Unit Four- Question Three- Tate Sensenbach Congress periodically attributes some of its characteristics to British Parliament. For example, both systems use different houses to voice disparate opinions. However, the two systems of government more often contrast with each other. Parliament, unlike Congress, represents houses through a specific order in society. Members of the House of Lords inherited their seats through ancestors attaining peerage, which is a title of nobility. This specific order lasted from the eighteenth century until 1999 when the Labor government abolished the hereditary right to a seat. Currently, in the House of Lords members are given honorary life peerages because of exceptional service in law, the clergy, business,
…show more content…
During elections, Citizens vote for members of the House of Commons; furthermore, endorsing the platform of that political party. The election winner receives the mandate to govern, and the leader of that political party becomes the Prime Minister. The system leads to a single branch controlling executive and legislative powers. This contains advantages over the American system of separated powers by allowing the Prime Minister or counterpart to the President, become accountable to his actions. Also, British Parliament more efficiently voices concerns of the populous. Contrarily, The American system only voices two political parties, but Parliament ranges different beliefs and parties from the Alliance Party all the way to the Liberal Democrats. Nevertheless, the American system possesses a greater safeguard on checks and balances. Specifically, Article 1, Section 6, prohibits a member of Congress from occupying another federal government office. This safeguard puts restraint on any potential abuses of federal power. Furthermore, the legislative branch is entirely separate from the executive in the American system, which doesn’t lead to ever changing and fast laws. Instead, it creates a slow but efficient system, in which laws are created without haste to the demands of the population. A fraction of this system is the election process, and both governments differ …show more content…
Elections happen every five years or sooner if needed. The Prime Minister can authorize these elections if he believes that his party can win more seats in the House, and if the party loses a seat then the Prime Minister may host a new election. This leads to an ever-changing Parliament, and can better represent the citizens. Constant voting without specified times can put less focus for representatives on being elected, and more upon making efficient laws. However, abuses of constant voting may take place if the party in power may abuse their right, in order to maintain authority. Conversely, members of Congress have elections at specified times contained within the Constitution. The House of Representatives must have elections every two years. This term provides for an opportunity for a diverse mindset to be delineated in the House, but in the majority of cases the same representatives are elected frequently. Senate is elected every six years, but the elections are staggered. Senate is divided into equal thirds, in which, one third is elected every two years. The Senate contains longer terms because the two representatives from each state tend to offer opinions that focus more on states, instead of individuals like the House represents. The downside to this election process is that certain senators get put at an inherent disadvantage by having to run for election or re-election in
During elections, Citizens vote for members of the House of Commons; furthermore, endorsing the platform of that political party. The election winner receives the mandate to govern, and the leader of that political party becomes the Prime Minister. The system leads to a single branch controlling executive and legislative powers. This contains advantages over the American system of separated powers by allowing the Prime Minister or counterpart to the President, become accountable to his actions. Also, British Parliament more efficiently voices concerns of the populous. Contrarily, The American system only voices two political parties, but Parliament ranges different beliefs and parties from the Alliance Party all the way to the Liberal Democrats. Nevertheless, the American system possesses a greater safeguard on checks and balances. Specifically, Article 1, Section 6, prohibits a member of Congress from occupying another federal government office. This safeguard puts restraint on any potential abuses of federal power. Furthermore, the legislative branch is entirely separate from the executive in the American system, which doesn’t lead to ever changing and fast laws. Instead, it creates a slow but efficient system, in which laws are created without haste to the demands of the population. A fraction of this system is the election process, and both governments differ …show more content…
Elections happen every five years or sooner if needed. The Prime Minister can authorize these elections if he believes that his party can win more seats in the House, and if the party loses a seat then the Prime Minister may host a new election. This leads to an ever-changing Parliament, and can better represent the citizens. Constant voting without specified times can put less focus for representatives on being elected, and more upon making efficient laws. However, abuses of constant voting may take place if the party in power may abuse their right, in order to maintain authority. Conversely, members of Congress have elections at specified times contained within the Constitution. The House of Representatives must have elections every two years. This term provides for an opportunity for a diverse mindset to be delineated in the House, but in the majority of cases the same representatives are elected frequently. Senate is elected every six years, but the elections are staggered. Senate is divided into equal thirds, in which, one third is elected every two years. The Senate contains longer terms because the two representatives from each state tend to offer opinions that focus more on states, instead of individuals like the House represents. The downside to this election process is that certain senators get put at an inherent disadvantage by having to run for election or re-election in