The Dutch prime Minister may have a similar reputation as a political leader, he is elected very differently.
After the second chamber elections in the Netherlands, parties that have a majority of seats together form a coalition.The Prime Minister is the leader of the largest coalition party. He and his entire government (currently the Rutte cabinet III) is also dependent on parliamentary support to stay on; If a majority of the second chamber votes them away, they must step up. That is why the largest party is also going to divide the cabinet posts, instead of on their own; They have no majority and will be voted away by the other parties.
The American president is elected independent of the House of Representatives, the Commons and thus the equivalent of the second chamber.Officially, the citizens vote on a kiesollege that the president prefers, but in practice determines the number of electoral men of the states in which a candidate wins who is the final winner. The number of electoral men per state depends on the number of seats in the Congress (full parliament and thus equivalent of the States General). Within d House of Representatives the seats are distributed fairly proportionally to the number of inhabitants, although there is one outlier; Montana and Rhode Island both have as many inhabitants, but Montana has only one and Rhode Island two seats, with which they respectively have the least and most seats per inhabitant. In The Senate, however, each state has 2 seats, independent of the population. Calhornia has more than seventy times as many inhabitants as Wyoming, but both have the regions 2 Senate seats. As a result, residents of States with little population relationship have a bit more to say about the outcome of the presidential elections.
In any case, after a president has won, which is not the number of votes but the number of electoral men (Clinton had more than Trump), this is independently elected from Parliament and therefore does not depend on parliamentary support to Continue.When appointing members of the Cabinet, the Senate must agree, but once this has been done, it has no possibility of turning them off. The entire government is in the service of the President, and it has the power to dismiss his fellow ministers.
Thus, the US president is a much more powerful figure that is less easy to stop than the Dutch Prime minister.So little control over the most powerful person of the country can have catastrophic consequences.
No, the American system is not really comparable to ours (I assume you come from the Netherlands or Belgium).We have an important difference here between political systems (especially in republics), namely the presidential and parliamentary system.
In a presidential system, the president is at the same time head of state and head of government, or the government is appointed by the president at his own discretion.In such a system, the president is the most powerful politician of the country, and is generally elected directly by 芒 鈧?虄the Volk芒 鈧劉. A parliament elected in other elections is opposed to the government composed of the President. Well-known countries with a presidential system are the US, France and Russia.
In a parliamentary system, the government is formed from parliament after the parliamentary elections.The government members come from the largest party in the parliament or a coalition of parties. The president stands outside the government, and his/her role is to a large extent ceremonial, it is more of a honour job than an important political function. The most powerful politician is the government leader, who is not also president at the same time. Countries with such a system are for example Germany, Italy and Isra脙 芦L.
In the Netherlands and Belgium, we have no president, but the situation in a constitutional monarchy (such as the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and the Scandinavian countries) is similar to that in a parliamentary system: the government is formed by the parties in The Parliament, the Prime Minister, is the most powerful politician in the country, and the King (in) has more of a Ceremonial role than an important political influence.
A twethe difference between the American and the Dutch/Belgian system is the districts system with 芒 鈧?虄First Past the Post芒 鈧劉 opposite the system of proportional representation.If there are elections to us, the seats available to the parties are divided in proportion to the number of votes. In the US (and for example in the United Kingdom), elections are actually a combination of a lot of elections for 1 seat each. The country is divided into areas, and in each area elections are held in which one person is elected. This has a number of effects. First, a system like the US will almost automatically lead to exactly 2 political parties -if you start a third party, you probably don’t get enough votes for a seat, but you can have the effect that there are seats from the party where you N bit agree to the party you absolutely disagree with. Secondly, MEPs are more independent-they are elected as a person, and must be re-elected as a person; Moreover, the variety WITHIN a lot is much bigger than with us.
Especially for the presidential elections there is still the Electoral College.The president is formally not elected by the population, but by so-called electoral men. Those electoral men are granted per state, large states more than small, but small States relatively more relative to their population. All the electoral men of a state go to the person who made the most votes, no matter how small the difference was-if in California candidate A 6.5 million gets votes, and candidate B 6,499,000, then A gets all 55 voices (from the 538) of California. As a result, there are only a lot or 15 states (the 芒 鈧?虄Purple States芒 鈧劉) really important. The rest will go by default to either the Democrats or the Republicans, unless the difference is so great that victory cannot escape the other party anyway.