We have seen how in the UK there is a new Prime Minister and House of Commons the day after a (snap) general election, not two months like it is in the US, from Election day in November to Inauguration day in January. It may have been necessary in the US back in 1789 when travel was by horse, but this was true for the English parliament back then also. But the British (and other European countries) have adapted to modernity and get a new government quite quickly, but in the US we get two months of lame duck government.
In: Other
It’s much easier to change British law to adjust the times than it is to amend our constitution to adjust the times.
Because of tradition and rules. Remember though, the prime minister in the UK and other parliamentary system usually are already serving a role in that level of government. This is almost never the case for the presidency in the US save for winning a second term, or a VP winning president.
The government structure is entirely different as well, sure the executive can drive their party’s position, but they do not create law, this is done by congress.
The US doesn’t have “governments” as do parliamentary systems. Changing the faces rapidly would not effect any meaningful change to the way the government operates.
Occasionally races such as legislative positions can result in no candidate winning a majority of the vote. If this happens, a runoff election can become necessary, and given the time it takes to coordinate a runoff, those runoffs will usually be held around the first week of December, just about a month before the winners would take office.
Given how close runoff races sometimes get, the amount of time spent counting votes and waiting for all valid ballots to arrive can delay certification of a runoff by a week or more.
The deadline by which all US states have to hold their elections for Congress and the President is set by federal law as the Tuesday after the first Monday of November of the year prior to the start of the next term. It’s been that way since the mid 19th century. For a while the terms for President and Congress would begin in March, creating a 6-month lame duck window. It wasn’t until the passing of the 20th amendment that the dates for beginning the terms of Congress and the President were moved up to January 3rd and 20th, respectively. The idea is that two months is sufficient to count votes, hold any necessary recounts, resolve legal disputes, etc. Is it a bit outdated? Sure. But it’s not a big enough deal for there to be any momentum behind changing these laws.
I don’t understand how the new guy in the UK can just move into 10 Downing the next day. How does the loser get his stuff and family out that fast?
Because the constitution literally says when that happens. It lays out the timeline.
It’s the 20th amendment.
If you think that’s crazy, it used to be in March.
because the rules and timeline are laid out in the constitution, and it would require a constitutional amendment to change them, which is basically impossible currently. Also, the system “works” for the people in charge, so why would they change it?
It’s all based on old US law and the constitution. The constitution says how often elections must be held, but didn’t specify when. So Congress passed an act specifically stating when elections would be held, the Tuesday following the first Monday of November.
Then, because the first ever federal Congress established by the constitution met on March 4, 1789, it was tradition to have all new terms start on March 4th the year following the election. So for most of US history, it was much worse than it is now. In 1933, the 20th Amendment was ratified which states that for Congress, the term starts January 3rd and for the President and Vice President, their term starts January 20th.
So the answer to the question of why, because that is what US law and the US Constitution say to do.
It is part of the American Constitution, which by its very design is difficult to change.
The Brits, conversely, don’t have a single written body of laws dictating how their government runs, instead using a number of different documents, agreements, precedents and traditions. Meaning they can change things much easier
It was to give time to complete and confirm the results. Then give everyone time to put things in order and transition over the government.
The UK is much smaller and had a government more likely to turn over all the time. Also, consider that the land mass of the UK is 243,610 square kilometers with London central and easily reachable. The continental US is 8,080,470 square kilometers with Washington DC at the very East.
Leadership roles within the House and Senate can change more quickly, but they are decided from within
Latest Answers