemur866 posted that Westminister systems don’t need to earmark an appropriations Bill because they could just pass a single purpose “Cricket Pitches for West Bumblefuck Bill”
Which doesn’t happen.
That doesn’t mean governments can’t act on an industry group, or public interest group proposal that a pot of money, or revision of legislation is needed by their group to stave off catastrophe for them and electoral disaster for the government.
That’s the business of government.
They could introduce an “Australian Municipal Sporting Facilities Bill” that would for $X for projects based on specified criteria and funding source with a Department to administer it. Those criteria may favour the West Bumblefuck proposal as the legislation is proposed or after it is amended.
The key differences are the questions of transparency and accountability.
Earmarks and pork barrelling are very light sensitive activities.
Great link mecaenas.
I think the AEC is an institution Aussies should be immensely proud of.
I spent time testing the demo if I could vote informal and beat it, without success. 
A quick overview of NZ…
- Electorate MPs, they look after the interests of their own 'area". When you vote you vote for the PERSON you think is best for your area. Mostly, but not always, that person will have loyalty to a party - and will vote the party line. There have been cases of independents winning the electorate seat
- The list vote. For this you vote for the party that you think is best. Prior to the election, the party will put up a list of people (numbered) of who will be represented on the list vote. The list vote, is meant to make parliament “proportional” to actual popular vote. Lets say that republicans got 40%, Democrats 40% and Bumblefuckians 20% of the list vote. The final make-up of parliament would be in this proportion - with any additional MPs needed coming from the “list”. List MPs are answerable to the party, not to an electorate.
. No, same thread I assume. It was post #30 which jogged the notion back into my head. Other posts which looked to me to be implying that parliamentary style democracies naturally issue forth in greater party loyalty among representatives seemed to me to confirm what post #30 said about election of parties–for (my thinking went) why should they be particularly loyal to their party unless it’s their party that decides whether they stay or go?
I had already thought that election of parties was how these systems worked, and so it’s understandable that I was misled by these posts into thinking I was seeing that notion confirmed.
Hey by the way, though, good job there, implying I haven’t been reading the thread when in fact it was you who hadn’t paid attention to the relevant posts!
There are lots of different systems. Here in Norway (and in New Zealand?), we use the Sainte-Laguë method, a multiple-winner system where the parties supply candidate lists which you can change if you want to. Most don’t. For municipal elections, you can actually vote for any citizen - they don’t have to be a candidate. And the parties can include any citizen on their lists - agreement not required. This has led to some strange situations…
In post #30 Tom Tildrum, from Falls Church, Va makes some sound points on party structure and free votes as it relates to the OP.
They also make the statement “In parliamentary systems, MPs are elected by party". This is demonstrably incorrect and in posts #32, #34, #44 and #46 where we learn about the UK, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, Australia and New Zealand and that Spain and New Zealand use a combination of party lists and direct elections.
Parliamentary electoral systems are a many-varied thing.
Allowing earmarks is a separate and procedural issue.
A few reasons. One is that party discipline is much stronger in a Westminster system. That means that the details of the budget are thrashed out by the party in power, through a dialogue between the Cabinet and the caucus (exactly where the balance of power in that dialogue will fall will vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).
Once the details of the budget are worked out, then everyone in the government caucus is expected to vote for the budget - because if the government proposes a budget and it doesn’t pass the House, the government falls and there are usually general elections.
So if a particular member or group of members needs something, they work it out internally, in the Cabinet / caucus process, and try to get their colleagues to include their proposal in the budget. If they don’t get what they want, their options are to suck it up and hope they’ll be more persuasive next budget cycle, or to vote against the budget - meaning they will be kicked out of caucus and shifted over to the Opposition benches.
Another reason that you don’t see riders is that in a Westminster system, the lower house can’t introduce a money bill unless the Crown (i.e. - the Cabinet) first recommends that bill to the House. The money bills can normally only originate in the lower House, as other posters have commented, but an individual member or group of members can’t introduce a money bill without the royal recommendation. So that means that individual members of the House can’t add to the budget proposed by the government, unless the government consents. This is an important “check and balance” - the executive can’t spend money unless the House votes it, and the House can’t vote it unless the executive recommends it. That creates the potential for a great deal more financial discipline in Westminster systems than appears to be the case in the US federal Congress.
And finally, the single-subject rule has an important salutary effect, of public transparency. If a bill is introduced, as in Lemur866’s example, which clearly benefits just one constituency, it flags it as an issue - why is one constituency getting public funding that no other constituency is getting? such bills are more difficult to pass, politically, because the government of the day has to justify them.