You've got a weird mixture of proportional and fixed representation
The result of an argument between the people who wanted every state to be equal, and those who wanted power allocated according to population. I kind of like the balance, actually.
From the outside, it looks like it was carefully constructed to ensure that noone ever knew where the power was and thus allow cults of personality to force things through.
The way we usually phrase it is, it was carefully constructed for "checks and balances." :-) The idea is that each branch can keep the other branches from running away with all the power. I think it actually thwarts cults of personality, barring particularly favorable circumstances. (Such as one party controlling the presidency, the House, and the Senate, with strong party discipline enforcing votes that favor the president's agenda.)
The fact that the Lords are both the final court of appeal and a veto power is again, to me, confusing; that means they're mixing what I think of as two or three separate functions. (Judicial and legislative, and maybe executive, too.) But the things I've been reading lead me to understand that their veto power is severely limited anyway, so we're back to "how exactly do they fit into this system?"
The thing about primaries is that they allow voters more control over parties. If we voted the Democrats into power, and then the party chose its leader, we would have Hillary Clinton in the White House. She came close, but in the end the public decided they preferred Obama's policies, which the Democratic establishment was initially not so wild about. And it has a real benefit in terms of preparing candidates, too; I'm told Obama is a much better debater now, thanks to his trial by fire during the primaries. (I also consider it a benefit that the Republican primary this cycle was akin to tossing five rabid weasels in a sack together, of which McCain was not so much the victor as the last weasel standing. Though I understand that from another point of view this may be a downside to the process.) But I do admit there are flaws to our primary system that we really ought to work out if we can, starting with the "me first!" idiocy we had this year.
I suspect that the very scale you refer to is an argument in favor of primaries. Without them, the D.C. establishment would exercise an even greater influence on the direction of a party, with bad results for the folks who are physically or culturally on the other side of the country.
Question: what exactly does it mean when they say so-and-so couldn't form a government?
no subject
The result of an argument between the people who wanted every state to be equal, and those who wanted power allocated according to population. I kind of like the balance, actually.
From the outside, it looks like it was carefully constructed to ensure that noone ever knew where the power was and thus allow cults of personality to force things through.
The way we usually phrase it is, it was carefully constructed for "checks and balances." :-) The idea is that each branch can keep the other branches from running away with all the power. I think it actually thwarts cults of personality, barring particularly favorable circumstances. (Such as one party controlling the presidency, the House, and the Senate, with strong party discipline enforcing votes that favor the president's agenda.)
The fact that the Lords are both the final court of appeal and a veto power is again, to me, confusing; that means they're mixing what I think of as two or three separate functions. (Judicial and legislative, and maybe executive, too.) But the things I've been reading lead me to understand that their veto power is severely limited anyway, so we're back to "how exactly do they fit into this system?"
The thing about primaries is that they allow voters more control over parties. If we voted the Democrats into power, and then the party chose its leader, we would have Hillary Clinton in the White House. She came close, but in the end the public decided they preferred Obama's policies, which the Democratic establishment was initially not so wild about. And it has a real benefit in terms of preparing candidates, too; I'm told Obama is a much better debater now, thanks to his trial by fire during the primaries. (I also consider it a benefit that the Republican primary this cycle was akin to tossing five rabid weasels in a sack together, of which McCain was not so much the victor as the last weasel standing. Though I understand that from another point of view this may be a downside to the process.) But I do admit there are flaws to our primary system that we really ought to work out if we can, starting with the "me first!" idiocy we had this year.
I suspect that the very scale you refer to is an argument in favor of primaries. Without them, the D.C. establishment would exercise an even greater influence on the direction of a party, with bad results for the folks who are physically or culturally on the other side of the country.
Question: what exactly does it mean when they say so-and-so couldn't form a government?