a. The US is led by a President, while the UK is led by a Prime Minister. How is the US President selected? How is the UK Prime Minister selected?
The primary difference between the United States and the United Kingdom system for electing their respective chief executive position is reflects how both of the systems are so different from each other. In the United States there is a direct election for the position of President of the United States, in which the two nominees of the two major parties compete to be elected. (Janda, 2012 pp.209-216) The general election is just the final step of how one gets elected president, a candidate must first win his party’s primaries and caucuses and then be officially be named the candidate at the party convention held the summer before the general presidential election. (Janda, 2012 p.211) One more twist in the American electoral system is the fact that after all of these years, the Electoral College is how the president is actually elected. The popular vote is not important outside of the fact that is a way to determine how each state’s Electoral College will cast their vote to officially elect someone president. There are 538 electors and a candidate need 270 votes a simple majority in the Electoral College to officially win the presidency (Janda, 2012, p.215)
In contrast, in the United Kingdom the Prime Minister is elected in a completely different manner where no one actually casts a vote for the person they want to be prime minister. The United Kingdom is a parliamentary system, where the power is effectively held in the legislative branch and not in the executive like in the United States. The prime minister is nothing more than the leader of one of the parliamentary parties that receives the majority of the seats in Parliament’s lower house the House of Commons. Each party holds an election for leader with an eye towards who they want to be their prime minister and the voters in each of their local constituencies vote for a member of parliament. Whichever party has a majority in the House of Commons gets to have their leader be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
b. The role of political parties is dramatically different in the USA and the UK. What is the role of political parties in the USA? What is their role in the parliamentary system?
The difference in the United States and the United Kingdom in how their political parties function is once again related to the difference of how their national politics is constructed. The Unites States has a much less centralized political system than the UK and that is reflected in the role of the parties. In the US a political party is very little more than a just a “label” used by both voters and candidates to make identification easier. Parties in the US also have an organizational role when it relates to candidates, electoral programs and ideology but it is much less centralized and important than it is in the UK. (Janda, 2012 190-1) Something both the US and UK have in common is a two-party system, both countries have such a system because of their use of having winner take all systems which gives the winner of a plurality of votes the election. This simple fact is a very large part of why a two-party system is the most logical conclusion to how both countries ended up with a two-party system.
In the UK, the role of political parties is very different than in the US largely because of the parliamentary system of government. A parliamentary system functions first of all on the basis of party loyalty. A parliament has a governing party and a party that is in opposition and the coherence of action and ideology that is necessary to keep both a stand on government and on opposition. As a matter of fact “final authority rests in both parties within the parliamentary party and its leadership. In this fundamental respect the distribution of power within the two major parties is the same” (Richardson 2003 p.199) Although the parties function outside of parliament their role within it are ultimately the most important factors about the role of political parties in the UK.
c. How are cabinet members selected in the USA? How are Ministers selected in the UK?
Yet another question where the difference between the US and UK are mainly because of the difference between a presidential system and a parliamentary one. In the US the cabinet is “composed of the heads of the departments in the executive branch and a small number of other key officials, such as the head of the Office of Management and US Trade Representative” which form “advisory body that meets with the president to debate major policy decision” (Janda ,2012, 313-14) The heads of the various departments, the secretaries, are chosen by the president on a number of different criteria, which include expertise but can also include the paying off of political favors and other political concerns. The Senate must confirm any presidential nomination to a cabinet position.
In the UK, the members of the cabinet are chosen by the prime minister from within the party’s so-called “front bench” within Parliament. Much like in the United States they take leadership of the most important ministries within government but they do not have to be confirmed and they are largely responsible to parliament itself both to their own party as well as the opposition. This along with other factors including the cabinet’s unitary nature, its collegiality and the importance of collective responsibility to the functioning of government by cabinet. (James, 1992, p. 5-9)
d. In any democracy, the process of holding elections is important. What is the basis of holding national elections in the USA? What is the basis of holding national elections in the UK? (In answering these questions, take into account such things as the timing and frequency of elections, and what triggers the holding of elections)
National, presidential elections in the United States are held every four years, on a leap year no matter what. The President of the United States can only serve a maximum of two terms in office and then he or she must be replaced and all of the provisions are written down in the US Constitution. Presidential elections in the US often happen at the same time as many other important elections from all levels, from the local, state and federal level.
In the United Kingdom it used to be that a Parliament could only be dissolved by Royal prerogative every five years. This was one way to call for new national elections. Another way that elections could be called is if the House of Commons ever passed a vote of no confidence which would automatically trigger new elections. This was all changed in 2011 when the Fixed-term Parliaments act of 2011 was passed which had a provision that Parliament’s term would expire every five years and new elections would have to be called no matter what. (Jowell, 2015 p.181) This is was a major change in British politics and is an innovation for a system that works as much on tradition as it does on written laws.
2.
a. Explain what judicial review entails. What makes it unique (e.g., the UK does not practice judicial review)?
Judicial review is the process by which the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to rule on laws and other policies passed by the legislative and executive branch and to determine if they are constitutional. The Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If a law be in opposition to the constitution, if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the very essence of judicial duty (Janda, 2012, p.368)
The United States is not the only country in which the courts have the power of judicial review and it is one of the hallmarks of a well-functioning government with separation of powers.
b. How does the practice of judicial review strengthen the maintenance of separation of powers and checks and balances that are important traits of the US government system?
Judicial review is one of the cornerstones of American democracy and its system of checks and balances. It does so by creating the conditions necessary for giving the Supreme Court to intervene in a case where an act of Congress or an executive order maybe against the constitution and to correct that injustice or imbalance by making that law null and void which is to say unconstitutional. The logic of judicial review is as such that it can counter both of the weaknesses inherent in the other two branches, the executive’s penchant towards the abuse of power and its emphasis on using the power of the office of the president to deal with problems without having legislation passed. As well as Congress’ constant need for public support and the inherent dangers of a group’s willingness to pass laws that help the majority while actively hurting a minority or dismissing the needs of that same minority.
A great example of the positive role of judicial review is how the Supreme Court was used during the Civil Rights era to secure rights for minorities and women and more recently for cases which legalized gay marriage and the confirmed the standing of the Affordable Care Act as the law of the land.
c. The judicial review process can lead to the charge that it enables the Courts to write law (which is supposed to be the function of Congress). Explain the rationale of such an argument.
Opponents of judicial review and of a strong and equal Supreme Court often call this judicial activism. Judicial activism is the idea that an unelected judge has the power to change the law even though members of congress elected by the population wrote that piece of legislation. Those who are against activist judges make this argument by saying that there are two particular rationales for why this is bad. First, that in the process of judicial review the Supreme Court actually arrogates for itself a function of the legislative branch actually throwing the process of checks and balances out of balance. The Supreme Court for those opponents is the biggest and most powerful of the branches and they subvert the will of the people and their elected representatives. Second, opponents of judicial review argue against the Supreme Court interpreting the constitution in new ways or by using their own reason and changing attitudes to evaluate if a law is constitutional or not.
Although there is some validity to this view the Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate arbiter of a law’s constitutionality is probably a good thing as it will keep both the executive and legislative branches in check.
d. How are Supreme Court justices selected in the USA? Contrast this with the way they are selected in Germany.
In the United States, justices are elected to the Supreme Court by the President and they are then confirmed or denied by the Senate. Supreme Court justices serve lifetime terms on the highest court and they basically can’t be replaced unless they die or retire. (Janda, 2012, p. 388)
In Germany this is very different process. Members of the German Constitutional Court are elected in two bunches half by the upper house of the legislature and the other half by the lower house, all of these judges are appointed not by the Chancellor but by the minister of justice. Judges in in Germany don’t serve lifetime terms but instead are limited to 12 years (O’Connell and McCaffrey, 2012, p.16
References
In Hayward, J. E. S., Richardson, Jeremy, (2003). The British study of politics in the twentieth century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
James, S. (1999). British cabinet government. Psychology Press.
Janda, K., Berry, J., Goldman, J., & Schildkraut, D. (2012). The challenge of democracy. Cengage Learning.
O’Connell, F., & Ray, M. (2012). Judicial Appointments in Germany and the United States.
