the u.k is very different now, but the u.s is the true continuation of england

the u.s has simply been further democraticsed and rationalised and systematised

but the u.k is just an incoherent mess of politics with no functioning true executive

to paraquote starkey:

The us politics is a big bowl of soup now. A lot of country's are

if you look at the senate it is merely an elective house of lords. to begin with you were indirectly elected, remember the constitution amendment providing for direct election to the senate is only on the eve of the first world war, but if you look at the senators each rejoices in a quasi-noble status of two per two

per state

the kind of duke of minnesota and earl of oregon. they have effectively life tenures. they have, like the british peerage, access to loot and pillage and reward their followers, sometimes they get found out and there are processes, going directly up to the president itself of impeachment, which is taken straight out of the medieval constitution

the process that clinton narrowly escaped of trial before the senate with the lower house acting as prosecutors

British parliament composition wasn't based on population. Like some of their districts only had like 100 people in them.

And many areas had no representation at all

what are the house of represenatives? they are simply the commons of england. their presiding officer is called the speaker just like in u.k parliament

even the administrative officer is the sergeant at arms. why is the u.s lower house run by the sergeant at arms? because the sergeant at arms is the administrative official of the house of cmmons in england since the reign of henry viii

GG @WP, you just advanced to level 4!

we're not looking at how systems are furhter democraticsed but the structure ofthe system

of course originally when u.s was founded it was only white male property owners who could vote

the founders of the u.s were not concerned with democracy, they were concerned with liberty

that's why washington d.c is so beautifully laid out so that you can easily machinegun rampaging mobs from strongpoints

to continue:

the president is a monarch. i used to say, until reagan was elected, the president was simply geroge iii without a wig, but then reagan came along and the joke fell almost flat as his hair was bouffant

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