British parliament was basically just an advanced version of the feudal system where vassals could vote

the u.s president also has a court, as all monarchs have their courts; america is ruled by a cabinet chosen purely by the president, and the key officers do not sit in the cabinet but are genuine courtiers, rogues of the night

right, and overtime it changed and evolved, but no

many people could vote, it changed back and forth overtime, but it was more a matter of property owners

you voted for your local knight to go to parliament or if you lived in a town voted for your burgess

not too dissimilar to parliaments in other european countires, at least on a surface level quite similar but really world's apart in the fundamentals which is why u.s.a and u.k and anglo world so different in politics to european countries

which we see with u.k leaivng e.u today that european politics is a roman model and roman law while anglo world is english law, which is sort of inverted

in the 19th century we get mass suffrage coming along both in u.k and u.s and other countries, and the whole thing is a sham

Like 95% of people in britain couldn't vote. It was just a popularity contest amongst noble families

it's just politicians realising that you can bribe people with their own money

you mean when? 800 years ago in the beginnings? yea and it changed overtime

back then most of hte population weren't even freemen but were slaves and serfs

similarly in the u.s.a slaves could not vote

women could not vote

non-whites could not vote

people who didn't own property couldn't vote

through the high middle ages far more people are represented as serfdom collapses and by late 1300s/early 1400s you have most population become freemen

doesn't mean they could vote

but there are arguments today against universal suffrage and that the people would be better represented if less people could vote

another interesting thing is that there was a far higher level of rerpesentation the further back we go

like if we go back to high middle ages a few thousand people to even a few hundred people had a represenative

The main difference between the u.s. in britain was that like 70% of people in the u.s. owned land while like 5% owned land in britain

we look at today and we are alienated from political power where it is even millions of people to one represenative who just toes party line

so if this stuff you're going on about is as if somehow people have less political power today then you've got to be kidding

70% of the u.s. was basically the equivalent to a noble

even slaves could talk to their knight and influence them

what power does you average person in the u.k or u.s today have over their local mp or congressman or women?

And none of these american nobles had representation in british parliament

so they rebeled

when are you talking about? you keep doing this weird thing of talking about britain and u.s withotu any context of time

no the common people in america rebelled as they had no represenation

they wanted and deserved their own parliament

yes and most of the common people were landowners

70% of people in u.s owned land when?

5% of people in britain owned land when?

around the revolution

it was definitely within that general range

the u.k system was messy and corrupt already by the early 1700s as there were so many seats with virtually no population

there was a term for that i forget of basically seats on populationless areas

The british army's recruitment model relied on conscription of peasants. Peasants had no land of their own and no meaningful wealth so they pretty much did what they were told. They tried conscripting these american "noble" landowners and it pissed them off. Eventually they stopped, but they basically treated american nobles like peasants even afterwards.

when? historically england was very powerful militarily because its commoenrs were allowed to own and train weapons, and the peasants got very rich from it