Having been brought up in London, England, and now having been a resident of California for many years, I cannot help but compare the democratic process between the U.K. and the USA.
The United Kingdom Parliament consists of 650 members who represent the population that elected them. When governments, irrespective of which party is in power, wish to make changes to the law, it has to go to a vote by members in Parliament. The majority wins. End of story.
My understanding of the process in the USA is that the process is similar, but with one major difference. When the Hor the Senate votes on a proposition, the majority does not necessarily win because the President has the right of veto.
When I think of this situation I get confused by the word “democracy.” Its meaning in the U.S. is different from the UK and most other countries in Europe and elsewhere the world.
The U.K. has many English words that have different meanings in the U.S. Often we are divided by a common tongue because of interpretations and meanings of words and sayings.
For example, why is it called a “World” Series when it is only held in the USA?
Who named the game “football” when it is played mainly with the hands?
The President also has the ability to override the law. He can choose to set free any convicted person he chooses and can ignore the due process of law and decisions of the judges who heard the evidence.
Does the Majority Rule?
In a democracy, the majority rules. That should apply, in my opinion, to Congress and the Senate. Many politicians talk about dictatorships in various parts of the world. As much as I love the USA, I find it hard to distinguish between a democracy and a dictatorship when one man has the right to decide the fate of the population, ignoring the democratic voting process.
Another unusual aspect of the U.S. political system is the incredible amount of time and money wasted by candidates trying to get elected into government, appointed as judges, district attorneys and school boards.
The biggest fear, in allowing money to dictate who should win an election, means that you don't always get the best candidate. It is often the richest person. A person who has a larger advertising budget, and gets more TV time than another does not mean that he or she is a better candidate for public office.
Surely it would make more sense to limit the expenditure so that the voting population can see all candidates on an equal footing. The public then can decide who is the best person for the job, not who has spent the most money.
(To be continued)
Mr. Green, author of the recently published “How to Succeed in Business – by Really Trying,” may be contacted at info@howtosucceedinbusiness.com
