Donald Trump

[GUT]

And Liberals hung on in 2016 and kept Turnbull as PM, (now for how long may be another question.)

[John G]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in Australia and Britain and so on the leader is voted in buy the party who wins the most seats, not the party who wins the most votes, so, practically speaking, their system as essentially the same as an Electoral College. France, for example, would be a country where the popular vote elects the leader. If the U.S. had a system identical to the primary aforementioned, Paul Ryan, not Hillary Clinton, would be Prime Minister and the Democrats lose again.

Technically, the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, however, invariably, that will be the leader of whatever political party can command a majority of seats-with or without a coalition with other parties-in the House of Commons.

The Queen then appoints other ministers on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

[sdreid]

Technically, the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, however, invariably, that will be the leader of whatever political party can command a majority of seats-with or without a coalition with other parties-in the House of Commons.

The Queen then appoints other ministers on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

Thanks for the clarification John.

[John G]

Thanks for the clarification John.

No problem, Stan.

[GUT]

Technically, the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, however, invariably, that will be the leader of whatever political party can command a majority of seats-with or without a coalition with other parties-in the House of Commons.

The Queen then appoints other ministers on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

That's correct or here it's her representative the Governor General.

[John G]

That's correct or here it's her representative the Governor General.

When Australia had a referendum on whether to become a republic, where I believe there was a narrow no vote, wasn't there controversy over the question? Thus, didn't the referendum question ask whether people were in favour of a republic with an appointed head of state, whereas opinion polls indicated that most people who wanted a republic prefered an elected head of state? And wasn't it subsequently argued that, on that basis, a lot of republicans stayed at home?

[GUT]

When Australia had a referendum on whether to become a republic, where I believe there was a narrow no vote, wasn't there controversy over the question? Thus, didn't the referendum question ask whether people were in favour of a republic with an appointed head of state, whereas opinion polls indicated that most people who wanted a republic prefered an elected head of state? And wasn't it subsequently argued that, on that basis, a lot of republicans stayed at home?

More or less.
There were many who said they wanted a republic but one not the sort the gov put to the referendum.

The problem is, if they put a referendum saying just "Do you want a republic" (and we'll work out the details later), they'd have similar problems many only want a Republic if it's directly elected president, others if it's appointed by parliament or whatever their preference may be, and will reject any other model, so the republic vote is split, whereas the no vote stays solid.

The pro Republic group have another problem looming in the Will, Kate and their kids have a massive popularity.

[John G]

More or less.
There were many who said they wanted a republic but one not the sort the gov put to the referendum.

The problem is, if they put a referendum saying just "Do you want a republic" (and we'll work out the details later), they'd have similar problems many only want a Republic if it's directly elected president, others if it's appointed by parliament or whatever their preference may be, and will reject any other model, so the republic vote is split, whereas the no vote stays solid.

The pro Republic group have another problem looming in the Will, Kate and their kids have a massive popularity.

Thanks GUT.

[Pcdunn]

Many thank yous to Stan, GUT, and John G. for replying with information about the governments of Australia, the U.K.,and the U.S.A.

I think the average person here does not understand the electoral college at all. For instance, here in Colorado we recently tried to pass a bill that would "work around" the electoral college and guarantee our votes to winner of the popular vote. (I gather something similar has been floated in several other states.) As might be expected, with a Republican-led state house, the bill has died.

http://www.9news.com/news/local/poli...ound/408658765

[John G]

Oh dear, this can't be good news for the American President: It appears that Donald Trump's ratings are even collapsing in South Carolina! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7595421.html

Mind you, he's probably benefiting from the honeymoon period, usually enjoyed by newly elected presidents- things might start to get a lot worse!

[Elamarna]

Sorry I missed the points on various governments and how they work.

The main difference between an electoral college and the UK system is that the constituencies are regularly monitored and changed in an attempt to make them roughly of the same size as per votes. It does not always work but does most of the time.

The most famous time in the UK I can think of with the party with the largest popular vote losing was in 1951 I think.

Labour achieved more votes but less seats than the conservative party.

However the numbers were reasonably small. Less than 1% I think, But I could be wrong.



Steve

[John G]

Frankly, the British electoral system- with governments who can be elected with just over a third of the popular vote; with an unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative, House of Cronies; with backbench MPs who are little more than voting fodder; with virtually non-existent local government in England; with a Prime Minister who, through the exercise of the Royal prerogative, has the sort of powers that would make an American president weep with envy- isn't greatly more democratic than that which existed in the former Soviet Union.

[Pcdunn]

Today several large press agencies were barred from an un-televised briefing, known as a "gaggle", at the White House. These included CNN, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. It has stirred controversy, as may be imagined. I believe we must continue to have a free press to avoid becoming a tyranny.

http://www.cnn.com

[GUT]

Today several large press agencies were barred from an un-televised briefing, known as a "gaggle", at the White House. These included CNN, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. It has stirred controversy, as may be imagined. I believe we must continue to have a free press to avoid becoming a tyranny.

http://www.cnn.com

Doesn't like criticism it seems. Does Donald.

[Pcdunn]

Ha!

Doesn't like criticism it seems. Does Donald.

Doesn't like the truth, says I.

He, however, says unsourced news stories are "fake" and should be illegal; says some mainstream media stories about him are "mean", and claims he's "not such a bad guy."