Parliamentary vs. Presidential Democracy Explained

The two main systems of democratic government, Presidential vs. Parliamentary, explained.

Subscribe to TDC:

Like our page on Facebook
Join us on Google+
Follow us on Twitter

Music:
"Promise Land" - Jingle Punks - YouTube Audio Library
"Third Time" - Jingle Punks - YouTube Audio Library
"Lurking" - Silent Partner - YouTube Audio Library
"On the Tip" - Jingle Punks - YouTube Audio Library
"The Framework" - Jingle Punks - YouTube Audio Library
"Orange" - Jingle Punks - YouTube Audio Library

[kai-htqs]

Lords are not really appointed by the Queen. They are recommended by the current PM, the Queen really just signs in agreement.

[kalien]

This is NOT Parliamentary vs. Presidential Democracy Explained
It is UK Parliament vs US Presidential

[thekickingguy]

The U.K. Is similar to Canada's because Canada was based on the uks

[inkyscrolls]

4:09 Do *not* call Queen Elizabeth II the "Queen of England". That is *not* one of her titles. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, not just of England. Furthermore, the supposed "seal of the Prime Minister" that you keep showing - where did you get that from? That's not real!

[lailajannat]

thank you so much UK friends and family.

[Godzilla]

I've always thought that the UK system is way better than the American system. I'm Canadian and I love our political system (which is greatly similar to the UK). The American political system has become one big mess that can't get things done.

[alexisbensalting]

Here in New Zealand, we have Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state. We use the Parliamentary System as most of the commonwealth. The best thing about a Parliamentary system (monarchy or non-monarchy) is that it does not give much power to the government, one bad move and the government will crumble and can be easily replaced. This therefore forces the government keep their best behaviour, the Queen could fire and dismissed the government if she needs to which had happened in Australia when their PM was fired by the Governor General and appointed a government caretaker, until after a new election. Therefore someone like Trump can never survive a Parliamentary System as they would get sacked either by their Parties, Parliament or the Queen.

[davidknight]

You miss a lot of the nuances of the UK system. This is fair as the UK system has been around a long time and has grown in an organic way rather than being written down.

[ChairMaoZi]

Lot's of information left out, but good shot for an American. The HoC for instance can force through a bill should HoL reject it. See the ban on hunting with dog aka 'the foxhunting ban'

[mahabashri]

Andrew Johnson not jackson that almost got impeached

[pk]

In the Netherlands we have a proportionel elected lowerchamber who have to approve a cabinet and can make laws,
And a senate which can veto laws that is chosen proportionely by the provincial parliaments, the weight of their votes are based upon the population of their respective provinces.
Both chambers are also without a voter threshold and have elections every 4 years We also have a king as head of state who does a bit of diplomacy and waves at people..

[christophestevenson]

Actually, here are a few corrections. 1) There has not been a Queen of England since the 1707 Act of Union which united England and Scotland. The current title of the Queen is Her Majesty The Queen of the United Kingdom. B) Her Majesty The Queen is the Commander in Chief of the British Armed Services. However, like in most aspect of a Constitutional Monarchy, Her Majesty is advised by her Prime Minister.

[samdayton]

Lol, gotta love how the Vatican is an absolute monarchy

[malteeaser]

Pretty sure that the Lords can only delay laws now.

[akanawonderful]

This is a top-notch. Thanks for being very explicit. I enjoyed listening to this short but highly impactful video. 👍

[Lionfish]

To be honest, as an American, I prefer the Parliamentary, proportional representation system over the US' electoral college & winner take all election system simply based off 2 things:
1.) Proportional representation is more democratic as instead of 1 party taking all the seats because they won the most votes, the party that gets x % of the vote gets x% of the seats. This allows smaller parties to have an opportunity to climb through the ranks & have more equal shot @ entering gov't.
2.) In the EU, they ban &/or heavily limit private money in politics. Even the UK regulates money in politics, unlike the US, although the UK is more lenient on this issue compared to the rest of the EU. In the EU, parties get an equal amount of campaign money which is public money, not private & they also get free media time as well, in pretty much an equal amount. This creates even more opportunity for smaller parties to get into gov't. 

Overall, I'm really a huge fan of the European Union, it's member states & their political systems as they seem to be more progressive, more in favour of civil liberties & human rights, everyone is given an equal opportunity, green technology is (becoming) mainstream, they have high speed trains, their roads are smoother, everyone is happy, they have a fairly generous asylum system which allows people from other countries of poverty, war & chaos to get a new head start by 1stly if the refugee has no criminal record & their asylum claims are legitimate getting a job & a house to live in, then if they're on their best behavior & they don't commit any crimes, they get citizenship, stricter rules on worker protections, consumer protections, imports, environmental protections, financial institutions, regular banking, investment banking product safety & health standards, human rights protections & criminal law & justice & visaless travel is guaranteed. I'm also planning on, after I graduate High School in June, going to college in the US for the 1st 2 years, then transferring out to the European Union to study & while I'm there, considering getting permanent residence & giving up my US citizenship. This is solely based on the fact that we are no longer the land of opportunity. Our gov't has been selling out to richest people in the country & turning back much of the worker protections, consumer protections, social safety nets, human rights protections, civil liberties protections, banking & financial regulations, environmental protections & so on. In the next few years, we're also expected to have another banking crash which is probably going to be far worse than the last banking crash. Our economic recovery has been mainly fake as, most of our wealth which has been created has gone to the top 1%. In fact, since 2009, 95% of all new income in the US went to the top 1%. Nowadays, about 60% of our GDP is created on Wall St. Also, Dodd Frank, the bill which was passed to regulate the banks back in 2009/2010 is now being repealed provision by provision & little by little. So that means that the only form of banking regulation which had since the Gr8 Recession is now being repealed provision by provision & little by little which scares the fuck out of me. Not only that, the overwhelming majority of the jobs created in this country since the banking crash have been low wage, service sector jobs for major corporations such as Walmart, McDonald's Wendy's & Target & even the factory jobs that we're getting back from China don't even pay well @ all & they're incredibly shitty & dangerous, long hour jobs that make shitty, low quality products. Wages are still stagnating & most people aren't feeling the economic recovery that much @ all. This is NOT the future I want for myself @ all, so I'm afraid that I either attempt to fight the system which isn't going to be easy & possibly even dangerous & a life risking action especially if a Republican wins the presidency in 2016 which means that I could risk being beaten up by police, detained or even killed or I emigrate to another country where no such problems exist/these problems exist nowhere near this extent & start a whole new life for myself. I'm afraid & saddened that I'm going to have to pick the latter choice, as I want to live as long as I can & I want to be successful & live an enjoyable life. This is why I want to emigrate to the European Union as an exchange student, than consider permanent resident.

[isobelswan]

he Queen's official residence is St. James Palace.

[vikram]

Great video! Here's some more information specific to the UK, to make the UK Parliamentary system a bit easier to understand:
1. the population is divided into 'constituencies' based on where people live
2. in a 'general election' (the main election in the UK), the population votes for the party they want to win in their constituency. Some key factors that people consider when voting for a party include: the party's current leadership, the current party in power's performance over the past few years, the opposition parties' views and whether they've been providing valid and successful opposition to the current party in power, and every party's manifesto (a long document detailing what each party would aim to do if they would be elected into power).
3. in each constituency, whichever party gets the most votes wins. This type of voting is called 'first past the post'.
4. in each constituency, the person who represents the winning party in that constituency is known as the 'member of parliament' (MP). They now occupy a 'seat' in the House of Commons (HoC) (the lower chamber of the UK Parliament).
5. whichever party now (as a result of the general election) has the most 'seats' (i.e. MPs) in the House of Commons wins the general election.
6. all the parties have a 'leader'. The winning party's leader becomes Prime Minister (PM). The leader of the party which has the second most number of seats becomes the Leader of the Opposition.
7. The PM chooses MPs from their party or sometimes members of the House of Lords to form their Cabinet. Cabinet members advise the PM and also lead their own departments (e.g. the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the main person in charge of the party's fiscal/economic policies).

In summary:
1. MPs (and especially the party in power) can suggest legislation to the other MPs in the HoC.
2. This is then debated and then voted on by the MPs (all MPs can express their views regarding any proposed legislation and the current party in power's policies - a famous example is the weekly Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) debates). More amendments are then voted on.
3. Once the MPs in the HoC are mostly happy with the legislation, this is passed on to the House of Lords (its members are not elected) for review. The House of Lords can suggest amendments (which are then reviewed again in the HoC) and if they are not happy with the legislation, they can delay it for up to one year. However, the House of Lords usually does not delay legislation proposed by the party in power that had been in their manifesto when they were campaigning in the general election, because by voting in that party in the general election, the population basically showed that they were content for that proposed legislation to be passed. This all means that the House of Lords has relatively little power.
4. The final version of the legislation is passed to the monarch (King Charles), who (by convention) always signs it. It has now been passed into law.

Some key insights:
- in contrast to the US, people in the UK vote for a party, not directly for the leader of the party. However, whoever currently leads that party is still a key factor for the population to consider.
- it is much easier for a PM to leave office than it is for the President to leave office (via impeachment). The MPs (of all parties in the HoC) can call a 'vote of no confidence', and if the party in power loses the vote, this usually results in another general election being called. Also, if the PM comes to have very little support from the other MPs in their party because they're now being seen as incompetent, they can resign and a new 'leadership contest/election' happens when members of the party in power elect a new leader for their party, who then becomes the new PM. This happened when PM Theresa May (even though she had previously survived two votes of no confidence) failed to provide Brexit legislation that her party supported, and then she resigned. Boris Johnson won the Conservative Party Leadership Election and became the new PM. He later resigned after a few scandals and Liz Truss won the next leadership election. She later resigned after her fiscal legislation caused financial instability and her party (as well as most of the country) lost confidence in her leadership. Rishi Sunak was elected unopposed to be the next leader and PM. He lost the 2024 general election to the Labour party, which is led by Keir Starmer, who became the next PM.

Hope this helps!

[bengristwood]

Great video loved the comparisons. However you have a slight confusion with the House of Lords. The house currently has 791 members. Of these 26 are bishops and 91 are hereditary peers. The remaining majority are life peers and are chosen by the Government and then appointed by the monarch. Life peers are chosen from people who have specialist knowledge in particular areas such as business, science, politics etc. Also as mentioned by other comments, although the Parliament of the United Kingdom has two houses, it is the lower house ie the Elected House of Commons which contains the government and opposition which has the most power. Under the Parliaments act 1911 the lords can only block a bill for 1 year or 3 months of the bill is a financial one.

Personally I do like the House of Lords however it does need major reform notably scrapping the hereditary peers and barons. Also should be greater checks and balances on how Life peers are appointed. Seems too easy these days for the government to appoint ridiculous amounts of life peers who suit their parties agenda. Needs to be more control on how many can be appointed a year etc.

[Jaffa]

Just FYI the House of Lords no longer has hereditary peers in the UK as the title is no longer pasted on in the family, meaning those lords who are their presently due to inheritance are the last of their kind.