Comparative flashcards- UK vs US politics

Question 1

UK Lords vs UK senate differences:

Answer 1

US senate= elected- have been directly voted by the electorate since 1913 by a statewide popular vote, UK HoL= unelected, peers are appointed on either a political or nonpolitical basis- are appointed by the monarch on advice from the PM- House of Lords Commission was established in 2000

Membership: US senate is composed of 100 senators, 2 for each state- number of members in the House of Lords is not fixed

Function- senate have a representative function (to represent the states that elected them), the HoL as unelected officials do not represent the interests of a particular constituency

Question 2

UK Lords vs UK senate similarities:

Answer 2

Money bills- UK- lords money bills cannot originate in the Lords and under the reforms of the Parliament Acts, they can only delay them by up to a month, USA- money bills cannot be introduced in the senate and they cannot be amended

Within the bicameral legislature- both are the ‘upper chamber’

Both serve as representative chambers (albeit in different manners)

Question 3

Roles and powers of the PM and President similarities:

Answer 3

Both head of government in their respective nation (heads of the executive branch)

The royal prerogative is exercised by the UK PM and the US president is commander-in-chief- in relation to the armed forces in the UK technically the monarch is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces but the royal prerogative however the deployment of armed troops is currently a prerogative power so technically they have the power to deploy troops

The UK PM and the US president are both indirectly elected by their respective electorates (in the US don’t cast ballots for those directly in office but cast votes instead for the members of the electoral college, 538 total electoral college votes), within the UK, the parties choose the leader (so the only people directly electing the PM are those whom are members of their constituency)

Question 4

Roles and powers of the President:

Answer 4

Elected as president
Chief executive and head of state
Legislation: initiating and veto powers but is not party leader in Congress where his party may not be in control.
Appoints cabinet but subject to Senate confirmation.
Negotiates Treaties but subject to Senate confirmation
Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, but only Congress can declare war
Writes the budget but Congress has the ‘power of the purse’.
Has a vice president
Has (large) Executive Office of the President
Has a variety of means to pursue policy unilaterally:-E.g executive orders, signing statements, etc.
Limited to two full terms in office

Question 5

Roles and powers of the PM:

Answer 5

Elected as party leader
Head of government only. The Monarch is Head of State
Draws up government’s legislative programme with cabinet
Appoints cabinet (no confirmation)
Can use royal prerogative to declare war and deploy troops abroad but recently more subject to parliamentary approval
May appoint deputy prime minister
Has (small) Number 10 staff and Cabinet Office
More likely to pursue policy collectively, through either cabinet or cabinet committees
No term limits

Question 6

Differences in the roles of powers of the US President and UK PM:

Answer 6

UK= head of gov only US= head of gov and the head of state (has all the formal constitutional powers e.g appointing ambassadors, deploying troop, SIGNING LEGISLATION INTO LAW (KEY DIFFERENCE)
UK- independently appoints cabinet , US can appoint cabinet but this is subject to senate approval
Veto power of the President

Question 7

Differences in the checks and balances on the UK Parliament and UK Congress:

Answer 7

US Constitutional checks and balances are enshrined in the constitution, UK are not

Party Whips - UK ‘sticks and carrots’, US only ‘carrots’, standing committee promotion etc

Whilst both are ultra vires, the UK has less of a binding impact

More frequent elections in the House of Representatives yet none for the House of Lords

US has the presidential veto (executive check), UK doesn’t as the PM is in Parliament

Question 8

Similarities in the checks and balances on the UK Parliament and UK Congress:

Question 9

checks and balances on the UK and US judiciaries:

Answer 9

UK - appoints supreme court nominees.
supreme court must be independent and neutral so as to prevent politicising the court room.
Supreme court is unable to make legislative changes and can only declare an act unconstitutional and undemocratic rather than make any change or reform.

US 1. legislature can refuse judicial appointments
authority to impeach judges
can create lower courts
can propose constitutional amendments to override supreme court decisions.
2. president appoints judges to fill vacancies and can order pardons.

Question 10

checks and balances on the UK gov and US executive:

Answer 10

UK - parliament has various scrutiny procedures on the prime minister that prevent extensive prime ministerial powers - power of the purse, PMQs, human rights act, select committees, votes of no confidence

US - impeachment, power of the purse, electoral college, 22nd amendment (2 term limit) national security council.

Question 11

Select Committees UK vs US

Answer 11

In the USA, pre-legislative scrutiny is far stronger. Following a bill’s first reading in Congress, it is then allocated to a committee. Unlike the UK, the committee stage comes before the second reading. Another difference is that in the UK, the leader of the House of the Commons decides the allocation of parliamentary time for bills. In the USA that task falls to the House speaker or Senate majority leader, who also decides which committee receives the bill. This is because of the US’s more formal separation of powers, which means that the president’s party won’t always have control of Congress

The fundamental differences between the UK and US post-legislative scrutiny committees are permanence and partisanship

Unlike in the UK, US select committees are formed on a temporary basis, but they have a similar role: usually to conduct investigations into the impact of policies, events or matters of public interest. Both the House and Senate can form these committees, and there are examples of party delegations using them to embarrass the opposition party or their presidential candidate.

First, UK PBCs are temporary, government-dominated and a weak aspect of scrutiny, while Congressional standing committees are permanent, powerful and not always dominated by the president’s party.
Second, UK PBCs do not control whether a bill is debated, unlike the US standing committees, which can kill bills before the debate.

Question 12

methods used by US interest groups and UK pressure groups differ:

Answer 12

Financing, more money in the US (soft money vs hard), methods based off bankrolling, whereas UK 2014 Lobbying Act, caps donations at £20,000 limit, trade union bill 2015-16
More access points in the US, more links with executive
Legal - bringing forward cases, more prevalent in the US, most landmark cases brought forward by interest groups (Roe v Wade 1973, Obergefell v. Hodges 2015)
US are more likely to form specific support groups for the outcome of elections, PACs

Question 13

Methods used by US interest groups and UK pressure groups are similar:

Answer 13

Grassroots activity: Pressure groups in the USA and UK use grassroots activities or direct appeals to public opinion as an important method of influence. In the UK, this often means organising publicity, and advertising petitions and events or demonstrations.

Lobbying: UK- MPs e.g Stonewall lobbying MPs on behalf of the protection of rights for those in the LGBTQ+ community US= congress people e.g banking industry successful lobbying leading to their consultation and involvement in the drafting of the Dodd-Frank Act
RATIONAL THEORY: MPs and congress people want to get re-elected, will listen and act in their best interests

High profile stunts designed to raise media attention- e.g UK fathers4justice 2004 dumping purple paint of Blair

Use of social media - e.g UK 38 degrees- over 2.5 mill on social media- 2010 save our forests campaign, US- lots of active social media presence during the BLM campaigns

Question 14

Different natures of the US and UK constitutions:

Answer 14

Entrenchment US vs unentrenched UK- formal amendment process, US requires ⅔ vote for an amendment to be proposed and then ¾ of state legislatures to ratify it e.g Equal Rights amendment didn’t pass in 1972 because 15/50 states didn’t ratify (missed out on ratification by 2 states), thus the UK is more flexible

Codified in US (contained in 1 document) vs uncodified in UK (lots of different sources, main 5= 1) statute law 2) common law 3) conventions 4) authoritative works 5) treaties)

US= federal (10th amendment expresses the principle of federalism) power sharing vs UK= Unitary (arguably quasi-federal due to devolution) because supreme authority lies with a central government, power= centralised
Amendments are less frequent in the US

Question 15

Similar natures of the US and UK constitutions:

Answer 15

Both constitutions have the shared concept of rights for their citizens, meaning they have protected rights- UK= protected rights in the 1998 HRA, US= Bill of Rights 1791

Both have an ability to amend the constitution - US= must receive approval from 2/3 of both congressional chambers and 3/4 of state legislatures, UK= statue legislation from the legislature

Both written down in official documents- US= 1 document penned in 1788, UK not one document but all laws are written down etc

Question 16

the features of the US and UK Supreme Courts designed to ensure independence from political influence

Answer 16

Payment- uk the salaries of the judges are determined by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB), an independent body that advises the gov on the pay of senior public officials, in the US the federal judiciary is paid via a separate pay system than Executive branch employees, plus federal justices CANNOT have their salary reduced (so this limits the potential of punishment by salary reduction)
Term length, the security of it ensures their independence- security, allows judges to do what is right under the law US= life term, UK- serve until the mandatory retirement age of 70 or 75 (for those appointed before 1995)
Appointment- us= frees them from having to run in elections and taking a partisan stand on issues- UK appointed by the PM on advice of recommendations from an independent selection commission
Both countries= separation of powers between the Supreme Court and the legislature and the executive- explicitly defined in the US constitution (first 3 articles implicate the separation of powers) and is enshrined in legislation in the UK with the constitutional reform act 2005 (removed Lord Chancellor which had created a fusion of powers between all 3 branches)- allows both Supreme Courts to operate without interference by other branches

Question 17

how the US senate has greater power than the UK House of Lords

Answer 17

The senate is constitutionally equal to the House of Representatives, whereas the House of Lords has more limited powers than the House of Commons- this means that the Senate cannot be overruled by the House of Representatives, whereas the House of Commons can use the Parliament Acts (1911 & 1949) to pass legislation the House of Lords rejects- structural theory: the us constitution grants exclusive powers to the Senate, which the UK constitution does not grant to the House of Lords, cultural theory: Senate perceived by the US public to be the more prestigious house in the US whereas in the UK the Lords is perceived to be in need of reform

Individual senators have an electoral mandate to call on which strengthens their role within the US political process, whereas the house of lords are appointed and so have no specific mandate meaning they are less likely to be negotiated with by the government

Exclusive powers in senate to approve presidential appointments- no similar powers in the UK House of Lords, gives the Senate significant power within the US political system over a presidential power e.g Republican Senate refusing to hold hearings for Obama’s nomination Garland

Question 18

how the powers of the US congress and UK parliament are limited in different ways

Answer 18

Separation of powers in the US vs fusion of powers in the UK- separation of powers can lead to gridlock in the US and can lead to executive dominance in the UK
US executive has explicit checks on the legislative branches through the presidential veto, no equivalent in the UK as the final stage of the legislative process is Royal Assent (which is a mere formality) so not an effective limitation on the powers of parliament
Limited by the party system- however it is by divided government in the US and parliamentary majority in the UK

Question 19

Examine the ways in which the roles of the US President and UK PM are different

Answer 19

Separation of powers in the US means that the president is not the direct head of government, whereas the UK has a fusion of power- UK pm has more direct influence over the legislature and legislative agenda as they sit in parliament

Head of state Powers e.g the president has the power to pardon, no equivalent power for the UK PM, this power is reserved to the monarch e.g the pardoning of Alan Turing in 2013
US president has more influence over the judiciary- appointments of SC justices and federal judges, whilst the power to appoint lies with the PM based of recommendations
from an independent judicial appointments commissions

Question 20

Analyse how united the main political parties are in the UK and the US

Answer 20

UK parties tend to vote together on most issues because of stronger party discipline - comparison of party whip system- ‘carrot and whips’ in UK only ‘carrots’ in US- lack of an incentive, three line whip in UK= threat
Party factions- US parties tend to unite more often around core ideological goals, deep ideological divisions in UK parties over issues which divide UK society e.g brexit (May experienced 60 ministerial resignations with 42 citing brexit) rational theory- factions appear and disappear due to changes in society
Parties in both parliament and congress have organised leadership to organise business and too facilitate support for their respective legislative agendas (e.g HoR, majority leader, minority leader, deputy leader etc), (HoC, shadow ministers etc)

Question 21

Examine how interest groups in the US are more effective at protecting civil rights than pressure groups in the UK

Answer 21

US interest groups have more access points than UK pressure groups due to the federalist system of government- allows US interest groups more opportunities to raise civil rights issues and potentially have an impact on policy as they can have an impact on national level with Congress and state level due to the fact the US constitution reserved powers in numerous areas of policy to the state, in UK westminster parliament= main focus of UK lobbyist, only access point
US able to use more direct lobbying and funding to help influence the political agenda, whereas restrictions are stricter in the UK- rise of PACs and Super-PACs in US has increasingly allowed interest groups to indirectly campaign in favour of candidates/parties, whereas campaign in the UK is more strictly controlled by the Electoral Commission
Lack of party discipline in US- easier to lobby individual congress people and it have greater potential political influence (as they are less likely to vote in line with their party), party whipping system in UK makes this harder

Question 22

Examine how devolution in the UK differs from federalism in the US

Answer 22

Federalism is entrenched within the US constitution, devolution is not entrenched within the UK constitution (simply passed by statute law)- so in theory devolution can be revoked or expanded due to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, whereas power balance between federal and state has fluctuated with actions of gov and sc decisions
Devolved bodies have a fusion of power whereas federalism enshrines separation of powers in the state governments
Legal sovereignty remains in central gov in UK, legal sovereignty shared equally between the federal government and the states
Federalism is equal between the states (all 50 states are afforded the same powers) whereas devolution is asymmetrical in the UK (no english devolution, limited Northern Ireland compared to Wales and Scotland- scotland has ‘devo-max’ powers)

Question 23

Analyse the different legislative powers of the UK parliament and US congress

Answer 23

Legislative powers are shared equally between both chambers in the US but the House of Lords in the UK is considered to be a revising chamber rather than playing an equivalent legislative role to the House of Commons- power of Lords is more limited when it comes to proposing, amending or blocking legislation (lords can only delay by up to a year) however both chambers in congress must agree on proposals and amendments before they are passed, and neither house can overrule the other
US congress has more control over financial legislation than the UK parliament (bills raising revenue always start in HoR, but senate can amend and pass such bills whereas house of lords cannot introduce money bills or delay them for more than a year)
Issue of gridlock (both houses must agree on the format of the bill difficult under divided gov) hampering US legislation passing due to separation of powers- not particularly an issue in UK structural theory: US constitution is codified with specific and explicit powers for both House unlike the UK