lol GW Swicord i have to say i find american politics baffling. ok we have a monarch and elected politicians but it seems in america who ever has the most cash and friends in business can become president. it does make me smile when the us president is described as the most powerful man in the world, surely thats not possible if america is a democracy. as for calafornia, have heard its beautiful but avoided going coz it sits on a great big fault   lol

I have a fancy MA in gov't with a specialty in US national and I still find many things baffling. Democratic stuff is very messy to start with, and because we are a democratic republic (limited democracy, checks and balances), it is even weirder. Folks used to the comparatively logical public bureaucracies of places like France and Britain can get serious headspins when they learn that our national bureaucracy is more or less founded on the idea of institutionalized turf wars. Got a regulatory question about a food product? That's for the Food and Drug Administration (part of HHS), unless it's meat, in which case you have to go to the Department of Agriculture.

That is indeed pretty much how it works. It's also how y'all get parliamentary majorities, unless I've been wildly misinformed.

I scoff that one mostly because our presidents last 10 years at most and real power is a long-term thing, also probably a matter of high discretion (being known for power is a risk to that power).

I don't see how monarchies are any better-protected from "unsavory elements" than democratic systems. Most of what I know of British monarchs comes from film and the BBC, which means that the wackos are overrepresented because their stories are more fun, but still, there's no shortage of folks whose time on the throne did far more harm to the nation than good for it. I suspect you're just fretting about our biggest modern problem with mass democracy, which is how to provide political equality for everyone without unduly penalizing folks on 'the good side' of our growing economic inequality. It's really the heart of the democratic problem at the moment, and the UK seems a bit ahead of us across the pond by virtue of short campaign seasons. But they're losing ground because they seem to be adopting our personality-driven campaigns instead of staying focused on party-centered campaigns.

If I remember rightly, the classical Athenians used a lottery to select people for administrative duty (citizens had to volunteer to be in the lottery). Back in the '70s, some clever comic book writer took that notion and ran with it as a way to get Matter-Eater Lad off the active duty roster of the Legion of Superheroes--he was drafted to serve in his homeworld's parliament. I've long wondered if a desire to hold public office should be an automatic disqualification.

I'm hoping that your current parliament will take steps to firmly stave off that trend in campaigning by establishing PR or a ranked-choice voting system. But your PMs have always been more powerful (internally) than our presidents, regardless of party, because they dominate both the legislature and the cabinet (hung parliaments excepted). Disraeli helped establish the modern Conservatives and he was hardly a humble public servant.

65.1% who could vote did so.