what is the difference between the U.S. and British political system and in what way are they similar?
112678
Both are based on a bilateral system of government,Britain has the crown as the head of state,its powers restricted by \nconventions,you have the president whose powers are wider,therefore he can be more dangerous(vide Bush).
998856
Britain has been an ally of ours since the first World War.\nAnd they're as fierce as ever to support the same matters we stand for.\nGod Save the Queen and God Bless the USA!
1167357
Similar governments have similar effects, and similar control by the public.  Both Canada and the US have an elected representative form of government, just like England.  The people elect those politicians that most closely represent their point of view.  We then trust those politicians to vote, as we would want them to.  It doesn't always happen in that way though.\n\nOne difference between our government and the Parliamentary form of government is how the leadership is determined and who is government’s leader (the President or the Prime Minister).  A Prime Minister is elected from the ruling party, but a coalition (some sort of agreement) has to be made with the other parties.  If a majority of the Parliament no long wants the Prime Minister to rule (like after and election and a change in ruling parties) then a new vote can be called for and the Prime Minister can be replaced.\n\nIn the United States the only way the President can be changed is when there is an election (once every four years) or when the President performs an illegal act and is convicted in an impeachment trial.\n\nIf the United States had a Parliamentary form of government then the two houses would elect the President and he (or she) would only be in power as long as his party held the majority of power in both houses.  When President Reagan was in his second term the Democrats held power in both Houses of Congress.  This caused some difficulty between the Executive Branch and the Legal Branch.  If the US used a Parliamentary system then President Reagan would have been forced out of power and a new, and Democratic President (who would have to come from one of the Houses of Congress) would have been elected.\n\nOur founding fathers decided that it was more important to have a strong and independent President so they made his election directly responsible to the people, and gave him strength to resist a strong Congress.  Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.  Ronald Reagan was one of our best presidents, especially in his second term when he made the Democratic controlled Congress tow the line and submit a balanced budget.  He couldn’t have done this in a Parliamentary form of government, because the Democrats would have removed him.
453558
www.britainusa.com\nwill give you all the info - see the Contact Us tab
108031
None of the answers so far have been right.  England is a nation, like scotland, wales, and north ireland.  Each of these belongs to the state of the United Kingdom.  Great Britain refers not to the state itself, but the large island which includes england, scotland, and wales, but not north ireland, which is on the irish island.  The commonwealth is a group of countries which the british monarchy used to control in colonial times, including australia, new zealand, india, canada, etc.
89710
The most radical departure was the presidency, instead of a monarchy.  The British had the Magna Carta, and actually a pretty good judicial system (which we adopted to a great extent), and they had parliament which was not that different from congress.  But a monarchy that is inherited is vastly different from a presidency which is voted upon every four years.
938339
Both terms apply to political structures, i.e. nations. Though Britain can be applied to the islands that comprise the area "British Isles"\nGreat Britain is Scotland, England and Wales\n\nUnited Kingdom is correctly defined as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"  It does include small nearby islands, excluding the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Legally It does include international protectorates (Belize) as the sovereign state but not commonwealth countries
446334
Well, that's a pretty open question lol\n\nThe United Kingdom comprises of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The population is around 58 million, and the capital is London.\n\nThe inhabitants are more likely to identify as coming from their constituent countries, and England is the dominant country in the union. Despite this, England is the only member not to have it's own democratic process, and all English law is made by the Houses of Parliament along with law for the whole union.\n\nIt is a constitutional monarchy, currently led by Queen Elizabeth II. However, the real power rests with the democratically elected parliament with the Queen acting as a figurehead. Theoretically, all new acts of parliament still have to be approved by the queen before passing into law however, and it is the Queen who requests the leader of the political party to form "her government".\n\nOther major cities include Cardiff (capital of Wales), Edinburgh (capital of Scotland) and Belfast (capital of Northern Ireland). Within England the major cities include Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield and Liverpool.\n\nI could go on forever... I hope there are enough facts there though lol
952491
Are you doing the UK political system at school George 'cause if so you are not paying attention. \n\nGB does not have a President, it is a hereditary consitutional monarchy fused with a parliamnetary represenative democracy.
821938
The electoral system over here is subtly different to the US but not so bad that you'd lose sleep. The big difference is that we don't elect our PM, we elect a government (think - party) and the leader of the majority is normally "requested" by Her Majesty to form a government, but this is not written down in our constitution, as we don't have a written constitution. I've had HUGE rants at the current leader of the opposition, but I must admire him for this statement:\n"The constitution of the United Kingdom is whatever The Queen says it is".\nLegally, that is 100% correct.\nOur current government (ruling party, blair's thugs) were elected based on 21% (or so, don't flame me over a percentage point) of the valid electorate. A lot of people simply don't bother to vote because they're all crooks anyway, aren't they?\nBut listen to the talk in the trains and the bars etc. When they build the scaffold to hang Saddam, make space for Tony - and George - they're ALL war criminals.
494003
The empire and the kingdom are forms of statal organization. First of all, in these days Great Britain is NOT an empire (it was in the past, it also had an colonial empire, etc.). UK comes form UNITED KINGDOM. Great Britain is more like USA = United States of America. USA is not an empire either, it is a federal state. Great Britain's form of government is the monarchy, form of statal organization is the kingdom.\n\nExamples of ancient empires: The Roman Empire, The Greek Empire (of Alexander the Great), The Persian Empire, etc.\n\nMedieval-Modern empires: Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire.\n\nthe EMPEROR rules over an EMPIRE (= many states ruled by one person (it is not the case for USA; it is a federal state))\nthe KING rules over a KINGDOM: only one state, how's form of government is the monarchy.\n\nHope you understood. If not, ask me further.\n\nGood Luck!
579499
US President Roosevelt considered the UK to be a bastion against facism, and the US to be 'the aresenl of democracy'. Firstly, the UK was allowed to purchase arms and supplies like a cash and carry and later the "Lend Lease" scheme was introduced allowing the UK to get supplies at no cost at point of collection. Eventually the UK traded some ports and based (like Ascension Island) in return for 50 US Navy Destoyers.\n\nAfter that the US Navy was involved in escorting convoys accross the Atlantic, and then on 10th December 1941, Hitler declared war on the US.
905349
You cannot compare the party systems in our two countries. They are not defined the same way.
894586
The United Kingdom does not have a President.  It is a parliamentary democracy.  The head of government is Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the head of state is Queen Elizabeth II.
787404
democratic government has to have checks and balances, every other country wants a reproduction of american democracy system but their system will not necessarily reflect the values and principles - for instance american government was instituted by the people for the people, british government was instituted for the land owning gentry and does not afford as much power to the common man. an elected second assembly (or houses of parliament) would not have the same effect in our country as it does in america, you would have to appoint people from the streets possible randomly in some cases to have the same effect in britain as in america\n\nthe amendments to the american constitution since the 1970s have eroded the power of the people slightly, there needs to be a lot of work done to redress the balance - europe also has a lot of work to do on this count
287946
It depends.  Parliamentary Systems, such as the UK can be very unstable if you look at the party systems.  British parties rise and fall dramatically based on the way they split the parlimentary districts.  Also, the Prime Minister in a parliamentary system isn't 'elected'.  He/she is simply the leader of the majority party.  However in a representative democracy such as the USA an elaborate system of checks and balances has been set up in order to limit the control of anyone branch of government.  So it depends on what you want.  presidential/congressional governments prevent the rise of a single strong branch, but on the other hand parliamentary systems are much more efficient and can pass legislation much faster.
173232
Here's a FAQ on the UK primary system aimed at American citizens:  http://www.britishcouncil.org/usa-education-uk-system-k-12-education.htm