Forms of government and political systems.

[Duke Nukem]

Not all democratic party systems are that static or that focused around two large parties.

Even the presented summary of the Canadian party system is inaccurate, at least at the moment - the Liberals are only the third biggest party at the moment.

At least you have more than two parties to choose from. I'm sure things are done differently in Canada and other British Commonwealth states, though. Does Canada have an equivalent to America's Electoral College?

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Does Canada have an equivalent to America's Electoral College?

No. To use a rather clunky metaphor, Canada's system is one where the 'President' (the Prime Minister) is chosen by a majority of the House of Representatives, who can fire him at any point, for any reason, providing they can get a majority to vote against him. There's no direct election for the position of Prime Minister (although in practice if you vote for, say, the Conservatives, you're voting for Harper to be Prime Minister as much as you're voting for anything).

I don't think there's any country in the world that has anything like the USA's electoral college - even those who directly elect their chief executives almost always do so through a simple majority vote.

 

[Duke Nukem]

No. To use a rather clunky metaphor, Canada's system is one where the 'President' (the Prime Minister) is chosen by a majority of the House of Representatives, who can fire him at any point, for any reason, providing they can get a majority to vote against him. There's no direct election for the position of Prime Minister (although in practice if you vote for, say, the Conservatives, you're voting for Harper to be Prime Minister as much as you're voting for anything).

I don't think there's any country in the world that has anything like the USA's electoral college - even those who directly elect their chief executives almost always do so through a simple majority vote.

Some countries have both a President and a Prime Minister, though, such as France, Russia, Taiwan, and others. In France, for example, The president does foreign and defense policy, and the prime minister does domestic and economic duties. It varies by country, but this is just one scenario.

The Electoral College certainly is an odd duck. I suppose it could have been a way in which to divide power between areas of high population density and low density, as 18th century society was largely agrarian, and such a thing was probably done to prevent centralized power and possibly make counting in elections easier. This is just my theory on it.

Either way, I didn't think there was anything else out there like it.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Some countries have both a President and a Prime Minister, though, such as France, Russia, Taiwan, and others.

I'm aware of this. In fact I live in one of them. I'm not sure how it contradicts or modifies what I just said, though.

 

[Duke Nukem]

I'm aware of this. In fact I live in one of them. I'm not sure how it contradicts or modifies what I just said, though.

I never said it did, many people here think it's just one or the other, and not aware that both can exist in the same system.

 

[AnOminous]

The Electoral College certainly is an odd duck. I suppose it could have been a way in which to divide power between areas of high population density and low density, as 18th century society was largely agrarian, and such a thing was probably done to prevent centralized power and possibly make counting in elections easier. This is just my theory on it.

It was part of the compromise (the Connecticut Compromise) necessary to convince the small states to join the Union along with the large states, by giving the small states with low population two electoral votes free (corresponding to their Senate seats). The scheme is that each state is entitled to two electoral votes plus one for each member of the House of Representatives. (D.C. gets three despite not having voting Congresscritters because reasons.)

There's no really good reason for this to be the case, other than it started that way and the states that benefit from their inordinate voting weight don't want to give it up for obvious reasons.

 

[Duke Nukem]

It was part of the compromise (the Connecticut Compromise) necessary to convince the small states to join the Union along with the large states, by giving the small states with low population two electoral votes free (corresponding to their Senate seats). The scheme is that each state is entitled to two electoral votes plus one for each member of the House of Representatives. (D.C. gets three despite not having voting Congresscritters because reasons.)

There's no really good reason for this to be the case, other than it started that way and the states that benefit from their inordinate voting weight don't want to give it up for obvious reasons.

I don't know if you're American as well, but every four years here, there's a lot of talk about proposals to abolish the Electoral College for a myriad of reasons. I'm sure there's some good arguments in favor of keeping it, but it does tend to fuck things up at times, case in point the controversy over Florida in the 2000 election. Al Gore did win the popular vote, but not the electoral, and many were genuinely upset about that.

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

Personally, I'm not in favor of it, but I can see where defenders are coming from to a point.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

I never said it did, many people here think it's just one or the other, and not aware that both can exist in the same system.

It's nice of you to try and share your knowledge but it's usually best to wait for somebody to ask or at least indicate lack of familiarity rather than just broadcasting information that you think people could benefit from.

 

[AnOminous]

I don't know if you're American as well, but every four years here, there's a lot of talk about proposals to abolish the Electoral College for a myriad of reasons.

Yes. There has been talk of abolishing the Electoral College pretty much since it came into existence.

It will never happen.

 

[Adamska]

Some countries have both a President and a Prime Minister, though, such as France, Russia, Taiwan, and others. In France, for example, The president does foreign and defense policy, and the prime minister does domestic and economic duties. It varies by country, but this is just one scenario.

The Electoral College certainly is an odd duck. I suppose it could have been a way in which to divide power between areas of high population density and low density, as 18th century society was largely agrarian, and such a thing was probably done to prevent centralized power and possibly make counting in elections easier. This is just my theory on it.

Either way, I didn't think there was anything else out there like it.

It was also a big bone to throw to the tiny states like Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. They were leery about joining the union because they feared that their voices would be utterly neutered by giants such as New York and Virginia. This is the same reason why we have a bicameral Legislative branch, since it was done as a compromise. The house was what the big states wanted, since they were granted seats by population. The senate was what the smaller states wanted; a set amount of representatives.