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
Because the timeline was layed out when your methods of transmitting information were a guy on horseback or a ship. So if we think about Maine or Florida they’d have to collate the votes from their state, count them, then send the results to Washington. The Gao allows time for this to happen. Its an antique designed to solve something that now is not an issue, just like the electoral college.
The executive branch of the US government is probably the largest and most complex organization on the planet. The scale of responsibility is immense – the outgoing administration is required by law to spend significant effort transitioning knowledge/expertise to the incoming administration during those months. The nation can’t afford to have the executive branch go through a 6 month lull while they are learning the ropes, so a transition time helps reduce that.
Also, the president gets to nominate thousands of political appointees across the executive branch to fill leadership positions. It takes time to find and vet that many people.
It helps that the UK Govt is almost all permanent civil service. The PM appoints maybe 80 (a guess) ministers to oversee ministries. With a few exceptions (such as the Home Secretary) the running of the country can just roll on regardless.
By contrast I get the impression the US President has to identify and appoint about 5000+ of his people including ambassadors (the UK find it really weird that lots of US ambassadors are political donors who were selling cars in Omaha the week before).
It takes time to build a staff, possibly relocate, handle the transition process on both ends. I’m not sure it could be sped up that much reasonably.
The US Constitution spells out the logistics of the elections, including the date on which it happens and the date on which power transfers.
It also includes the whole electoral college nonsense, wherein actual people are used as a proxy in the general election for the actual presidential election later, which back in the day would’ve required a time delay for those people to travel.
But because it’s in the constitution, it requires a lot to change, and that just isn’t happening in the current political climate.
Because the modern US politicians tend to think of the US constitution as a Dea immutable document instead of a living breathing document where everything can be changes through democratic action. First by passing in the House and Senate, then by being ratified by the states. Considering the shitty state of elections in some US states, the time is needed for recounts.
It’s also important to note the UK is about 1/5th the population of the US in an area about the same as Oregon, and doesn’t have states. Voting laws apply nationwide, and don’t have a patchwork of different rules. This recent UK election was also a snap election. It occurred because the Prime Minister decided to call for an election whereas the only has regular scheduled elections. The Snap Election in the UK can be a great help or detriment to the PM. If it’s called during a high point, they could gain seats, or like last night, it can result in a landslide removing the ruling party.
Latest Answers