Heritage
Remember the context of America's birth. There was widespread opposition to the heavy-handedness of British government and hostility to the concept of a class society. Americans were suspicious of power that was too easily concentrated and wielded in the hands of a few.
They rejected the British theory for a need to "balance" the democracy of the common people with the "wisdom" of the aristocracy and the monarchy. Canada's political system was developed with this British mindset in the wake of the Civil War, which most British parliamentarians agreed was the result of "rabble rule". In short, too much democracy made people think that they had "rights" to break up the country. From the British view, this was the fatal flaw in the "Great Experiment" of America.
Consequently, our political structure in 1867 had the House of Commons as our parliamentary body. Members were elected through representation by population. The executive function of the government was concentrated within parliament -- the Prime Minister and cabinet, who were chosen directly from the political party with the most seats.
The Senate was an appointed body and was to offer a "sober second look at legislation". Clearly, the Senate was designed as a place for a Canadian aristocracy, which had to be developed. As such, once appointed senators were immune to public accountability. Once legislation passed the Senate, it was signed into law by the head of state, the Governor-General (the Crown's representative).
The Canadian system mirrors the British model and thereby concentrates power in the hands of the government, and indeed in the most populous provinces, as higher population means more power. The government with a majority can pass whatever it pleases during its term regardless of opposition maneuvering. The rules of parliament support this, as the consequence of losing a vote is the fall of the government. So once a decision has been made, everyone in government must support it or risk losing everything.
The Canadian system reflects the balance of the body politic -- democracy in the House of Commons, the aristocracy in the Senate, and the monarchy in the Governor-General.
How a bill becomes a law in Canada...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoR14KLq_kg&feature=related
US Government - A System of Checks and Balances
The United States government retains the same basic structure as the British model. There are two parliamentary bodies that create and pass legislation (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and a head of state that signs legislation into law (the President). However, this is where the similarities end. Americans rejected appointed positions almost entirely, save from the federal cabinet.
The House of Representatives is elected every two years and is chosen through representation by population, like our House of Commons. However, executive function of the Prime Minister does not exist in the House of Representatives. Instead, the position of President holds these executive powers. This clearly dilutes the power that would otherwise be concentrated in the House and as such is a check on the power of Congress.
Unlike the Governor-General, the President serves as more than just head of state. In the position of President, Americans combined many of the functions of Prime Minister with the functions of the Governor-General. As well, the President is Commander in Chief -- the senior military officer of the country. Although even with this power, the Constitution does not give the President the authority to declare war. He must have the support of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) to declare war. This is a check on the power of the President.
The President also has the power to pick anyone to sit in his cabinet and he has the power to make appointments to various positions including the Supreme Court. However, once again Congress has a check on this power because they have the constitutional responsibility to review and approve presidential appointments.
The Senate has a special place in the legislative process. It is designed to provide a more unifying view that is somewhat removed from the political opinion of the moment. While congressmen (members of the House of Representatives) have two year terms, senators have six year terms. As such, they are expected to be more motivated to take positions with a view of what is best for the country rather than a congressman, whose political survival is tied to his responsiveness to the local public who elects him and will pass judgement on him very soon again. The compliment of the Senate is also different from the House. The Senate is filled by equal representation by state. Therefore, North Dakota with a small population will have the same amount of power as California, which is considerably larger. With 100 senators today, the framers wisely set up a solution to a potential tie -- the Vice President casts the deciding vote.
Bills can and do start in either legislative chamber of Congress, but ultimately have to be agreed upon in both chambers before going to the President's desk to be signed into law. Here again, the President has the ability to check the power of Congress, as he can withhold signature and veto any legislation. Congress may only override a Presidential veto if in fact it can produce a two thirds majority in both houses with respect to the bill in question. If this is achieved, the President is obligated to sign the bill into law - another example of congressional ability to check the power of the President.
How a Bill Becomes a Law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TI8xqLl_-w
The key to making this system work is bipartisanship and compromise. Americans expect their government to get along and get things done. When the atmosphere in Washington D.C. is poisonous, it is easy to see how the work of government can be ground to a halt. The present public dissatisfaction with both the President and with Congress has been their inability to get along and solve the problems confronting the country. In future elections, Americans will have to decide who is likely to not only have the right prescription for what ails the economy, but perhaps more importantly who can build the consensus required to move forward.
Elections
As previously stated, the Constitution requires elections be held every two years for the entire House of Representatives. These members are elected within congressional districts much like our ridings for individual MP's. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives.
Senators are up for election every six years, but only one third of the Senate is up for election at one time. With two senators per state, there are 100 senators in total. In the event of a tie vote, the Vice President casts the deciding vote. Senators are elected statewide.
The Presidency has a unique process for election. While every person of voting age is eligible to vote for President, not every vote counts the same. That is to say, the President is not elected by popular vote; the President is elected through the Electoral College.
Each state has a number of electoral college votes equal to its congressional representation in both houses. Actual "electors" are chosen by the states to formally vote for President and Vice-President. In fact, they vote based on the popular vote held on election day in their respective states. Except in the cases of Maine and Nebraska, it is a "winner take all" proposition. In other words, the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state wins all the electoral college votes for that state.
The system was initiated at a time when a cross country campaign was not really very practical and as such the electors chosen were those who would know something of the candidates up for election. In recent elections, there have been serious criticisms of the system and calls to repeal it. Most seriously in 1968, Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey 301-191 in the electoral college, but Nixon only won the popular vote by a little more than 500,000 votes. Although there was a move to make a constitutional amendment that was supported by Nixon as well, it died in committee in Congress and was never raised again legislatively.
In 2000, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore 271-266. However, Bush lost the popular vote narrowly. Bush received 50,456,002 votes while Gore finished with 50,999,897. While there was some criticism of the system, it did not rise to the level of action during Nixon's era.
Ultimately, the system has stood the test of time because it provides a balance between large and small states. Without the electoral college, presidential candidates would likely ignore certain states and indeed entire sections of the country because they would be inconsequential to their election. The electoral college makes the interests of small states a matter of some importance and ensures that their concerns will not be left out of the national discussion. This approach is in line with the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville's that America must put safeguards in place that work against the "tyranny of the majority".
http://fivethirtyeight.com
http://www.270towin.com
America as a Republic
There's a couple of things America got right… See the video below. At various points, I will post items found in popular culture that help to illustrate core American values and the roots of American Exceptionalism. This one seems to be a good fit based on the blog title "Crash Course in the American Republic" -- How can one not think of cars and freedom with a title like that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqWxgCZ1TQE
Republicanism in America means more than just being democratic -- it avows that the people have unalienable rights. This is non-negotiable, constitutionally. Theoretically, in a pure democracy, if majority rules, then the majority can vote to take away the rights of a minority.
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the potential "tyranny of the majority," where dominant or more conventional opinions might discourage people from considering other opinions.
I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. ... In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion: within these barriers, an author may write what he pleases; but woe to him if he goes beyond them. ... Before publishing his opinions, he imagined that he held them in common with others; but no sooner has he declared them, than he is loudly censured by his opponents, whilst those who think like him, without having the courage to speak out, abandon him in silence. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.
Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instruments which tyranny formerly employed; but the civilization of our age has perfected despotism itself, though it seemed to have nothing to learn. Monarchs had, so to speak, materialized oppression: the democratic republics of the present day have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind, as the will which it is intended to coerce. [When] the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul ... the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it, and rose proudly superior. Such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The master no longer says, “You shall think as I do, or you shall die”; but he says, “You are free to think differently from me, and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow-citizens, if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you, if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow-creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence worse than death.”
Exerpt from Democracy In America by Alexis de Tocqueville
(ed. Richard D. Heffner; New York: The New American Library, Inc., pp.117-118)de Tocqueville strongly argued for the need to protect unpopular minorities from inevitable efforts to use democractic means to legislate against them.
Although the root word of "Republicanism" is "republic", but the former is different from the latter. Webster's dictionary defines a "republic" as, " a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president... while "republicanism" refers to an ideology.
