American Reacts How do UK elections work? | CNBC Explains

👉Original Video: • How do UK elections wo...
👉Discord: / discord
👉 Patreon: / mcjibbin
☕Buy me a coffee!: www.buymeacoffee.com/Mcjibbin
📦P.O. Box info (NOT accepting ANY perishable items)
For any clothing: l'm a Men's size large
McJibbin
P.O. Box 447
Bristol, Rhode Island 02809
USA
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through KZbin videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

[@AndrewWright-rm9ve]

7:08 The UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic

[@AutoAlligator]

CNBC...? Really

[@nigelmcconnell1909]

America is not a republic either. It's a federation of states. Lots of states are republics, like the Republic of Texas, others are Commonwealths, like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

[@rossalynsmith5253]

Australia is also an constitutional monarchy but we have an preferential voting and we became an federated in 1901

[@vtbn53]

@@nigelmcconnell1909 The US is very definitely a republic, the fact that it is a federation of states, just like Australia which is a monarchy, has nothing to do with that. The fact that the US is NOT a monarchy makes it a republic.

[@chuckshc376]

@@nigelmcconnell1909 the US more like the USSR IMO

[@MrBulky992]

The UK is a "parliamentary democracy", not a "parliamentary republic". As another poster has said, it is a monarchy, not a republic. Connor, you are confusing yourself into thinking that a state has to be a republic to be democratic!

[@georgehh2574]

It's not a monarchy though, the royal family is nothing more than a rubber stamp. It's a parliamentary democracy that functions much in the same way as a republic. We have an 'upper' and 'lower' house in the house of lords and the house of commons. We might as well ditch the royal family at this point, will save us some coppers.

[@t.a.k.palfrey3882]

Two things I noticed while living in the US through two general election cycles, was the difference in spending limits (very strict in UK, effectively none in US), and how parties told the electorate what their policy proposals were. In the latter, in the US a party "platform" is about 200 words of vague aspirations. In UK, a party "manifesto" is a 30,000 word document of legislative proposals.

[@johnbarron8882]

The UK is not a republic, it is a kingdom. The king summons the leader of the largest party to form his government, and appoints him prime minister. If that leader cannot form a government, the king will summon the opposition leader, and ask if he can form a government. If all else fails, we have another election, though these secondary outcomes are rare. The UK is a parliamentary democracy, and a constitutional monarchy. The King technically is sovereign, and appoints the Prime Minister, who then appoints the rest of the government, and by convention the King is expected to always take the advice of his ministers, so in practice the Prime Minister is in charge, as long as he can command a majority in the House of Commons. Clear as mud? ;-)

[@hendy643]

Technically, it's a theocracy. Officially, God runs the country, with the Monarch acting on their behalf.

[@georgehh2574]

​​​​@@hendy643 A theocracy is essentially dictatorship by disillusionment. Letting a feeling of divine hope control a nation.

[@sunseeker9581]

​@@hendy643 can we have an election on which god we want to follow 😉

[@hendy643]

@@sunseeker9581 sure why not. I want Loki. Sounds more fun than that old dude with abeard that's in charge atm.

[@Jamieclark192]

Prime Minister is not equivalent to the US president. The King is the equivalent of the President. The US president is head of State and Head of Government. In UK these roles are split. The King is Head of State, the Prime Minister leads the Government.

[@SirBradiator]

The "Green Guy" is Caroline Lucas who is the only elected MP that represents the Green Party. She is the MP for Brighton Pavillion, although she is not standing in the election to come later this year and is leaving parliament.

[@joshua.910]

Came here to say this, one of my favorite MP's tbf

[@stirlingmoss4621]

she stepped down thank goodness

[@joshua.910]

@@stirlingmoss4621 what's that supposed to mean? She's a cracking MP

[@jjc5407]

@@joshua.910 I assume she's not your MP then. The Greens have been a disaster in Brighton, so much so that they lost control of the council. Lucas only stood to be an MP there because the champagne socialists coupled with the huge number of students from the city's two universities are either too naïve or too stupid to recongise that the Greens are simply a hard left party who pontificate on environmental issues to distract people from their laughably unworkable and economically illiterate policies. The Greens' record on environmental issues when they've been in charge is lamentable. Brighton had one of the 5 worst recycling rates in the country on their watch and their decision to ban the use of any pesticides led to weed-riven pavements and overgrown verges that were a hazard to pedestrians and often impassable for those with disabilities. Outside of the town centre where millions have been spent, the city's fallen into a terrible state of disrepair and the council is on the verge of bankruptcy despite hiking council tax by the maximum permitted without a referendum each year. Lucas did nothing to curtail the excesses of her Green colleagues. On the contrary she cheered them on all the way. She has achieved precisely zilch as an MP and regularly ignores her constituents. She had no connection to Brighton, but stood for election there to take full advantage of the change in Brighton's demographic in the last couple of decades. There's a reason she's the only person ever elected as an MP for the Green party.

[@georgehh2574]

​​@@stirlingmoss4621 Got a feeling you care more about party ideology than the quality of our politicians leading us.

[@dinger40]

REPUBLIC? How very dare you! We are a Constitutional Monarchy. We tried being a Commonwealth (Republic) from 1649 to 1660 but gave it up as a bad job.

[@georgehh2574]

We are a republic in everything but name and bureaucracy. The royal family is an expensive rubber stamping machine with fancy clothes. The best thing about the monarchy is their charity work, of which they contribute very little of their wealth towards. They do not need to play a part in controlling democracy. Each constituency elects a representative who advocates for their issues, and we have upper/lower houses in the house of lords/commons. So we are essentially a republic, the monarchy is a worthless token in the political game.

[@karenblackadder1183]

Always winter and never Christmas. Give me our constitutional Monarchy above all other systems. Would HATE to live in such a venal society as the United States.

[@donsland1610]

The best thing about the UK elections is that they only last about six weeks rather than four years in the USA.

[@Ikit1Claw]

4:29 Cames Jameron 6:09 new elections 7:10 UK is not a republic

[@whitedwarf4986]

12:22 *disingenuous 14:39 *disingenuous

[@jeanbicknell7887]

We do not change the rules because Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats . As it said there are 650 seats so a majority in a vote, if all MPs were present and voting is 325 +1.However a majority is not based upon the 650 maximum votes but on how many MPs cast their votes following the 'motion' so, if say, there are only 400 MPs voting then a majority is achieved at 201 for or against . This means that if SF are never present a majority is still achieved by reaching 50% +1 of those voting on that motion. The Prime Minister is leader of the party which forms the government.

[@stirlingmoss4621]

talking of motions, watching this car-crash review makes me want to go to the bathroom. The boy understands nothing of UK politics and the function of the Monarchy despite several reviews.

[@jeanbicknell7887]

@@stirlingmoss4621 But then how well do you understand US politics?

[@Ayns.L14A]

Wanting to be a politician should automatically bar you from becoming one..........

[@Gambit771]

Why?

[@gillbanton221]

As said best by Billy Connelly 😊

[@Otacatapetl]

The PM can't "pass the job on" to anyone else, it's not in his gift. The PM is appointed by the King; in theory the King can appoint anyone he likes, but he's always going to choose whoever can get business through Parliament. The PM can say to the King, "Look, this guy's got a good chance, you might want to consider him", but it's the King's call.

[@sunseeker9581]

If they cant agree a government they let opposition try. If DUP had turned May down things couldve been very different

[@wobaguk]

I feel a lot is made of how we dont vote for a PM, but a party. However, we already know who is going to be the PM if a given party wins an election-the leader of the party at that time, so people are simultaneously basing their choice on 'general political alignment', 'who they think would make a good PM' and 'who they want to represent them locally'. The real difference comes not at election time, if the PM quits or is voted out by their own party, you can get a PM you didnt expect or 'choose'.

[@Ozzpot]

Indeed. We didn't elect our last two PMs for example.

[@Gambit771]

@@Ozzpot We have never elected any PM.

[@MrBulky992]

That can happen with a president too. Remember Gerald Ford? Richard Nixon's vice-president Spiro Agnew resigned. Ford was appointed by majority votes in Congress. Then Nixon resigned and Ford became president without any popular vote having taken place.

[@sunseeker9581]

​@@Gambit771why have a leadership debate if you're not voting for the leader. Im in a strange situation where I hate Starmer but also hate my labour MP but still want Labour to win. Im voting green lol.

[@martinburke362]

Connor like most Americans thinks that we are ruled by the King😂😂😂

[@hadz8671]

In a constitutional monarchy the monarch reigns but doesn't rule.

[@1Anime4you]

​@@hadz8671You do realize that "to reign" and "to rule" have the same formal definition?

[@Brian3989]

One major difference between USA and UK elections. We do not have to register what party we will vote for. Everyone resident in an area should be registered to vote and you can vote for any of the candidates. There are several levels of authority, national in parliament about 650 constituencies across the whole country. Those seeking election would show their political status. Then large area, county or city. Each of those are divided in to smaller sections, where candidates are elected within that section to form the council for the area. Candidates can declare themselves to support a political party or be independent. The areas for Parliament or other councils are determined by population number by an independent authority.

[@Gambit771]

They have to register who they'll vote for! Why?

[@GyleCast]

LOL at that video calling Corbyn's Labour "centre left"...

[@listerofsmegv987pevinaek5]

One of the best things about elections in the UK is, no party is allowed to spend more than 40 million pounds( might be a little more or less) the campaigning last six weeks. And most importantly we do not register who we vote for. That us our freedom of choice. Or system is not perfect but it has served us well for over 400 year's. And yes we weren't all allowed to vote as we do now, that has grown over time to what we now have. Good video Connor

[@wobaguk]

Regarding the whole passing the right to form a government to you opponent if you cant form a coalition; Its basically saying, if none of the minority parties will partner up with you, then they probably align with the the other guys, so the large second place party+minority parties are together the functional majority.

[@renaissanceman8687]

The best analogy for first past the post and who becomes MP for a constituency is: A race where there is a medal, a title and a cash prize for the person who comes in first place. There is nothing for any other of the participants (so a ‘winner takes all’ scenario)

[@Gambit771]

As it should be.

[@geoffwright3692]

From the local elections today, voters must show photo ID when turning up at the polling station. The rules are actually pretty strict. If you do anything other than put your one allowable cross against a candidate's name, your ballot paper is said to be "spoilt" and rejected. I can't remember the last time I didn't deliberately spoil my paper as protest at there being no-one on offer worth voting for. It is commonplace for the candidates to be present at the polling station on election day, but while whey may be minded to randomly ask voters which way the voted, under no circumstances are the public obliged to tell them. All voting is intended to be confidential.

[@Snarnler]

Thanks for the reminder that I need to go vote. Lost track of the date!!! 😊

[@UKprl]

While there are rules, your vote will be accepted even if it is not a cross, it can be a tick or any mark that indicates unambiguously which candidate you are voting for. There was even some guidance that a tick in one box and crossed in all the others is a clear enough indication. What is not allowed is writing anything additional in a way that could allow people to identify you as once the ballot is in the ballot box it is meant to be reasonably anonymous (although the ref numbers can be traced to check it was actually issued at a polling station and not somehow sneaked into the count later).

[@daleferrier3050]

I am involved in the counting of the votes the day after and this year I marked mine with a smiley face so I could potentially spot it. And, by luck I did! It wasn’t questioned, the verifiers/counters just carried on like usual. We were trained on what’s deemed a valid ballot and an invalid one. Generally, if it’s clear who you’re voting for and there’s no identifying information as to who you are then it is fine.

[@SirBradiator]

The House of Commons is similar to the US House of representatives, each area elects a representative and then the party with the more than half the representatives wins. The leader of that party then becomes Prime Minister. If no party gets half the representatives then 2 or more parties can get together to make up the numbers, or the largest party could try and run a minority government, if no party can get support from half of the representatives then there would be another election.

[@billyhills9933]

The largest party gets to decide who will be Prime Minister who then decides who will make up the Cabinet. The obvious choice is the party leader who then hands out Cabinet posts to the people they think can do the job... only joking, they hand them out to their best buds. Technically, the largest party could decide on someone else to be Prime Minister as well as who is in the Cabinet. This could be MPs from other parties or possibly non-MPs. Obviously this is not done very often. One final thing, Lord Cameron is the current Foreign Secretary - he is not an MP and because he is sits in the House of Lords, he cannot enter the House of Commons. Some have suggested that this is an attempt to stop him being questioned in the Commons.

[@nigelmcconnell1909]

You have to look up "Honest government ads" episode "How Australian elections work" (comedy)

[@nigelmcconnell1909]

Sorry the KZbin video is "Honest government ads how preferential system works"

[@alexfletcher5192]

When Edward Heath could not secure a majority in 1974 he turned to the then Liberal Party (it doesn't mean the same thing) for support - and didn't get it. Therefore, Labour took office on the basis of votes rather than constituencies won. Labour leader Harold Wilson (now Prime Minister) confirmed his mandate later the same year in a follow-up election (a tactic he also used in the mid-1960s). Doesn't happen that often.

[@christorrero7923]

6:10 "What if you refuse?" In other words, what happens if the incumbent Prime Minister fails to get enough seats to get a majority in Parliament, yet does not resign? That did happen in 1924. Stanley Baldwin fought an election in November 1923. When Parliament reconvenes, the King delivers a speech to Parliament setting out its intention to legislate in the forthcoming session (in practice each year). Parliament voted down the King's Speech and the Prime Minister resigned. (If he had not done so, the King could ultimately sack the Prime Minister - that hasn't happened in the UK for around 200 years, though it did happen in Australia in 1975).

[@jamesdignanmusic2765]

6:00, yes it would likely be political suicide. If a Prime Minister tried to struggle on with a minority of support, there would likely be an early vote of no confidence, leading to a new election. A major difference between the US and UK is that a US president isn't guaranteed to have a majority in either Senate or House of Representatives - which can lead to stalemate. In the UK, a party leader has to have a majority in the House of Commons (= Representatives) to become Prime Minister. PS - David Cameron, not James Cameron! :)

[@djs98blue]

The UK is a (parliamentary democracy) constitutional monarchy wherein our constitution delegates almost all power of the monarch to a parliament elected by the people.

[@billyhills9933]

One thing to point out about the difference between US politics and British politics is the separation between Legislative and Executive bodies. In the US, POTUS and their cabinet are the Executive, while the Senate and the House of Representatives are the Legislative. In the UK, the King, Primer Minister and Cabinet are the Executive, while the House of Commons and the House of Lords are the Legislative. Since the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are usually members of the House of Commons or House of Lords as well, it means they represent both Executive and Legislative.

[@grapeman63]

Another distinguishing feature is that in the US the leader of the executive (POTUS) is voted for on an individual basis and then fills his cabinet (subject to confirmation hearings) with whomever he pleases. This means that the US cabinet is often filled with cronies and sycophants of the President for whom nobody has voted. In the UK, the prime minister appoints his cabinet from the available pool of elected MPs and, rarely, the Lords. This means that the PM often has ideological differences with members of his cabinet and compromises need to be struck. It also means that no-one can serve in the cabinet (except a lord) who has not been returned to Parliament by the British public.

[@MrBulky992]

Yes, there was a referendum on changing the voting system. Unfortunately, neither of the options on the ballot paper offered proportional representation. The FPTP status quo obviously does not but neither does the Alternative Vote (AV) system which was not intended to do anything other than avoid wasted votes at the constituency level. So when people go round saying that a proportional voting system was rejected by the UK electorate they are either lying or grossly misonformed.

[@pauljohns4373]

Yes! Essentially the electorate was given a very poor choice and the main political parties (and our predominately right-wing media) did their best to play down the process as they knew it could represent a major challenge to the established order. More cynical commentators might say that it was the case that Mr. Murdoch did not want to lose his ability to shape UK Governance, just as he tries to do in all the main 'markets' he operates in.

[@Gambit771]

Why would we want proportional voting?

[@MrBulky992]

​​@@Gambit771So that our elected representatives better reflect the views of the electorate at the UK *national* level. Every governing party in decades was elected by a minority of the electorate: more people voted against them than for them yet they often end up with huge majorities in the number of seats. The existing system is binary and crude: it only works if only two parties stand in every constituency. If more stand, 6 for example, a candidate could be elected on as little as 18% of the total votes cast: the voting intentions of the remaining 82% are consigned to the waste bin: their visit to the polling station was a complete waste of their time. That doesn't happen in any form of PR as the subtle shades of grey of opinion are reflected at least at the national level. PR is used in elections for the devolved administrations and was also used for elections to the EU Parliament so it's not exactly a new concept in the UK. The only plausible reason why no government has ever implemented it is that no government would seek to undo the system which brought it to power.

[@DylanSargesson]

Sinn Féin don't take their seats because before you can take your seat you have to submit the oath of alliegance to the King, which they refuse to do. When they don't show up, they just don't count.

[@streaky81]

You have a presidential system, the president forms the executive, in the UK the executive is formed by the legislature which is very different. Of course in the US they're closely linked, but they're constitutionally very separate. In the UK they're one in the same - the constitution can't function without them being closely tied together because the executive sets the parliamentary agenda. That's the bit that confused John Bercow and why he isn't getting that Lords seat he so desperately wants: he tried to destroy our constitution, it's literally the only thing that separates us as a democracy from the other thing, so that's not cool when you do that. Can't govern by Cromwellian rule - history isn't going to look kindly on that period.

[@paulmidsussex3409]

The Green Guy is Caroline Lucas the MP for one of the Brighton constituencies.

[@nocturnal2148]

One area I think you got a bit lost on was he was talking about how many people vote for the unsuccessful candidates in a given constituency, not across the whole parliament. A person can represent a place where only a third of the electorate voted for him, with a 50% turn out that’s just 1/6th of eligible people.

[@Gambit771]

That is the voters fault that didn't turn up. No-one else's.

[@UKprl]

It's also the case that a party with as little as 35% of the vote nationally could win every singe seat, as long as the remaining votes in each seat were split evenly between 2 or more other parties. At the same time a party with 45% of the vote nationally could end up with no seats at all, as they could still be beaten into second place in every seat. Neither extreme is likely _but_ there is no mechanism in the system to prevent such anomalies, and when the 2 leading parties would commonly poll between 35% and 45% the overall result can depend more on where people happen to live than the total votes cast in the country as a whole. This dis-proportionality is one the main complaints against FPTP, along with the idea that a party can gain a stonking majority and pass any law for 5 years without even reaching 50% nationally.

[@Gambit771]

@@UKprl How does that work? If a party wins every seat with 35% of the votes and the rest split evenly then second place cannot have 45% of the rest of the votes because all of the other parties would have to have 45% as well. Perhaps in proportional voting but first past the post means having 45% through all of the seats but another has 35% would make them the winner. Proportional voting also creates disproportional results. Look at Lorna slater. Didn't win any election and yet was given a seat with the ruling party. How is that fair? She wasn't voted in and was able to make government policy.

[@georgehh2574]

The horse racing analogy is basically that the horse race winner (winning party) gets all the glory and everyone else loses and gets sidelined for each race (constituency election). Proportional representation would mean that each horse gets points depending on what position (number of votes) they achieve, and each horse gets a certain amount of glory on the podium (parliament representation) depending on how they perform. First Past The Post is an undemocratic system in my opinion and should be replaced with proportional representation like everywhere else in Europe.

[@charlesfrancis6894]

You have a good grasp of our elections sir.

[@richardpearce4988]

For thinking about using the US system to understand the UK, I think a few people have described the parliamentary system as if there was no president and the leader of the biggest party in Congress became the prime minister, and the PM then appointed the various Secretaries of State etc from other members of Congress. You still have a separate Upper House too in the Senate. Not an exact analogy but pretty close.

[@chrismackett9044]

If you don’t get above the threshold to form a majority government, you can try and form a minority government. I vaguely recall that Edward Heath attempted this in the 1970s, claiming legitimacy because the Conservatives won a majority of the popular vote although not a majority of seats.

[@chixma7011]

A big difference is that anyone in the U.K. can stand for election to Parliament. The main political parties will put forward their own candidate, someone who has paid their Party Membership joining fee and is expected to toe the party line on policies as detailed in their Manifesto. But we have many more parties than the USA has with candidates from the Green Party (they had that 1 MP you asked about, from Brighton), the SNP, the Northern Irish parties, the Monster Raving Loony Party, UKIP (now reborn as Reform) Socialist Workers Party, British National Party and even Joe Bloggs, who might be riled beyond sanity on just one local issue. Once nominated by 10 local people he can then pay his own fee (£500 and refundable if he gets 5% of the vote) to stand as an Independent and he might well have a chance of winning the seat if enough locals feel the same way. In a General Election if you’re not elected as an MP on the day, you have no further role to play except as an irritant. If you’ve lost your seat to a rival party you are now officially out of work. However, if you’re well-known enough you might get onto TV via reality shows, panel discussions, quiz shows, or Strictly Come Dancing and maybe stay relevant and/or open to plenty of offers. The Prime Minister is the leader of the political party with most seats in the Commons. The King will ask him to form a Government in his name. The PM is not elected as such by the public, he is an existing MP who puts himself forward for Leadership of the Party and is voted for in a round of ballots within the political party. If a Parliamentary faction doesn’t like the way the PM is governing they can call for a vote of no confidence to try and unseat him. If ousted he remains an MP and just sits further back (returns to the back benches). This is internal party politics and not the sort of election that the public gets involved in. If he rides out such a challenge the rules are that he can’t be challenged again for 12 months. If the magic majority of 50% + 1 has not been reached for an overall majority, the PM could decide to try to legislate with a minority government. It will be very uphill so they look for strategic alliances on particular topics or a coalition with another small party to boost the number of expected votes over the 50% mark. David Cameron agreed a coalition with Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrat’s, generally regarded as the third party in the U.K., but it was like wading through treacle, very little was achieved and the Lib Dems were punished for it and lost most of their MPs at the next General Election, including their party leader. He went off to the USA to join Facebook for lots of money. The constituencies usually have an MP who understands local issues and especially how they can be impacted by national policies. He is responsible to his constituents and will simply be voted out if he ignores or goes against them. Some are regarded as ‘safe seats’ because they always return the same party to Parliament, and an MP that lost his seat elsewhere could be allocated to one by the Party in order to get him back into Parliament. There was a huge change in voting at the last election when the previously very safe ‘red wall’ in the North, ie historically Labour constituencies, was well and truly breached by the Tories after Boris finally pushed Brexit through. This gave him a majority in Parliament of 80 seats - almost unheard of. Things have moved on since then and the Tories will be lucky to hold on to a fraction of them next time round.

[@HH-hd7nd]

1:20 No, India overtook the UK by now, and France is also closing the gap and might overtake the UK as well in a few years. 7:11 As a matter of fact the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy (if we through reality aside and assume that this "unwritten constitution" nonsense is in fact a constitution). If we look at the facts as they are the UK is actually still a medieval feudal monarchy in constant open rebellion against its ruler, the monarch. The last legally binding text that diverts power from the monarch is the Magna Charta from 1215 - and nowher ein that document was the right to rule given to the general population.

[@barrygentry5364]

The First Past The Post (FPTP) is a poor system as the video confirms. Because the UK has several left of centre political parties, the left of centre vote is split reducing the chance of the major left of centre (Labour) from getting enough votes to win some close run constituencies. The right of centre parties generally work together to ensure that the Conservatives receive ALL right of centre votes and this ensures that they win more seats, often in constituencies that have boundaries that give them an advantage by having large numbers of right wing voters. Almost every UK election has seen more than half of the country vote for left of centre parties yet we inevitably end up with a right wing government. Proportional Representation would see this change and would hopefully stop the most cruel and inhumane party (the Tories) from ever being in control again.

[@missbobbypinn2165]

Just remember Conner, it was local elections we just had not general. Very important difference. Yes, there was one by election, but it was local councils and regional mayors not parliamentary mp’s.

[@LemonChick]

Republic just means you do not have a monarch. Has nothing to do with the voting system. But you are not the only American I have seen confused by this very thing this week. He claimed that the USA was a republic, along with most other Western countries, so that meant the country operated under the rule of law while 'democracy' he equated with what sounded very similar to anarchy. Don't USA schools have classes they call "government"? Where I've always assumed this sort of stuff was explained. Or have I just been watching too much USA TV?

[@paulgoffin8054]

I think they used to have "civics", but the Republicans have weaponized ignorance over the last 30 years so now Republicans vote by News Talking Points.

[@MrBulky992]

I don't think you could use a red telephone box as a polling station. It would need to accommodate at least two people with one (the official) not able to see what the other was writing, plus the ballot box, the voting register and the blank ballot papers. That would be optimistic even for thin people. It would make a good comedy sketch. It reminds me of that Laurel and Hardy film where Hardy and his eloping fiance of similar size have to squeeze into a tiny getaway car driven by Laurel and there are legs and arms all over the place.

[@s.rmurray8161]

Don't know if you know but in In January, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)’s Democracy Index demoted the United States from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy.”

[@johnhandelaar]

In US terms as directly as I can translate them, in the UK: * General elections elect a new House of Representatives *only* * Once that election is over the Majority Leader becomes the head of government and the Minority Leader is the leader of the opposition * Because there are more than two parties in the UK, that ''Majority Leader' might not have an actual majority and might need to cut a deal to get to 50%+1 of House votes (you were 100% right about this in the vid) * Also because there's more than two parties, and like the US we just give each district to whoever got the most votes in it, an *alarming* number of Congresspeople were returned despite a large majority of voters in their districts having voted against them * There is no president. The government represents the King, who has for the last approximately 200 years simply rubber stamped everything "his" parliament decides. In exchange, he gets to keep calling himself King, plus several fancy houses and a big pile of cash, and nobody replaces him with a republic. We call this a 'constitutional monarchy' even though in practice the *most* important part of the UK constitution is that it's not written down and Congress can do literally anything the hell it wants, always. Also * The entire cabinet must also comprise only members of Congress. Cabinet secretaries and the head of government are questioned weekly on the floor of the House. The requirement for all to be members of Congress enables this.

[@johnhandelaar]

Oh and: The "passing the baton" question you said would never happen in the US is a quirk to do with the whole Queen/King thing. The monarch asks someone to form a government. But the monarch *must not* (because it would not do for them to be asked to have a political opinion of any kind) actually decide who the person to ask is. It's the job of the outgoing head of government to "advise" them, in person, who's next. This applies even after a general election where the head of government is completely defeated. They still have to mosey on over to Buckingham Palace to resign and tell the monarch that in their opinion, the leader of the party that just beat him last night should be asked to replace him.

[@zukritzeln]

The horse race analogy is perfect, because when a hung parliament happens the chaos that ensues after is referred to as horse trading. It literally is whoever can get enough constituencies to 'get past the post'.

[@mightyoaks9331]

Republic has a president as head of state. A monarchy (UK, Canada, Australia etc.) has a king/queen as head of state. In modern days these countries are democratic, the king/queen (or the governor general who represents them) are apolitical, they only sign into law legislation passed by a majority or parliament.

[@robtyman4281]

No, comparing Sinn Fein is not comparable to Alaska's situation. Northern Ireland geography and politics are extremely complex. You need to research it more to fully understand why Sinn Fein do not take up their seats in Westminster (home of thr British parliament). I cant really explain it in a few sentences in KZbin!!

[@charlesfrancis6894]

That coalition just collapsed in Scotland because the much smaller Green Party felt the larger Scottish National Party [S.N.P.] did not keep its word on zero emissions . The S.N.P. wanted an independent Scotland and after a referendum independence was rejected by the people of Scotland by a small margin .

[@robtyman4281]

The 'districts' are known as 'Constituencies' - because the MP for each one represents the 'constients' in each. The 'consituents' refer to the people.

[@unojayc]

It ensures that the ruling government can pass legislation without being blocked.

[@charlesfrancis6894]

"Yes Minister" is almost a documentary because it is so close to the truth.

[@marcuswardle3180]

Sinn Fein don't abstain from Parliament because they do not recognise the UK's rights over Northern Ireland. They abstain because in order to become an MP they would have to swear an oath to the King. As Irish Republicans they would not do this so abstain. There was talk of them allowing proxies to take their seats during the Brexit Votes.

[@1Anime4you]

#CamesJameron

[@Caambrinus]

12:49 'the UK's long-running constitutional crisis'. The UK does not actually have a written constitution, so a government can bend the rules to suit itself; Johnson, for example, has tried to do this on some occasions. The King is supposed to be the final arbiter, but his actual interference with parliamentary government is taboo. It is facade; Charles III is King, but he does not actually make any decisions.

[@nozzlepie]

We have some elections tomorrow, 2nd May, for some local councils, mayors and police and crime commissioners. Biggest one to look out for is probably London Mayor. If you’re interested.

[@CrazyInWeston]

Count Binface for London Mayor vote him in!

[@Caambrinus]

17:25 A reasonable politician who does NOT have a working majority might step back (NOT resign) and give two (or more) opposition parties a chance to form a government; this would be a coalition, but it might be weak (because a coalition has to please ALL its own MPs).

[@helenwood8482]

Agree on the not liking of politicians, disagree that it is not their fault. They are corrupt.

[@charlesfrancis6894]

Invisible earnings makes a lot of cash for the U.K. which means the "city" with all its insurance ,banking, and financial dealings.

[@jasoncallow860]

For a country the size of the UK, I think 650 representatives is more democratic than many republics.

[@ItsGaz93]

So basically let’s say that USA voted the same way as UK. Each state would be split into so many districts and in each district would have an MP there. In general elections there would be 3-5 MPs who are battling to become the chosen MP for that district but each one represents a different party. Each party for each district that has the most votes is named chosen MP to represent that district. Then the amount of MPs are counted up across the country and the party that has the most elected MPs then has their party leader become Priminister.

[@Caambrinus]

The 'little Green guy' (2:25) is Caroline Lucas, of the Green Party, one of the few MPs with a conscience, these days..........

[@bjornflintberg3809]

Sweden for instance has a proportional (and complex) system. But we vote mInky for parties, not people. The candidate list is out together by the party and the only person-voti g you can do is mafk a candidate on the lisg of the party you vote for as your favorite. If that person gets enough votes, the list is modified to out that name on the top, even ifbthey were ranked number 25 originally. The votes per party in a district are then tallied to divide out X number of seats in parliament based kn the district's pop size (like the seats in the House). So if a district has 7 seats in parliament up for grabs, the first one goed to the party with the most votes. That vote total is the divided by a factor of 1.-something (can't recall exact number rt now), and then the vote total is compared again, and reduced by a different factor. Even a big party will after 1-3 seats have a lower number of votes than the second largest in that district, shich then has its total divided and so on until all seats have been handed out for that district. Finally, a number of seats have been reserved for the "natio al compensatory district" divided similarly by a model that is similar but designed to make sure that the number of seats are better representing the total national results so you won't end up with a smaller party falling just short of representation in singular districts over and over when their national total is a hihher percentage.

[@Caambrinus]

FPTP (First past the post) probably worked well in the 18th century, when few men actually had the vote; it is totally undemocratic today, BUT it is not in the interests of either of the two main English parties (Labour and Conservative) to abolish it.

[@BrianMac1979]

I didn't realise we had Hollywood director James Cameron as our prime minister 😂😂😂...just winding you up, close enough. James probably would've been better than David lol.

[@user-jx3zp7zj4y]

Basically the only requirement to form government is for a member of parliament to have a "confidence of a majority" of seats. Political parties make that so much easier. So if the election winner cant; then the head of state will invite another MP to get that "confidence of a majority" of seats to be government. Or the head of state can just call another election; which is typical in Canada.

[@charlesfrancis6894]

Yes Minister is almost a documentary.

[@keithparker5125]

The USA likes to think it is a democracy but sadly fails in it's effort! A democracy is where everyone's vote is secret and everyone has the opportunity to vote! In the USA, first you have to declare whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent and that information is used (mainly in Republican districts) to gerrymander, what we in the UK call, constituencies. The various States have their own laws on voting rights (there is no standard) and so the right to vote is a lottery. Florida is a perfect example where a referendum was held to give felons the right to vote but this upset the Republicans who were in power so much that having been forced to make this change, they promptly enacted a new law to say that you can vote ONLY if you had repaid the state the cost of your incarseration - unfortunately, there is no way that Florida can tell felons how much they owe!

[@davidelourenco2537]

In Portugal, the constituencies mentioned are districts and may elect several seats, which gives more plurality of parties in parliament, but also creates more division which may cause difficulty in archiving a ruling majority.. trade-offs..

[@davidelourenco2537]

I think in Spain and Italy, parliament is also like this, so ruling majorities may contain several parties in coelution. So people may have voted for a party because of one of it's ideas and in coelution that same idea is dropped yet they keep you vote. lol

[@user-ox9ec1id9x]

In the UK we vote for individual local MP's. The party with the most MP's becomes the Government, & that parties leader becomes the Prime Minister. If they do not have a majority of MP's in the House of Commons they are unlikely to get any Bills through the House to become law. If other parties form a Coalition to gain a majority, then their leader has to be invited to be Prime Minister. Only the winning party gets to propose new laws, but they must win the vote on these in the House of Commons, after debate, before these are sent to the House of Lords for amendment. Bills then are further debated in the Commons before passing. They then are sent to the Monarch for signature assent, & become law. Only the majority party in the House of Commons; or a coalition majority if there is one, is the Government. The other parties in the House of Commons are the official opposition. Their job is to examine & debate with the Government all proposed new legislation, & the performance of the Government in action, & to oppose any bills that they dislike. Members of the House of Commons, whether or not they belong to the Government party, can now & then propose new laws to Parliament for debate, to see if they can get passed. There are special debating times for these occasionally. They are called early day motions. To pass into Law a Bill must be voted for by a majority in the House of Commons, so the Government will expect all MP's of it's own party to vote with th, but some might not. They can abstain if they dislike the terms of a Bill, & even vote against it, though the latter is unlikely, because if too many do this it can bring down a Government. To vote in the Commons the MP's walk into one of two rooms attached to the debating Chamber, one for a positive vote, the other as a vote against. The number going into each 'Lobby' are counted & the majority wins the vote, but this must be an absolute majority, not just more than 50% one way or the other. Further debate & voting may be needed to settle the matter. At the time of an election each party, or candidate, publishes a programme of proposals for what they intend to do if elected, such as any new laws they intend to present for debate. This publication is called a Manifesto, & parties will be assessed later on how they matched it's proposals with their actual performance in Government, or as an opposition. This may then decide future elections, according to how well the parties worked to their manifesto. The House of Lords (Peers) is made up of some Lords who have inherited the right to sit in Parliament, the Bishops representing the Church of England, & the remainder of people who have been appointed to the Lords by a Prime Minister, because of long service in politics, or business, or expertise is some specialist field. These Lords cannot make new laws, but they do get to read & revise & debate Bills sent to them by the House of Commons. The Lords may suggest amendments to these Bills & send these back to the Commons, where they are further debated, & voted on. The final Bill from the Commons passes through the Lords again, then goes to the Monarch for final approval, which makes it an Act of Parliament & therefore law.

[@IainEPaterson]

The idea proposed in the video that the party having got the most votes but not having achieved a total majority in Parliament could call on the Opposition to try to form a government is never tried. It is a theoretical option but in the real world what normally happens is that the party who have the achieved the most MPs in a General Election (but are short of an outright majority) will either do a deal with one or more of the smaller parties to govern together on a mutually agreed manifesto (examples in the past have included Lab/Lib, Con/Lib, Con/DUP etc.) or can choose to govern on their own without a majority. In that case they will only be able to enact the parts of their manifesto for which they can count on enough support in Parliament from MPs of other parties to form a majority when the whole of Parliament votes Yea or Nay on a particular piece of legislation.

[@addison_reilly5904]

Good video 👍 Also "Cames Jameron"

[@DylanSargesson]

6:10 The Monarch has complete ability to hire and fire the Prime Minister, but they give it to the person/Party who can command the House. So if the 2nd Party could prove they can put a majority coalition together (and the largest party couldn't) they'd just be appointed anyway.

[@garethbrown9191]

The US Congress uses the the first past the post system.

[@jackmason5278]

??? Congressional voting on legislation requires an absolute majority with a few exceptions that require super majorities (override Presidential vetoes, cut off filibusters, and such). Election Congress may be first past the post, but more likely involves runoff elections.

[@lemdixon01]

First past the post is a bit like electorial collage as its not proportional represention where every vote counts. Electorial collages makes smaller states have more ''seats'' though so california and Texas doesnt always decide the lection.

[@marcuswardle3180]

Odd that you posted this today as we are having local elections on this day. Normally the voter turnout is between 35%-60%of the electorate. This means that if the winner, in the First Past the Post system, gets 50% of the vote and only 45% of the electorate have turned out to vote then they have only got 22.5% of the electorate vote. So the Ruling Party would be making laws, according to their beliefs, that only 22.5% of the total voters wanted. The other 77.5% may totally disagree with what is being done. This is why FPTP (First Past The Post) can be seen to be Un-Democratic.

[@jmckeev765]

i'm not an expert in politics but i've always wondered why america has only 2 political parties? i mean there must be many other americans who have different ideoligies than democrats and republicans, right?

[@Lord-Dexa]

It may have been 4 years ago, but that was the last time we had a General Election - But the next one must happen sometime this year :)

[@nick7076]

The prime minister and therefore the government do koto have to be the largest party. The monarch asks the person who commands the authority of the house to be PM. If the leader of the largest party cannot form a government the monarch will ask the person who can. That could be the leader of the next largest party. It can happen when a leader becomes massively unpopular whilst in power and loses a key vote.

[@bjornflintberg3809]

And then it is sort of i the UK but with 8 parties in parliament rt now, you will not get a single-party majority. The Speaker asks the party "most likely to be able to form a govdrnment" to try to do so, then parliament votes in a negative voting session, ie you need 50.01% to fail. You can be PM with 20% sayibg yes, if 31% abstai in that votd. As long as the total opposition is less than 50%. Oh, one thing the UK does differently is the mobility of election day. In Sweden and the US, the date is fixed. In the UK, the PM decides when to hold an election, as long as it is within the maximum time frame of the total mandate period. Often, an election is called when polls show that the PM's party is doing well.

[@georgehh2574]

You are mostly correct in your understanding of the American republic system versus British parliamentary system. Ignore those suggesting that the monarchy plays any meaningful part in politics, they are effectively a rubber stamp. The monarchy is far less popular now than in the past, so if they went against the public vote or used their power to sidestep parliament, the public would probably riot and force them to abdicate. They're literally not allowed to voice their political opinions.

[@charlesfrancis6894]

You could say that the sheep Johnson was shearing were the people ! Which they ALL do of course.

[@JJ-of1ir]

Before an Election each Political Party produces a Manifesto (a .. 'if you vote for us we will do this, that and the other') These Manifestos are published as the election is announced by the Party currently in power. Leaflets get stuffed through our letterbox, we watch debates on TV, listen on the radio etc. It's often a short electioneering period - sometimes six weeks before the vote. There is a fixed sum of money that can be spent by each Party on electioneering. People decide which party suits their views best and vote. If the winning Party doesn't have an outright majority they will try to link up with one of the other Parties with views similar to their own. If they can't they will negotiate which bits of their Manifesto can be tolerated by both parties and, if they can agree, will announce a Coalition. There is not, on the whole, the enmity here in the UK amongst the Parties that is experienced in the US between the two parties there - although you might not believe that if you watch one of our debates in Parliament. The winning party becomes HM Government and the losing party/ies becomes HM Opposition which is a vital job too. It looks hard at every Bill the Government brings forward and does its best (in a perfect world) to oppose, amend and correct any loop holes, or faults it finds in the Bill, before it is sent to the Other House (House of Lords) for debate. So everyone in Parliament knows it's not a personal matter to pull a Government Bill to bits, but merely the Opposition carrying out their duty. There are many who have great friends across the Chambers' divide. The Bill torn to shreds will, rightly so though, cause a few red faces on the Government benches - but, then again, that's what the Opposition is supposed to be all about.

[@kevintipcorn6787]

republics don't have monarchies, its part of what confused me about star wars.

[@jaccilowe3842]

I feel like you have covered this topic before and understood it a lot better then! 🤣

[@SirZanZa]

if the winner of the election without majority can't form a government and refuses to pass on the chance to the opposition.. the opposition can just try to form one by coalition anyway if they pass the threshold then they may be invited by the monarch in this case the King to form a government. it would be controversial but it's possible

[@lizstratton9689]

Off to vote today, voting card in bag, Id in bag... off to the local Village Hall in the village next door. We used to vote in the Old Post Office where our friends live but cut backs in funding mean it's no longer in our neighbors house.

[@ANDY1985UK2011]

tony blair holds the post war record for the largest majority in 1997 with 418 seats . similar to obama in 2008 i'd say . A reagan style landslide i don't think has ever happened in the UK

[@martinbynion1589]

The UK is heading towards being the 7th or 8th largest economy in the world within a very few years on current trends. Much of its current econony is based on financial markets, which are heading overseas rapidly since Brexshit!

[@user-jx3zp7zj4y]

10:18 the 12.6% is not the local constituency. It was referring to the % national share of votes. Basically the 12.6 is spread too thin across all constituencies; except in 1 where the UKIP politician won his seat.

[@marktallentire3464]

13:18 Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour were most certainly not “centre left” they were pretty far-left

[@SpenceJS87]

Anything to the left of Thatcher is 'far-left' to the right wing owned media.

[@user-jx3zp7zj4y]

The US is a Presidential system; whereas CANUK are Parliamentary Systems. The diff is in the former the executive is completely separate for the legislative body. The later the executive is split in half; with half of it within the legislative body. BTW Semi Presidential systems like France are somewhere in the middle. Presidential system are easier to fall into authoritarianism.

[@sunseeker9581]

If you dont have enough MPs on your side then you either run a minority government and lose most of your votes unles other MPs vote with you or you have an agreed coalition with another party to have a working majority for all issues you agree on or you resign and see if opposition can form a government the same way. If neither can then you need another election as nothing will get done until the numbers change.

[@stevencrouch6036]

Really who forms the government is whoever the monarchy asks & they can literally be anyone, he could ask the Green party who has only 1 MP if he really wanted too but really 9 times of 10 the monarchy asks whoever got the most MPs. So if in this years election Sunak doesn't get a majority a real possibility given recent events & he cannot form a coalition government with another party another possibility this year then the King can either ask them to form a minority government or ask the second largest party more than likely the Labour party to form a coalition government, if they too cannot form one then he can ask either party's leader to form a minority government or as its a hung parliament he could call for another election to take place.

[@markharris1125]

We tried being a republic after our Civil War, in the mid 1600s. It didn't take and we got a King back. For better or worse, we seem to like being a constitutional monarchy. That silly business of Boris Johnson suggesting Corbyn form a government - that would never have happened. Has it ever happened? I don't think so - but I stand to be corrected. It's not the PM's job to nominate his/her successor. I love the surprised 'Socialist?!' at the mention of Jeremy Corbyn! That election they're talking about led to a landslide win for Boris Johnson and the Conservative party. Four and a half years later, it's all fallen apart, we've had another two Prime Ministers (without any general election) and we're limping towards an election by the end of the year and a change of government. Probably.

[@johnhandelaar]

It very much IS the just-defeated PM's job to nominate their successor. It happens literally every single time a PM falls. Even when John Major lost the election he had to go to the Palace, resign, AND suggest to the Queen that she should ask Blair to form a government instead. It's how they maintain the idea (ha) that the monarch never has a political opinion, and must never be asked for one.

[@markharris1125]

@@johnhandelaar That's not 'nominating a successor', that's just good British 'form'.

[@what-uc]

I find the compression (automatic gain) you have on the video you're watching a bit irritating. You know, when the background sound pulses in and out. The originals are fine.

[@ianport2185]

Qualifying Commonwealth and Irish citizens can also vote, unlike those in either a prison or the House of Lords (or both 😮).

[@watfordjc]

Election is called, Parliament is closed (dissolved), and the ~6 week (~25 working days) election campaign begins. It is against the law for a political party to spend more than £35 million on their national election campaign. Polls open at 7 AM and close at 10 PM on polling day, with people in 650 constituencies (each sized to have a similar number of voters) walking the ~5 minutes to their nearest polling station to vote (if not registered for a postal ballot), with the entire cabinet being kicked out of office by 7 AM the next morning if they've obviously lost - tune in to the breakfast news to see the former PM's possessions being moved from 10 Downing Street into a moving van. No multiyear election campaigns, and with our "you lost, get out" system there's also no longwinded transfer of power process. Sinn Fein aren't the only MPs who don't vote in Parliament - one MP is elected to the position of speaker, and three MPs to the position of deputy speaker (two MPs from HM's Government, two MPs from HM's Opposition). So, if Sinn Fein win 7 seats in the next election, and the incumbent speaker (formerly a Labour MP) is reelected by his constituents, Labour would need to win 321 seats for an overall majority (the incumbent speaker became Independent upon becoming speaker, one Labour MP would be elected deputy speaker), for a working majority of 1 (320 Labour seats, minus 319 other seats). The Conservatives would need 322 seats for a working majority of 1.

[@alexfletcher5192]

It cannot be stressed enough that, if you're the leader of the party that wins the most seats, you become Prime Minister. That decision is not made after the fact. The leader of the party is not a separate entity from it and represents the course of its policies and values.

[@jackmason5278]

Did anyone else notice the red spot on the sheep Johnson was shearing? Was that blood?

[@breakaleg8471]

I do not know who I will vote for today, I will have to consider who is not the worst option