Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 December 10

I'm gathering information on Sallustio Bandini to add to the article. One of the sources I've found describes parts of his early life, and would be very useful except that it has also left me stumped.

…obtaining his degree in Philosophy in August 1700. He was at once invited to take up a lectureship in Canon Law at the University. Unfortunately, as the third son in the family, in a State in which the laws of primogeniture were strictly applied, he was compelled to seek out a career for himself and early in 1701 opted for the priesthood…

— D Thompson, Sallustio Antonio Bandini: Moral philosophy and the agrarian economy in early eighteenth-century Tuscany, 1991, pg. 1

I knew what primogeniture was and I've read more about it now, but it doesn't satisfy the question of why Bandini couldn't accept the lectureship. I thought that perhaps lecturers back then weren't paid, or paid so poorly, that a young man who couldn't rely on receiving an inheritance wouldn't be able to wisely choose such a profession. But all my googling on that hasn't turned up anything concrete. I hope someone here can shed some light on how primogeniture practised back then would have excluded Bandini from a lectureship that was offered to him. While I'm here, does anyone have access to the paper I quoted? My university doesn't have access to it. Thanks! Julia\^talk 00:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding gaining access to the paper you quoted, especially since it is in order to improve a WP article, why don't you try Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Contact Basemetal here 04:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any information on this exact question, and searching in Wikipedia has lead me to two promising articles, Historical inheritance systems and Systems of inheritance among various peoples which promise a lot in the title, and are quite disappointing messes in the text. However, some historical context may help. Primogeniture means that the eldest sons inherit everything, and intellectuals were expected to support themselves, so speculatively, your presupposition holds with what I know of those terms. Primogeniture was not always the system used in Europe, but developed in the 11th and 12th century, replacing prior systems where property was divided evenly among all sons (as had been done in the Frankish lands of France & Germany, and explains why the lands shifted repeatedly, repeated divisions of property dilutes power) or where inheritance was based on the will of the decedent (as is done today, but which also lead to contentious fighting over said will, as happened in both the Norman Conquest and The Anarchy in the UK). IIRC, there were some systems where older children (inheritances/pensions for sons, dowries for daughters) were granted the bulk (but not totality) of inheritance, such that second and sometimes third children would get less, but not nothing. Still, younger children were generally at a disadvantage under primogeniture systems. See, for some examples, John, King of England#Childhood and the Angevin inheritance, which actually documents some of the issues during the time period when inheritance customs were in transition in Europe. While this is some half of a millennium before the time you are looking at, it does at least confirm some of the issues with primogeniture inheritances and younger children. --Jayron32 00:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jayron! I wish I had some sources for "intellectuals were expected to support themselves"; that would certainly make his reasoning for choosing the church more clear! Julia\^talk 01:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find Medieval university#Characteristics useful. It briefly discusses two models for paying faculty: in the one case, (the Bologna model), the faculty were recompensed from the tuition of the students; the Bologna model treated the university as a corporation of students who hired teachers. In the other model (the Paris model), the faculty were recompensed from the church funds, under that model the University was an arm of the Church, and teachers were thus employees of The Church. Depending on the actual amount of money involved, a person may or may not have been able to support themselves solely with remuneration for their teaching work. Many intellectuals prior to the modern age were either independently wealthy (i.e. Robert Boyle, son of an Anglo-Irish Earl, or Antoine Lavoisier, who came into a major inheritance as a young child) or were involved in church life (Roger Bacon, Nicolas Copernicus, etc.) One possible model for the situation in Italy not far from the time frame you note would be Galileo Galilei; he came from a long line of intellectuals (his father was a musical theorist and composer and his grandfather a university lecturer); the article notes the financial problems that came to his younger siblings. As the oldest child, Galileo would have been in charge of the bulk of the family fortune; the article notes that because he had to support younger siblings out of that fortune, is part of the reason why he began pursuing practical inventing to make money. Perhaps Mr. Bandini did not have sympathetic older brothers willing to financially support his intellectual pursuits. --Jayron32 02:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can Susan B. Anthony be called a Women in the Victorian era? Or is that a term strictly for women of Britain or the British Empire?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would usually be depending on the nature and composition of your expected readership, and then the context and style in which you would be introducing and using it. --Askedonty (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not used in normal Historiography of the United States, except for certain things imported directly from England, like Victorian architecture and Victorian fashion. The term used for the concurrent time in the U.S. is usually the Gilded Age. --Jayron32 11:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also more pertinent direct imports from England, such as Victorianism and Victorian morality. Within these spheres, Susan B. Anthony is frequently associated by scholars with Victorian America (less so with America's Gilded Age). Yes, to OP's first question.

(Cf. Google Scholar citations for "Susan B. Anthony" Victorian vs. "Susan B. Anthony" Gilded — an imperfect measure, to be sure, but a start at a referenced answer to a usage question, showing almost a 4 to 1 ratio.) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: However, the Wikipedia article OP linked in first question currently has a more British-centric scope.That could change. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, the article you cite on Victorian America has no inline citations, and almost no references at all. It smells like WP:OR and makes no indication that the term "Victorian America" is widely used historigraphical time period among American Historians. It's a trainwreck of an article, and while one could perhaps provide actual sources to back up what you say, this article is not it. Contrawise, Gilded Age, during which Ms. Anthony did most of her life's work, is. As an aside, please note that this is not an absolute denial that the term is or is not valid. Just that you can't start with that article as a means of verifying it. It's a mess. --Jayron32 20:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See below and its talk page, but I increasingly feel that article should be deleted completely and the content merged into other articles. Blythwood (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "Can Susan B. Anthony be called a Women in the Victorian era?" is an uniquivocal no. She might possibly, however, be called a woman of the Victorian era. The second lesson to be learned is that the term to be used depends as much on the facts of the matter as the context in which it is to be understood. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that US and UK culture diverged for some period starting before the American Revolution and then more recently have started to converge again, mostly due to mass media such as radio, then TV, and movies. Susan B Anthony was active before any of those became a factor, so the differences in the two cultures were more pronounced than they are now. StuRat (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let us forget the undocumented link that Victorian America is trying to establish between Old Money and the development of rail and the streetcars. Even though no-one would be associating Victorian America with the 1837 crowning of the British future Empress the article is indirectly suggesting a link between Old Money and through the fact perhaps that some of the early locomotives were imported from Liverpool, with the idea of a persistent surimpression of money together with fashion, with London as the place of origination. But "Victorian" is, and rather would be, only one component of the gilding in "Gilded Age". If "Gilded" does not sweet sound as an associated term with the sober Susan B. Anthony, she was nonetheless a woman of the George Westinghouse Age before of any other qualification during that later third of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries identified as Victorian. --Askedonty (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re that Victorian America article, it feels pretty poor to me - is 'Victorian America' really a thing? I have started a discussion on its talk page proposing that its content be closed down and the content moved into other articles. Blythwood (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It must be a thing. Just google it, and you'll even find a Wikipedia article on it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Are the economies of the countries in the PIGS liga somehow different from the rest of EU? Is there a less offensive way of referring to them? --Denidi (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denidi (talk • contribs)

Sure, as "Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain". --Jayron32 19:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kind of long. Anyway, do they have a peculiarity that allows us to draw a line between them and all the others?--Denidi (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They all suffered greatly in the European debt-crisis due to them running fiscal deficits, taking much national debt - and, in this disadvantaged situation - having to bail out private banks. See: PIGS (economics) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also BRIC. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, just for completeness, BRICS. Should probably have an A at the end for "Africa", though might soon have one for "Argentina". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the recent news that Donald Trump once visited a fundraiser for Sinn Fein (Guardian article) made me surprised, since I have never thought of Trump as someone with socialist leanings. Of course Trump might have changed his mind regarding socioeconomic matters, but another possibility is that the "act" of supporting Sinn Fein in the United States is exclusively a show of support for Irish republicanism/nationalism - disregarding the economic policies of Sinn Fein. Could anyone point me to an article/book/website which discusses this issue?

--Marxmax~enwiki (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a confusion. Republican has different meanings in different parts of the world. And although they all oppose monarchy, they are not necessarily related in other ideological aspects. And opposing the monarchy is not a relevant issue anymore in the US. --Denidi (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side story, but the above confusion reminded me of it... back in the 1980s, a English friend of mine visited me in New York City... and was shocked to see a sign posted in a bank window encouraging people to "Contribute to your IRA today!". His comment... "I fully expected such sentiments from the Irish pubs on Second Avenue... but not in a bank!" He was relieved when I clarified that the sign referred to "Individual Retirement Accounts". Blueboar (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Side story ii, US citizen in Spain: he wonders how can it be, that someone is both a socialists, communists or anarchists and a Republican. Was told about it as an anecdote. Don't know whether it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denidi (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For all Trumps flaws, I find it very unlikely that he'd contribute to Sinn Féin in 1995 because he mistakely thought their support of Irish republicanism was related to the Republican party in the US. Perhaps there's one former VP candidate who would have done something like that, but that person probably shouldn't be named for BLP reasons. It's not like Trump has been a consistent supporter of US Republican fundraising anyway [1] albeit I haven't seen stuff from 1995. Although this doesn't mean he had socialist leanings and his stated reason was because how little support the Republican party has in New York. Nil Einne (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. That Guardian article shows quite some desperation. Adams was already rehabilitated in the eyes of some (not myself) at that point, and the fact that a splinter group that rejected Adams continued in its use of terror, while Adams did not, says nothing about Trump. Next the Guarniad will be warning us Trump once travelled below the Manson-Nixon line in a Volkswagon. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Guarniad, but The Grauniad. --Denidi (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of an incident that took place at a free concert I attended on November 11, 1987 by Irish rock band U2 in front of the Vaillancourt Fountain in San Francisco. Someone in the crowd had a sign reading "SF (heart) U2". When Bono saw the sign, he reacted in anger. He thought SF meant Sinn Fein, rather than San Francisco. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should update the article, if you find a reliable source for that. Did you tape the concert with your smartphone? --Denidi (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be OR. There is no need for it either, BTW. Read the The_Joshua_Tree_Tour#Filming_for_Rattle_and_Hum_documentary article. Scicurious (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a spacetime paradox. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously mean cell-phones, not smartphones. There were cell-phones since before WW II. I am just not sure they had cameras back then.--Denidi (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reference for that incident is here, but nobody could film it on their phone because: "The first camera phone was sold in 2000 in Japan, a J-Phone model". Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly just the Guardian. The Independent [2] and The Daily Telegraph [3] (later picked up by Canada's National Post [4]) ran a very similar story. As did Irish Independent [5], IrishCentral [6], Belfast Telegraph [7], International Business Times [8]. (Some of these probably came from one of the other sources, as a number of them are linked, I didn't check carefully.) TheJournal.ie [9] actually ran a related story back in August albeit without mentioning much about the IRA's historic or future (from the time of the meeting) activities.

In any case, flaws in the article aside, this seems completely offtopic the OP's question. (Yes others made offtopic comments afterwards, but at least most of them weren't making offtopic political comments when they happen to be people who are continually saying the RD has a major problem because of such soapboxing.)

The OP didn't say anything about terrorism or the IRA, so any rehabilitation is basically irrelevant to the OP's question. The OP's question related primarily to the socioeconomic policies of the Sinn Féin which as the OP said, are fairly different from what Trump seems to espouse nowadays or in the OP's opinion (and frankly I'd agree with them), anything it seems he likely he's espouse for a long while.

If you have some info on Trump's historic views on such matters or info on why Trump would want to be at a fundraiser for a party who's socioeconomic views are quite different from his own (for which there are many, as the OP somewhat acknowledged), it would be helpful to present them as they would be relevent.

BTW, to be clear, as the Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams, Provisional Irish Republican Army, Shankill Road bombing, 1996 Docklands bombing, 1996 Manchester bombing and other articles says, the link between Sinn Féin including Adams and the PIRA, and their general campaign of bombings, murders etc during the The Troubles remains a hot-button issue. Sinn Féin remains a controversial party in the UK and Ireland to this day, probably part of the reason why the Conservative Party was taunting Labour over suggestions they would work with them [10].

Not really sure why you mention a splinter group anyway. The attacks the Guardian and most other sources mentioned were carried out by the PIRA, the same organisation with the controversial links to Sinn Féin. It's possible some of the stuff mentions were carried out by spliter groups like the Real Irish Republican Army and Continuity IRA since I didn't look carefully at each one. OTOH it doesn't look like any mentioned the Omagh bombing, probably the most significant splinter groups attack, so it doesn't seem the point of any of the sources including the Guardian (whatever people actually think of that point) was particularly related to actions of splinter groups.

In other words, you seem to have missed the point of these sources namely that the PIRA did call off their ceasefire and carry out a few more bombings like those mentioned in said sources, after Trump attended the Sinn Féin fundraiser with Adams (again, whatever people may think of that). Heck, the reason why the PIRA called off their ceasefire was because Sinn Féin was removed from the talks unless the PIRA disarmed, and they promptly reinstated it once the demand they disarm before Sinn Féin was re-admitted was dropped so it seems there was a clear link on the PIRA side at least. So you've not only gone offtopic from the question, you've gone offtopic from the sources you're criticising.

Funnily enough, if you read carefully, some of these sources like The Daily Telegraph, also mentioned how the Sinn Féin's An Phoblacht strongly criticised any linkage between them and Trump [11]. This headline I think from the print version of Irish Independent is particularly blantant on it [12]. So seemingly there's at least one party involved who doesn't like the association. (Although probably not so much because of their social-economic policy differences.) Although they're hardly the only ones distancing themselves and/or regretting any historic association with Trump (as some of the sources also say) [13].

Nil Einne (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here and here, the US major parties started the whole primetime national TV debates thing 13 and 15 months before election day. This cycle, the major candidates do at least nine such debates before election day. The current president competed against Hillary for 17 months, and against the other party for 5 months after that (Ref). It also says that 5 months is unusually short and there's usually at least 7 months of party vs. party campaigning. How do parliamentary systems do it where they only campaign for a few weeks or months at most?

Really that's an even more important choice as you're voting for pretty much the entire government in one PM, unlike the President who doesn't have much power if the legislature wants to block instead of compromise (it's not frequent that two chambers and Prez are the same party). I guess it's not as much of a problem where everyone could just vote for one of the numerous parties and hope they negotiate good but the UK and Canada often has only two choices that can win if I'm not mistaken. So in those countries centrists might have a difficult choice between two polarized parties instead of an easier one among one to three similar choices where if they have trouble deciding they wouldn't be too peeved even if any of them won every seat.

What other differences do parliamentary campaigns have to US or presidential system ones? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see what parliamentary systems have to do with it. I don't think there's any country with such a long campaigning period as the US. And some countries using parliamentary systems and multiple parties have taken over a year to form a government, although that only happens after the elections. Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the campaigning to the public part is done by then. US legislatures negotiate for ludicrously long also. We spent half the time between lower chamber elections negotiating the one bill that started universal healthcare (2009-2010). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but a country can't have successfully chosen their leader, when they have no leader (only a caretaker) and won't have for 600 days or whatever it was in Belgium. (Although this can happen at any time, and not just after an election.) Arguably of course, politicians are campaiging all the time, and the popularity of someone amongst the people may definitely be a factor in who gets to lead (along with a lot of other things). Of course a prime minister is at heart the most senior minister. Depending on the precise system, the PM may have a number of executive powers and will often be the head of government but you can't get away from the fact a PM leadership role is generally at the behest of parliament (at least in full parliamentary systems). Nil Einne (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but at least the democratic part is done already and there is the theoretical possibility of an outright majority. And what about the time when the US didn't know who freaking won for 6 weeks or so? Then finally the Supreme Court was like "Dude. It's almost the constitutionally statutorily mandated day to officializize the results, we can't humanly hand-count the decisive unclear ballots in time!" and George W. Bush "won". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. Whatever supports of direct democracy may claim, there's nothing inherently undemocractic about parliament choosing/accepting a prime minister who can receive a support of the majority of parliament, or rejecting one who has lost that support. So no, the democractic part isn't over. It's never over, that's the whole point of a working democracy, be it in the US or somewhere else, you don't have elections and then the democractic part just ends. It's continuous. The general populance voting is an important part of any democracy, but by no means is it the only part.

And 6 weeks isn't exactly a long time to determine who won. In some countries even the normal results may take a week or more to determine. And if there is a recount, 6 weeks is an easy possibility, except that in most countries, it matters more that there's a fair recount than to meet some arbitary deadline. (One thing is that even in many federations, federal elections tend to be more at the federal level than state level, but this isn't necessarily and intrinsic part of parliamentary system nor is the US system an intrinsic part of a presidential system.) Normally, government formation will go one in the background while this happens and may even finish before then, but not necessarily or sometimes it will depend significantly on the outcome of the recount (or whatever) process.

No idea what the theoretical possibility of an outright majority has to do with anything. Since you're making a big deal about campaigning periods in the US. Well it's theoretically possible that someone could declare their candacy for US president 2 months before the election or whatever the deadline is ballot access. Meet the requirements to get on the ballot overnight and then win the presidental vote when it comes. I'm not even sure whether you need to be on the ballot, or enough states allow a write-in candidate that you can declare your candacy 2 days before the US presidential election and win. Heck because even laws again faithless electors generally only allow after the fact punishment, theoretically you could declare your candacy several weeks after the US presidential election and then be elected by the electors and become the president in a few weeks time. Even in a less extreme case, if you have 2 candidates but neither of them have enough votes/electors for an outright majority, let alone if you have 3 or more significant ones, it's always possible in the US that they could agree on someone else to be the consensus candidate who wasn't really in contention, to avoid problems.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the possibility of electing the PM without any need for a coalition because someone said you don't elect your leader. In Britain and Canada that outcome's not even unlikely. I just want to understand why we take so long and others seem so comfortable with often having snap elections and what effects choice of campaign length has. I know that's campaign length not a major difference between systems but I've read the articles on the systems and they give the bigger differences/pros/cons but they don't mention this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And true, coming from a tripartite presidential system the Westminster with its coalition building and merging of MP choice & HOG choice and Cabinet/administrative/judicial/NOBLES & lawmakers does seem somewhat less democratic but what I meant is that the seat distribution's already set after election day (even if counting takes awhile) and the whole 600 day coalition building process is just like after the final dice throw in Jumanji. They already affected what they could and after that it doesn't matter one lick what they do. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is pretty close to a two-party system, but the New Democratic Party does relatively well, next to the third-place American party, and the Bloc Québécois blows away the competition in one of Canada's two subnations (the United States forgoes those). If the government ends up too badly divided to work, they can make a motion of no confidence and get a new one. America has those, too, but they're only symbolic gestures. I've always figured once you know a party's general platform, even a few weeks of bickering rehash seems pointlessly long. The US devotes far more media coverage to its elections and top two parties than anywhere else on Earth, which makes the others seem pointlessly short. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the UK perspective, the obvious differences to me are that one's voting for a candidate rather than a party, so it's not unusual for someone locally popular to be elected even if their party is doing badly in the area; and the multiple parties (I don't know where you've got "only two choices that can win" from, but this is what the UK electoral map currently looks like) and consequently the "who would form a coalition if no party gains a majority" issue (much of the Labour Party's dismal showing in this year's UK election can be ascribed to concerns that they might be too chummy with the Scottish National Party in the event of a hung parliament). I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that divided government is unique to the US; the House of Commons and the House of Lords have wildly differing make-ups at present, and the Lords has spent much of the last year vetoing pretty much every bill put in front of it. "Choosing their leader" is unique to presidential systems; people here are voting for an MP, not a Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister is whoever the leader of the party which manages to form a government, or of the largest party in a coalition if no party has enough MPs to govern on its own. ‑ Iridescent 22:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there elections where only Conservatives or Labour can realistically be PM (even if the Liberal Democrats could split the vote enough to affect the outcome and even those three don't win every seat)? And in the past I think only the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives had a chance? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1923 was a three-way split (Conservative, Labour, Liberal) - all three party leaders were once or future Prime Ministers. 1922 would have been another three-way split if the Liberal party hadn't been divided between Asquith and Lloyd George. Tevildo (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody considered a Scottish National Party Prime Minister possible did they? Scotland doesn't have much population. Sagittarian Milky Way (Talk) 23:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An SNP prime minister would be vanishingly unlikely, but with 50-odd seats they can certainly hold the government to ransom. Any one of Tories/Labour/Lib Dem/UKIP would have at least an outside chance of forming a government; FPTP voting makes the Tories and Labour more successful in terms of seats than their vote share suggests, but it wouldn't take that much of a swing under normal circumstances. (The Lib Dem vote share was unusually low at the last election, as Nick Clegg was so widely despised, but it's certainly not impossible they eclipse Labour, particularly if the Labour party splits between Corbyn and Blair followers.) A UKIP government is fairly unlikely since no other party would work with them meaning they'd need to win an outside majority, but one can put together hypothetical potential coalitions of pretty much any combination of the other eight parties; if you look through any UK newspaper's back issues from early May you can see pundits pontificating on who would work with whom. ‑ Iridescent 23:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an explanation for Clegg's fall from popularity? I don't understand it myself. With the Tories promoting a surveillance state and Labour retreating into dreary old-time socialism, Clegg strikes me as awfully attractive by comparison. Did he do something personally questionable, or do the two unappetizing alternatives I mentioned really cover the voters' mood? --Trovatore (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labour were anything but "dreary old-time socialism" during the election campaign, no matter how much the mainstream media would have you believe otherwise. It was clear during the election that the 3 main parties were 3 cheeks of the same arse wearing different coloured ties: you couldn't slide a cigarette paper between them. As for Clegg's disappearance into oblivion, that's simply explained by the voters of 2010 who wanted change and voted LibDem, and got the Tories instead, being convinced that if you voted LibDem you got Tory and so deciding to just cut out the middle man. They felt Clegg had betrayed them and sold them straight into the hands of the Tories so there was no point in voting for the LibDems. Since the election, with the rise of Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum, there is now a definite alternative to neo-liberalism for the first time in 20 years. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What if you support neo-liberalism, but you don't support encryption backdoors and Extremism Disruption Orders? Do you have an alternative now? I thought that was the alternative Clegg represented. --Trovatore (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're probably too much into personal opinion territory here, but I don't think many UK voters would consider that Clegg represented Neoliberalism. If anything, the liberals represent (and have done for at least the past sixty years) traditional social democracy - indeed, their upsurge in the 90's was mainly due to their merger with the Social Democratic Party. There's no major UK political party that supports both economic liberalism (low tax, low government spending, low government intervention in the economy) and personal liberty (freedom from surveillance, limited censorship, religious tolerance, open justice). A UK voter who was concerned about personal freedom would probably vote Labour or Green and hope the economy survived. Tevildo (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tevildo, there's precious little evidence for that. Indeed it seems almost the contrary. The Liberals seriously declined in the 1990s. At the 1992 election, the first after the merger with the SDP, their vote fell from 23% to 18%. They gained seats at the 1997 election, but their vote share fell even further, arguably a poor result in an election where everyone was switching from the tories. The vote only started to recover in 2001, spurred by progressive voters feeling that Labour hadn't done the business and by students hacked off with tuition fees. Seats with high percentages of students, such as Manchester Withington and Leeds North West, swung heavily to them at this point and disaffection with Blair's involvement in Iraq produced further swings in inner city constituencies in places such as Bristol, while they gained seats in areas with significant percentages of Islamic voters in places such as Bradford and Leicester. After 2010, some reversion of these voters to Labour would have been expected due to tactical unwind, Labour no longer being the government party to protest against and the tuition fee and Iraq War issues fading into history. But most commentators would blame their decline on voters not backing them in order to get a Conservative government. The Irish Green Party suffered a very similar fate at the 2011 Irish election being wiped out after they'd entered a coalition with the main centre-right party. Valenciano (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but I thought Clegg was from the Orange Book tendency, and that meant more economic liberalism (in the general sense you mention, not the American center-left sense). --Trovatore (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From our article The Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism - "It is usually seen as the most economically liberal publication that the Liberal Democrats have produced in recent times" (emphasis added). Economically liberal by the standards of social democracy, true, but still some way from full-blown Friedmanism. That being said, and going back to Tammy's point above, all three parties had little to choose between them on economic policy grounds. The Liberal Democrats' adoption of (or, at least, acquiescence in) the Tories' economic policy didn't help their results in the last election; their lack of ability to restrain the Tories (particularly on tuition fees) into more social-democratic behaviour was one of the reasons for their failure. Tevildo (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Maybe I was seduced into too high an opinion of The Orange Book by believing its critics.... :-/ --Trovatore (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagittarian Milky Way and Tevildo: An great example of the "third party can hold the government to ransom" was the case of "Son" Mitchell in St Vincent. In 1972 Parliament split 6-6-1, with him being the one. He joined up with one of the two parties under the condition that he would be made Prime Minister, and went on to be one of the leading figures in St Vincent politics. Guettarda (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I'll never think the losing PMs aren't powerful again. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're still often choosing your MP with the hope that his/her party gets the premiership don't you? So you're kind of choosing the leader, just more indirectly than even we do. And a legislator keeping his seat only because his popularity outweighs the unpopularity of his party occurs in the US, too. I knew that parliaments have divided governments too but it's easier here: we have 3 groups that have to agree to make a law instead of 2, only 1/3rd of one group was last elected closer than 2 years from the President, and half the time 0% of the other group was last elected the same year as him. (It actually is possible for the President to not be able to stop a law but it's so hard to get over 2/3rds yay in each chamber on something the President actually wants to say nay to that they can't override the nay 96% of the time.) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in the UK (although I'm not convinced even there for e.g. many SNP, Sinn Féin, Democratic Unionist Party, Ulster Unionist Party etc supporters). But in many countries with parliamentary systems, particularly those with proportional systems, you know the party you're supporting is never going to have the Prime Minister, and you're satisfied with that as you just want the party to use their influence to achieve whatever you think they should. To be clear, I'm not talking about situations where you know your party is too weak at the time (e.g. in dominant party countries), but you may hope they'll one day be strong enough. But countries where there may be multiple small and special interest parties where realisticly you don't have any expectations that your party will ever be that popular, and you're perfectly fine with that.

Of course in countries with proportional systems you may or may not directly vote for your MP. And even where you do, your vote for your MP may actually have little effect on how many seats the party gets (I mean because of the way the system works, not because proportionally your vote is a tiny percentage) as it's allocated differently. So your vote for your MP may or may not be truly about personality of the person rather than the party or even perhaps the personal views on many areas. (Which can happen even under FPTP of course.)

A distinction should also be made between supporting a party and supporting a leader. A voter in a country with a parliamentary system would hopefully understand that (in most cases) the leader at the party is not only behold to parliament, but beholden to their party as well (well these are generally highly related). If they lose the support of their party, even if their party has a majority (actually perhaps particularly if their party has a majority), they probably aren't going to last very long and may be changed perhaps without a general election coming anytime sooner than normal.

There is of course the controversy about how much control the party should have, under proportional systems it's often more due to the fact people are often voting for the party rather than a particular person (but it does depend on the system). As well as the controversy in some countries about whether the system is too "presidential" and about the popularity etc of the leader, rather than about the party and other people in it (including MPs particularly in FPTP countries) which it's argued it should be. But again, this will depend on the precise country and how their system has developed, and the opinion of the people as to how things should work.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see what parliamentary systems have to do with it. These do fundamentally affect how things happen, but they only have a minor relation to time. I don't think there's any country with such a long campaigning period as the US whatever their system. And some countries using parliamentary systems with many small parties have taken over a year to form a government e.g. 2007–11 Belgian political crisis, although that only happens after the elections. Of course, the nature of parliamentary systems as opposed to a directly elected president means there tends to be less interest in parties chosing their leaders and it also tends to happen quite a while before the election. (Perhaps not long after if the party lost.) Although even those countries with primaries don't get anything like the general populance's interest in the party choosing their leader as in the US. Direct elections (or even semi-direct like in the US) does also mean there may be a second election, if the countries wants a more proportional system but prefers head to head contests so has a run-off where needed instead of using STV. Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the leadership of both parties usually run in fairly safe constituencies... ie constituencies that are highly likely to support their party. Thus the leadership tends to get re-elected to parliament (even if the party does not gain a majority). Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, when I mentioned the leadership of a party changing after an election, I was thinking mostly about the fact it's often when the leader will either resign or be challenged. (This can of course happen at any time, but doing it too close to an election is often considered risky.) If the leader does lose their seat, this will often mean they lose the leadership of the party, but not necessarily. (They probably can't lead it in parliament at least.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent Ref Desk thread; How long does a British general election campaign really last? it was established that the minimum time for a snap election has recently been increased from five to seven weeks. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tangential to this discussion is the criticism of the Westminster system known as Elective dictatorship, which notes that one of the weaknesses of that system is that the Government (the body chosen to enact the laws as voted on by Parliament) is itself (in practice) appointed by that very Parliament. The government sets the legislative agenda, which is essentially always passed by Parliament, since the party in charge of Parliament also put the Government in place. The difference between the U.S. system and the Westminster/Parliamentary system is that they are built on completely different paradigms, and the rationales for running the system one way do not necessarily hold up well under the other paradigm. That is, we're assessing each system based on what the other system holds as important, and doing so doesn't always lead to valid conclusions, i.e. it may lead us to erroneously believe that one system or the other "shouldn't work", when in practice both work fairly well. In the Westminster system, the electorate only directly votes for one person, their MP. Everything else is handled by Parliament and by the parties. Why a person may vote for their MP (because they support his party, because they like him personally, because they don't like the leader of the other parties, etc.) is of secondary concern here. The actual vote is just for the MP. All other matters of forming and organizing a government are out of the hands of the electorate. The actual forming and organizing the administrative structure of said government is at the whim of Parliament (subject to the formalism of the "advice and consent" bit that pretends the Monarchy has an actual role beyond ceremonial). For practical reasons, during an election, people generally know who the likely Prime Minister is going to be, because everyone knows who each party would put forward as the PM to the Monarch/GG to formally appoint. But, there's nothing stopping Parliament from replacing a PM between elections, and it happens quite frequently. For recent examples, see Gordon Brown who in 2007 became PM of the UK when Tony Blair resigned, and Malcolm Turnbull, who became PM of Australia only a few months ago when he challenged the former PM for the party leadership position. Neither PM became PM as the result of a general election. Whether or not the populace agrees with these changes is something which will not come up for a test until the following General Election, and whether or not they vote for their MP candidates based on that is a complex issue, but the "people" have no direct role in the selection of the PM. This differs from the U.S. where the people do directly select their President (subject to the formalism of the "electoral college", etc.) --Jayron32 13:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor correction there. In the Westminster system, party leaders are chosen and replaced by the party by whatever method it likes, whether the party is in power or not; and the prime minister is whoever is the leader of the currently governing party. (Formally, the prime minister tenders his resignation to the monarch or governor-general, who designates a new prime minister who just happens to be the new leader of the party.) So it was the Conservative Party that decided Margaret Thatcher needed to resign and picked John Major to replace her; and when Pierre Trudeau decided to resign, it was the Liberal Party that picked John Turner to replace him. Parliament is not involved in the process until the new prime minister is chosen, when it will give a vote of confidence. And that's only if it's in session — Turner chose to skip that step and go straight to a general election, which the Liberals proceeded to lose badly. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comment on only voting for one person, the MP under the Westminister system is worded correctly. For starters, it ignores countries using the Westminister system with bicarmel legislature where both are elected in some way. It also ignores countries with some proportional system where you vote for someone other than an MP, such as NZ's use of MMP. I would suggest even a country which completely abandons voting for a specific MP and instead where you only vote for a party would still be said to be using the Westminister system, if the other fundamentals remain the same. Israel for example is generally said to largely use the Westminister system currently (our article mentions it), but they also currently only vote for parties in a closed list. (It's complicated of course, the period where they directly elected the PM was a fairly major change from what you would expect under a Westminister system.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But it is still up to the whim of the majority party in Parliament to decide who the leader of the nation will be. People have no direct vote on that, and the selection of a leader, which may often coincide with a general election, has no legal connection to the general election. --Jayron32 13:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with that, one of the points I tried to make to the OP, although I'm not sure if they understood. Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, you vote for party not person even if you think you're doing it for Harper or Chretien or Blair or Cameron or whoever. They could vote for a 12-tooth trapeze artist after they won 51% for all you could do (they won't). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't part of the answer to the original question that the two major parties in the U.S. get so much corporate funding that they simply can afford almost two years of campaigning, which is not the case in most other countries? Also, in some countries, there is a legal limit for how early before the election you can start your election campaign. In Poland, for example, the campaign may only start when the date of the election is officially announced. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of the problems: 1) Election Day (United States) is already announced, in perpetuity, as it happens according to a regular schedule. 2) Restrictions on campaigning frequently run afoul of the U.S.'s Freedom of speech standards. Some of the problems were curbed by Campaign finance reform in the United States, but many campaign finance laws are often overturned by the courts for reasons related to freedom of speech. There's really not a meaningful way, under U.S. constitutional law, that the Federal Government could forbid a person from declaring themselves to be running for a particular office, or to speak about why they would be best for that office. --Jayron32 18:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even in Westminster systems, there's the official campaign period, and then there's the much longer unofficial campaign period, which can start as soon as the day after the previous election depending on how active/aggressive the Opposition is. Polling is conducted all the way through, and commentators are constantly reporting stuff like how "If the election was held this weekend, Party X would lose government and Joe Bloogs would be the Prime Minister". Since the election isn't actually going to be held on most "this weekend"s, it ought to be utterly irrelevant what would have happened in this Counterfactual Land. But it's not irrelevant, because there's an unofficial but very real campaign going on, and all parties want to know how they're going in the eyes of the voters so that they can correct their approach if necessary. When the polls are bad for a party, they always say the polls don't matter, and the only one that matters is the election. And they think or pretend we believe them. Then, in other circumstances, they patronise us by saying "The public are not fools, they can see through <whatever>". News flash: The public doesn't have an on-off switch. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar in the US. The main difference is that due to the larger number of possible candidates (there's still 14 Republican candidates now) we don't care about the "if the election were held today" thing as much when it's light years in advance — we don't have a good guess of what the matchup will be until about 0.5 to 1 years before and the specific matchup often would change the outcome (even if it's just a slight percentage difference). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that in the US, everyone knows decades, even centuries, in advance exactly when elections are going to be held. We don't have that luxury (or millstone, whichever way you see it), except for certain legislatures that have opted for fixed terms and cemented-in-stone election dates. Australia's next federal election could be held as late as 14 January 2017, but nobody believes it will be any later than October 2016. It could be in August, or July, or really, any time from about February onwards. Prime ministers factor in their party's polling when deciding when to call the election. US Presidents have no say when their elections will be held. The best they can do is lift their game if the polls are bad. So, "what would have happened if the election had been held this weekend" takes on a certain stark reality that is missing when there's no possibility it could ever have been this weekend, such as in the US. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you don't have fixed terms like the British? That reason seems even more explanatory then, very well. There is polling 4 years in advance in the US and I've heard on the news that the President is always thinking about the next election (if not the ones that can remove him from power then the ones halfway in between that can do that to his party). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way, we only switched to fixed terms four years ago, and that's only a maximum. Elections can still be held early if the current government loses the confidence of the House. Rojomoke (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't seem to be a huge change in practice, is that correct? Because it seems that before the legislation, the limit was the same (five years), except that was the expiry date on the Parliament rather than the date on which an election must be held. So presumably the effective requirement was that elections be held after five years plus however long you could go without a Parliament; I don't know whether there was a fixed limit to the latter or not. --Trovatore (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I read a bit more. So it looks like the biggest change is that a PM can no longer call an election ad lib, though there would still be one if he lost a confidence vote. Is there any restriction on just asking his MPs to vote no-confidence? Or is it assumed that this would hurt his party in the election so he wouldn't do it? --Trovatore (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically correct - an election can be called either as a result of the government losing a confidence motion (by a simple majority), or them winning a motion to call an election by a supermajority of 66%. The important point is that the House now needs to vote for an election, it's no longer the personal decision of the Prime Minister. Theoretically, the Queen could have made the decision unilaterally, but the last time that happened did not have positive consequences. Tevildo (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point is how this bill affects minority governments or other governments that somehow lose a supply bill or whatever. Our article suggests with this source [14] that it's possible the PM and government will hang around and wait for parliament to either pass the necessary motion, or I guess try to fix things something. This could potentially lead to the sort of deadlock you see in the US or to some extent that lead up to the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. Of course the Queen could still intervene, and AFAIK it's always been only a constitutional convention in the UK. So theoretically at least, it was always possible a government would hang around even with all that.

On the flip side, this law outlines a process to follow so would seem to reduce the possibility for conflict when a government knows they're going to lose a motion of no confidence (or actually does) and that someone else is able and planning to form a new government, but instead of giving them the opportunity tries to seek dissolution of parliament. That sort of situation tends to lead to controversy whether the monarch or their representative accepts the advice and dissolves parliament or rejects it and gives the other people the opportunity to form the government.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the fact that there is campaigning before the official campaign period is often acknowledged in finance laws. E.g. the UK regulates spending for up to a year before election day for both political parties [15] and third parties [16]. NZ tried something similar with the Electoral Finance Act 2007 but that was controversial. However even before and after the law, there were still restrictions for 90 days which is normally longer than the official campaign period. Australian campaign finance laws are fairly lax and there is quite a lot of spending outside the official campaign period e.g. [17]. This source suggests one possible reason why the official campaign period has tended to be short in Canada (close to the minimum) is because the limits applied for the campaign period, but didn't vary if the period was longer [18]. (Although the other factor was probably that the Prime Minister often sees it is an advantage to keep official campaign periods short, particularly if they're going to call an early election since it puts the other parties on more of a back foot.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are comparing with the US, one important factor in the US is that each state is allowed to set their own primary election date, which has resulted in some setting it earlier and earlier, in an attempt to have more influence over the election. Thus there's a wide spread from the first primary to the last. This is one reason why US election cycles are so slow. StuRat (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some American states seem to take pride in remaining perennial swing states. Never too early for a candidate to pretend to care about them. Australian, British and Canadian leaders always lose Ohio. They used to lose Maine. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If I may be so bold, I think the OP is asking the wrong question ("How do parliamentary countries manage to choose their leader so quickly?"). It really ought to be "Why does the USA choose its leader so slowly?". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC
  • Okay, "Why does the USA seem to ruminate on the matter for ages (1.5 to 2 years)?" "What effects does our election fetish have compared to Canada, the UK etc?" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]