Hey mate!

This is a very good question. I don’t think I can do it justice in a small forum and such a general question, but I’ll try to cover highlights.

The original Constitutional US political system was based on the British model, with some adjustments to accommodate a federal system and governance without peerage and royal systems based on heredity.

The British system: A bicameral legislature with a popularly (male) elected single member constituency lower house and a non-popularly elected upper house (populated by bishops and hereditary peers). A hereditary king as head of state whose government was led by a separate head of government who used a cabinet to administer the government.

The new American system: A bicameral legislature with a popularly (male) elected single member constituency lower house and a non-popularly elected upper house (populated by senators chosen by their respective state legislatures). A non-popularly elected president as head of state who is also head of government who used a cabinet to administer the government. This on top of a specifically delineated separation of powers between the national and state governments.

As you can see, other than the federal and hereditary aspects, they are quite similar.

Note that neither the original Senate nor the President were popularly elected. This was to protect the democracy. Just as unregulated capitalism trends to monopoly, unrestricted democracy trends to tyranny. One of James Madison’s biggest fears, and that which he repeatedly warned about, was tyranny of the majority. That is the foundation of the choices made.

However, the first safeguard, the electoral college was quickly, in just a few decades, neutered and cast into its current confusing and useless state. Electors are not, as envisioned, wise men coming together to choose the President, but the frankly ridiculous system that exists today where a majority of voters choose one candidate and the “electors” (something they no longer are) “choose” another. The opposite of democracy.

Then, in 1913 the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified which made the Senate popularly elected. Now both safeguards to democracy were relegated to the dustbin. Ironically, the very next amendment, the 18th Amendment, Prohibition, ushered in a prime example of tyranny of the majority. Unrestricted passion of the masses instituted a national ban on alcohol.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the King’s powers became more restricted over time. While the monarch still holds the power to appoint the prime minister, George III’s choice was much more his own than Elizabeth II’s. The government is still the King’s (or Queen’s) government, but the recurring threat of the phrase “constitutional crisis” has kept the monarch’s reserve powers increasingly on reserve. Since the Civil Wars of the mid-17th Century, and reinforced with the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the House of Commons holds the most power in the British system. The unelected House of Lords, though, plays an important role: To temper the passions of the lower house with thought and deliberation. Something only really possible if re-election is not their guiding force. Unfortunately, with the advent of life peers, which are political appointments, political party influence has entered where it should not be. On top of that, is the weakening of the Lords’ powers and the naive threat to democratise it. A long process that could ultimately equate to the 17th Amendment, where the result is an upper house that loses its purpose like the US Senate, which is no longer the deliberative body that was envisioned as the best safeguard against legislative tyranny.

Both systems have way too much political party control. The US system, though, has gone more to the dark side. Money always plays a part, but in the US money is the root. Campaigns are about money. Lobbying is about money. Legislation is about money. In campaign season, all you see on tv are campaign ads, in between the pharmaceutical ads. In the UK, campaign tv ads are illegal. (As are pharmaceutical ads.)

The President of the US is often referred to as the most powerful office in the world. This is really due to foreign and military power. Domestically, unless Congress passes a budget that 535 representatives and senators all had a hand in, the President can do nothing. I would say on the domestic front, the British Prime Minister has more power. The US budget is a massive cluster rhymes with duck process. The British budget? The Chancellor writes it and says “Here’s the budget.” Parliament debates the budget and passing it isn’t that difficult as the government is the government because they hold the “confidence of the House” (the majority will vote their way).

Write a letter/email to a Congressman? Expect a form letter in response. At most, from a staffer. Write to a Member of Parliament? Expect a quick response from the MP. Why? On average, each Congressman represents three quarters of a million people. Each MP represents about 70 thousand. Less than a tenth the number of people. MPs often hold “surgeries” which are one-on-one meetings with constituents, usually on Fridays. What are the chances of someone easily meeting with their Congressman?

Happy to answer more specific questions in comparing the system, but as you can see there are so many facets, it’s impossible to cover it all here.