Difference between revisions of "Talk:Parliament"
From Conservapedia
(Correct English?) |
(→US House of Reps) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
First past the post elections are ... | First past the post elections are ... | ||
| − | Maybe, it only sounds strange to me, since I am not a native speaker of English. | + | Maybe, it only sounds strange to me, since I am not a native speaker of English. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 10:29, 23 May 2007 (EDT) |
| + | |||
| + | *It's OK, but I can see why a non-native speaker would find it confusing. I'll hyphenate it, hopefully that'll be clearer?[[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 16:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == US House of Reps == | ||
| + | Why is the American [[House of Representatives]] used as an example of a '''parliament'''? There is a very distinct difference between the congressional and parliamentary systems of governance. Surely it can only confuse the reader. [[User:Mrjimbob|Mrjimbob]] 17:52, 27 June 2007 (EDT) [edit] Importantly in a parliament the executive is constitutionally answerable to the parliament (Secretaries/Ministers of State in the UK House of Commons for example), and separation of powers is non-existent, unlike the strict separation in place in the US. [[User:Mrjimbob|Mrjimbob]] 17:57, 27 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :The article was referring to the Australian House of Reps [http://www.aph.gov.au/house/index.htm]. Thought it was clear before but have made doubly sure now. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 18:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Ah - see what you mean lower down. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 18:04, 30 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::: I should have made myself more clear! That's much better now. [[User:Mrjimbob|Mrjimbob]] 14:47, 1 July 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:47, July 1, 2007
Is this actually correct English?
First past the post elections are ...
Maybe, it only sounds strange to me, since I am not a native speaker of English. --schifra 10:29, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- It's OK, but I can see why a non-native speaker would find it confusing. I'll hyphenate it, hopefully that'll be clearer?Ferret 16:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
US House of Reps
Why is the American House of Representatives used as an example of a parliament? There is a very distinct difference between the congressional and parliamentary systems of governance. Surely it can only confuse the reader. Mrjimbob 17:52, 27 June 2007 (EDT) [edit] Importantly in a parliament the executive is constitutionally answerable to the parliament (Secretaries/Ministers of State in the UK House of Commons for example), and separation of powers is non-existent, unlike the strict separation in place in the US. Mrjimbob 17:57, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
- The article was referring to the Australian House of Reps [1]. Thought it was clear before but have made doubly sure now. Ferret 18:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
- Ah - see what you mean lower down. Ferret 18:04, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
- I should have made myself more clear! That's much better now. Mrjimbob 14:47, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
