Question on American politics

[Mike375]

In Australia and I think England, the majority leader of the House would be the Prime Minister......thus for us the results of the American election would be a change in gov't.

Do Americans see this result as change in gov't?

 

[Kraj]

Yes, absolutely. I'm not very familiar with the specific powers of the House Majority Leader or exactly what the ramifications are for the President when an opposing party controls the House; the general concept, though, is that those who disagree with the President's policies now have much sharper teeth to oppose him and to hold members of his administration accountable for their actions.

Or to put it another way, from now on Bush will have to have the support of the vast majority of the country - rather than just the Republicans - in order to do anything. He no longer has the luxury of being the President who sticks to his guns and damn what anyone else thinks.

 

[pbaldy]

If I'm reading the question correctly, we do not see the same change. The president is elected separately from the members of the House, so regardless of the results of this election, Bush is president until 2008.

As Kraj has described, the dynamic of the situation changes, but not the president. It's quite conceivable (and has happened before) that the president's party is the minority in both the senate and house.

 

[MrsGorilla]

If I'm reading the question correctly, we do not see the same change. The president is elected separately from the members of the House, so regardless of the results of this election, Bush is president until 2008.

As Kraj has described, the dynamic of the situation changes, but not the president. It's quite conceivable (and has happened before) that the president's party is the minority in both the senate and house.

Yes but it's harder for the President to get anything done if it's an issue on which the parties are divided and the Senate and House are controlled by the opposite party.

 

[Rich]

Yes but it's harder for the President to get anything done if it's an issue on which the parties are divided and the Senate and House are controlled by the opposite party.

Won't he just sign an executive order or something?

 

[jsanders]

And of course the Speaker of the House is the third in line for the Presidency.

 

[Kraj]

And of course the Speaker of the House is the third in line for the Presidency.

So... now all we need to do is impeach Bush and wait for Cheney to have another big one in the next two years and POW!... the first female U.S President! Wouldn't that just burn Hilary's buns.

 

[statsman]

In a parlementary democracy, the Prime Minister is head of the executive branch (technically its the Queen or the GG, but really its the PM). He is also the head of government. The PM must still be elected to the House as an individual and is still answerable to the House as the head of government.

In the republican system, the head of the executive is the president who is elected separately. A president of one party and a majority in the Houses of Congress of the other party is not an uncommon. It just makes it harder to get anything done.

 

[jsanders]

In the republican system, the head of the executive is the president who is elected separately. A president of one party and a majority in the Houses of Congress of the other party is not an uncommon. It just makes it harder to get anything done.

Sometimes I think that is a blessing. Because both parties (in America) have too many people way out on the fringes; trying to reform the world in their image. So when the government is divided the less changes we see for the worst.

 

[KalelGmoon]

Won't he just sign an executive order or something?

He could Rich, but in the American system of checks and balances, most decisions by the President has to be approved by Congress. Actually the President cant even put a bill into congress, he has to have a senator or representative do it for him. it is a great system of red tape

 

[Idjit]

The party that leads each house of congress also controls every committee in that house. Every committee (appropriations, ways and means, armed services, etc.) will now have a democrat leading it and a democratic majority in its membership. This is huge, because bills don't make it out onto the floor for debate and vote until they are passed on by the responsible committee. The president can veto a bill he doesn't like and the dems don't have enough of a majority to over-ride, but at least different bills will be voted on, rather than buried in committee.

Also, the congress must approve all appointments made by the president, including judges and cabinet members.

The biggest power the congress has is to convene hearings. They probably don't have the spine to investigate war profiteering or impeach the president, but at least it's a possibility now.

 

[Kraj]

Go Idjit! Thanks for the info; you summed it up wonderfully!

 

[Rich]

So... now all we need to do is impeach Bush and wait for Cheney to have another big one in the next two years and

Doesn't Bush have to have sex with a tart before he can be impeached and what's a big one?

 

[jsanders]

Doesn't Bush have to have sex with a tart before he can be impeached and what's a big one?

He tried, but he couldn't find any takers.

 

[Brianwarnock]

and what's a big one?

What bush needs to have sex with a tart?

brian

 

[KalelGmoon]

Doesn't Bush have to have sex with a tart before he can be impeached and what's a big one?

a big one in the context I think it is meant here is a heart attack Rich

 

[Kraj]

He tried, but he couldn't find any takers.

Not even Laura?

 

[Rich]

a big one in the context I think it is meant here is a heart attack Rich

Thank you, well as much as I dislike the man and his politics, I wouldn't wish that on anyone

 

[jsanders]

Not even Laura?

Laura's a lady.

 

[Mike375]

If a senator dies during his/her term are they replaced by someone of the same party. If there is no election is the new senator appointed by the state governor.