Examine the ways in which the roles of the US President and the UK Prime Minister
are different
One of the ways in which the roles of the Us president and the UK Prime minister are
different is the fact that the US president is head of state and the Uk Prime minister is head
of government. The US president's role as head of state is largely different from the UK
prime minister’s role as it means the president is more heavily involved in ceremonial duties
and is seen as a national figure of strength , whereas in the UK ceremonial duties are
reserved for the Monarch ,this can be seen in the Uk in events such as the Trooping of the
colour. Also, the Uk prime minister’s role as head of government means that the prime
minister has more of a say on legislation than the US president
Another way the two roles differ is how they are elected. The US president is directly elected
by the electoral college, while there is no formal national election for the Uk prime minister
this is because the title of prime minister is given to the leader of the largest party in
parliament. The current Uk prime minister, Rishi Sunak was not the prime minister in the last
general election, this shows that the roles are different as the Uk prime minister is more
attached to their party in the sense that regardless of their success in their role ,if their party
loses seats in an election , they will lose their position.This is directly different to the US, as
the US president is elected based on their own popularity e.g Donald Trump.Because of this,
it is commonly perceived that the US president has more of a mandate than the British prime
minister.
Another way the roles are different is due to the US president having a limitation of the
amount of time they can stay in office - two terms maximum contrasting the Uk where there
is no formal limit on how long someone can be prime minister for. This directly affects the
nature of the role as it means that the US president can often be pressured to act quickly
due to the time limit. The example of President Obama issuing a total of 330 clemencies
(commutations and pardons) on his last full day in office, demonstrates this.
The final way these roles are different is that the Us President has the power of presidential
veto, this is directly different to the powers of the Uk prime minister as the Prime minister is
unable to veto legislation if the legislation is backed by parliament.Additionally, this means
that the legislation directly reflects the will of the Us President as the Us president is unlike to
sign of legislation that they will believe to be ‘unjust’ or ‘inappropriate’ this can be seen in
George Bush’s decision to veto a bill in 2006 that would have expanded federal funding for
embryonic stem cell research as this conflicted with his personal beliefs. This shows how the
roles are different as the Us president has the ‘final say’ in legislation and the Uk prime
minister does not - in the Uk it is the monarch with the final say through the use of Royal
assent albeit this power is not used.
Analyse how the US Senate has greater power than the UK House of Lords
One of the ways that the US Senate has greater power than the Uk house of lords in
legislative power. The US senate has greater legislative power than the House of Lords. For
example in Foreign policy, it is compulsory for the Senate to ratify treaties. An instance of the
Senate ratifying treaties is when the Senate ratified the Kigali agreement - a treaty that will
phase out the global use of hydrocarbons.This is directly different to the House of Lords
,which has limited legislative power. The House of Lords can only delay legislation and can
not block it.From a structural point of view,the differences between the US senate and the
Uk and the House of Lords is due to the different nature of their constitutions .The US
constitution is codified and entrenched so it gives ‘enumerated powers’ to the Us senate
which clearly outlines their role while due the Uk’s constitution’s evolutionary nature the
House of Commons has evolved to become the primary house which has as a result limited
the Lord’s power.
Another area the US senate has greater power than the house of lords is representation.
The US senate has been directly elected since the 17th Amendment in 1913.On the other
hand, the Lords are not elected. This means that the US senate holds greater representative
power as the electorate have directly chosen senators to represent them. As a
consequence, the US senate wields more influence. This is due to the rational choice of the
Lords to avoid constantly vetoing legislation out of fear that people may call for the abolition
of the House of Lords.
The US senate also has greater power than the House of Lords when it comes to oversight.
Due to the set of ‘checks and balances’ that the Framers enshrined in the Constitution, the
Senate has a big role in Oversight. For example , confirming the nominations of the supreme
court judges. Oversight hearings can be very influential in bringing down a president.An
example of this is the Vietnam war congressional hearings as they were detrimental to the
perception of the war which led to the downfall of Lyndon B Johnson and compromised his
legislative agenda. This is directly different from the House of Lords as the House of Lords
oversight power is very limited. The Uk constitution is unentrenched which means that slowly
over time the House of Commons has been established as the dominant house. The 1911 &
1949 Parliament acts have significantly limited the power of the House of Lords. This means
that the House of Lords has limited power of Oversight. .
Evaluate the view that the main factors affecting voting behaviour in Congress
are the divisions within and between the political parties.
Voting behaviour in Congress refers to house members and senators voting. While it
could be argued that the main factors affecting voting behaviour in Congress are the
divisions within and between the political parties or pressure from the executive,
largely the main factor is Constituents.
To a far extent, the main factor affecting voting behaviour in Congress is
constituents. As congress members are elected and held accountable by their
constituents, it is the main drive behind their voting behaviour. This means that
members of Congress are willing to vote against their party if it means that they are
representing the views over their constituents. A significant example of this is when
Chris Jacobs,a former house member representing New York voted to join the
Democrats in voting to raise the age limit to 21 for buying semi-automatic weapons
despite being Republican due to the 2022 Buffalo shooting in New York. Also
Congress members will always pressure Congress for funding and projects for their
, district.An example of this is Fred Upton, a house representative of Michigan,
consistently fighting for funding of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in Michigan.
There is some validity in the view that the main factors affecting voting behaviour in
Congress are the divisions within and between the political parties. This could be
argued as many congress members vote ideologically and politically. A recent
example of this is in December 2023 when the Republican-led House of
Representatives formally backed an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.
This vote was entirely on party lines.The idea of Congress members mainly voting
on party lines is particularly evident when it comes to Supreme court
nominations.Examples of this happening is when the vast majority of republicans
voted against the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson and the majority of
Democrats voted against the nomination of Brett Kavanagh. Furthermore, many
Congress members do vote according to the divisions between political parties. The
Blue dog Coalition,a caucus of fiscally conservative democrats had a party united
score of 74.7 from the 104th to the 110th congress demonstrating how divisions
between political parties can have a huge influence on how a congress member
votes.While this argument has some merit it is not entirely valid. Constituents hold
the most power over Congress members, rather than their party. Congress members
may vote on party lines due to their constituents supporting the same party but
Congress members are not afraid to hold a differing opinion to their party if it means
that they are representing the views of their constituents. Additionally, in spite of
Congress becoming more polarised Bipartisanship does still happen.Currently, there
are Bipartisan Senate negotiations on reforming the antiquated U.S asylum laws.
It could also be argued that the main factor affecting voting behaviour in Congress is
pressure from the Executive. Members of the Executive Branch - EXOP, the Cabinet
and President want to work with Congress to ensure positive relations between the
branches. Many Congress members have been instrumental in helping out the
executive. This can be seen in the work of Mitch Mcconnell, the incumbent Senate
Minority leader,who was fundamental in the successes of Trump as he enforced the
party whip to ensure that the nominations of Brett Kavanagh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy
Coney Barett also passed.
While pressure from the executive does have a definite role in voting behaviour, the
argument that is the main reason is limited. This is because when there is a divided
government, the executive is less powerful. In addition to this, pressure from the
executive does not always effectively push all members of Congress to vote a
certain way. Joe Manchin has completely thwarted Joe Biden’s agenda at times
despite the pressure that comes from the White House, because he is concerned
with the wishes of his own state. West Virginia is increasingly republican and
therefore Manchin must be conservative in how he votes or face the prospect of
losing his seat in the Senate.
