Talk:Rubber stamp (politics)

good

Thank you Yudsandangado (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British monarchy

Legislation in the UK only became law if it was approved by Queen Elizabeth II, so she could in theory veto it, but she never ever did. The new King Charles III presumably has the same arrangement. So the modern British monarchy is a prime example of a rubber stamp. 88.109.162.138 (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

88.109.162.138, you brought up a good example, but this would then be demonstrable either in the linked article referring to it as such or a reliable independent source describing it with the term. Feel free to add it to the article if you can find a source that uses the modern day constitutional British monarchy as such. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivity and bias

The list of historical/current rubber stamp parliaments is very obviously politically biased. There is no objective definition of what constitutes a rubber stamp parliament, and no proof that any of the institutions on the list meet the criteria. While some of these are obviously true, the vast majority seems to have been picked because the author doesn't like a country and personally doesn't consider it democratic. A parliament unanimously supporting a proposal does not make it a rubber stamp parliament, as it is within the realm of possibility that all members of parliament indeed have a personal interest in passing it, as all of them usually belong to the same economic/social class. It is not and has never been Wikipedia's job to tell right from wrong. I believe the "list" section has to be deleted entirely. AtomicBlastPony (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]