In a pairlamentary democracyrepublic, which most states in Europe are, the government is elected by the pairlament and thus, (usually) has the majority of seats in the pairlament anyway. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how the opposition votes.
As the US is a presidential republic, the administrationgovernmentis appointed by the president and, thus does not necessarily have the majority of seats in the pairlament. Therefore, the administrationgovernment and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises.
Edit: replaced republic with democracy, as many states have a king and thus are no republics. Changed parts are emphasised.
Replaced US government by administration.
Therefore, the government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises.
This sentence is probably confusing to a lot of Americans, because “the government” in the US includes the legislature, courts, and all executive agencies. I believe what Europeans call a government is what Americans typically call an administration. I’m not quite sure on that, though. An administration is a President and people appointed to executive positions by the President, but I get the impression that, in international usage, “the government” also includes MPs of the ruling party/coalition.
TY, I’ve corrected that. Yes, government in Europe usually means the highest executives, i.e. minister president or chancellor who usually belong to the ruling party, and the ministers as they (actually their appointed secretaries of state) are the ones elaborating laws which are then read and approved by the legislative, the pairlament. In a parlamentary democracy, the head of state, i.e. king or president, usually is not part of the government and only has representative and formal tasks.
As the US is a presidential republic, the government is appointed by the president and, thus does not necessarily have the majority of seats in the pairlament. Therefore, the government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises
This oversimplification isn’t really wrong, but it isn’t correct either. Many very consequential positions are appointed by the president, such as the heads and governing bodies for many government agencies (and the president has official power to instruct agencies to do certain things, however those agencies do have the right to choose not to follow those instructions) but ultimately the president’s power is held in check by the judicial and legislative branches of government which are both elected positions from the states. It’s honestly impressively well thought out that the 3 branches of government rely on each other, and ultimately can’t make significant changes without engaging the other branches, but each is given specific duties that that branch can govern independently
The issue with that system is while there is checks and balances available, One Branch in particular holds the majority of the authority in that balance system, and that being the legislative branch, and when that Branch doesn’t work together you might as well throw that checks and balance system out the window.
We are seeing this issue with the current Supreme Court where it’s very clear that there is visible corruption in the seats, but the executive branch can’t do anything about it because the legislative branch can’t get along long enough to be able to do it. This is exactly why we are warned against having a two-party system in the first place
Our system while on paper seems nice falls apart instantly the second any of the three branches decide they no longer want to do their job, or can’t agree with an outcome,
As I understood, the question was about laws which need to be approved by the legislative power, not executive orders or alike.
Actually I just was told, that what we here in good ol’ Europe call government, the highest officials of the executive power, i.e. MP and ministers, is called administration by you in the US. I’ve corrected that.
In a pairlamentary democracy
republic, which most states in Europe are, the government is elected by the pairlament and thus, (usually) has the majority of seats in the pairlament anyway. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how the opposition votes.As the US is a presidential republic, the administration
governmentis appointed by the president and, thus does not necessarily have the majority of seats in the pairlament. Therefore, the administrationgovernmentand the pairlament need to elaborate compromises.Edit: replaced republic with democracy, as many states have a king and thus are no republics. Changed parts are emphasised.
Replaced US government by administration.
This sentence is probably confusing to a lot of Americans, because “the government” in the US includes the legislature, courts, and all executive agencies. I believe what Europeans call a government is what Americans typically call an administration. I’m not quite sure on that, though. An administration is a President and people appointed to executive positions by the President, but I get the impression that, in international usage, “the government” also includes MPs of the ruling party/coalition.
TY, I’ve corrected that. Yes, government in Europe usually means the highest executives, i.e. minister president or chancellor who usually belong to the ruling party, and the ministers as they (actually their appointed secretaries of state) are the ones elaborating laws which are then read and approved by the legislative, the pairlament. In a parlamentary democracy, the head of state, i.e. king or president, usually is not part of the government and only has representative and formal tasks.
This oversimplification isn’t really wrong, but it isn’t correct either. Many very consequential positions are appointed by the president, such as the heads and governing bodies for many government agencies (and the president has official power to instruct agencies to do certain things, however those agencies do have the right to choose not to follow those instructions) but ultimately the president’s power is held in check by the judicial and legislative branches of government which are both elected positions from the states. It’s honestly impressively well thought out that the 3 branches of government rely on each other, and ultimately can’t make significant changes without engaging the other branches, but each is given specific duties that that branch can govern independently
The issue with that system is while there is checks and balances available, One Branch in particular holds the majority of the authority in that balance system, and that being the legislative branch, and when that Branch doesn’t work together you might as well throw that checks and balance system out the window.
We are seeing this issue with the current Supreme Court where it’s very clear that there is visible corruption in the seats, but the executive branch can’t do anything about it because the legislative branch can’t get along long enough to be able to do it. This is exactly why we are warned against having a two-party system in the first place
Our system while on paper seems nice falls apart instantly the second any of the three branches decide they no longer want to do their job, or can’t agree with an outcome,
As I understood, the question was about laws which need to be approved by the legislative power, not executive orders or alike.
Actually I just was told, that what we here in good ol’ Europe call government, the highest officials of the executive power, i.e. MP and ministers, is called administration by you in the US. I’ve corrected that.