curious There are some key differences in two regards: One, the US two-party system means that the largest party automatically has a full majority. Second, the office plays a much more partisan role. I am not too familiar with the formal rules and responsibilities for either office, but the way I understand it, both are primarily tasked with guarding procedure, but the Speaker is a lot more likely to wield his powers in a partisan way than the president of the Bundestag is. That makes the party affiliation of the president of the Bundestag mostly a formality, whereas the Speaker's can affect the way the House is run. For an even more non-partisan parliamentary head, see the Speaker of the House of Commons in Britain, who upon election renounces his party membership and only votes according to a predefined formula.

In Germany, there have been several cases where the largest party was not part of the majority coalition, but still had the office of Bundestagspräsident.

      youdontknowme the US two-party system means that the largest party automatically has a full majority

      No it doesn't. Google "how many us senators are independents" You will find there are 49 republicans, 48 democrats and 3 independents. For some reason I can't easily find how many, if any, independent us representatives there are.

      But using the senate data, if all three independents caucus with the democrats, and they do, the democrats have a 51-49 majority. If 2 caucus with the democrats and 1 with the republicans it is tied 50-50 which gives the democrats the majority as the vice president breaks the tie and she is a democrat. If 2 or all 3 caucused with the republicans they would have the majority.

      Theoretically the same could happen in the house but the vice president would not be involved.

          Avery No it doesn't. Google "how many us senators are independents" You will find there are 49 republicans, 48 democrats and 3 independents. For some reason I can't easily find how many, if any, independent us representatives there are.

          Yes, "automatically" was a bit of an exaggeration. It would certainly be possible that an independent congressperson would not be so firmly on one side of the two-party divide that he can essentially be considered a party member in all but title. I could not imagine Senator Sanders voting alongside the Republicans unless there is a major shift in the party landscape. Similarly, it would not be impossible for a third party candidate to make it to the House either, it just does not happen very often.

          Contrast Germany, where independent candidates are not really much of a thing, if someone wants to run without an established party backing them the way to go it to form a small party. Since the adoption of our constitution back in 1949, there has been a grand total of one Bundestag (elections happen on roughly a four-year cycle, barring re-elections which have happened a grand total of twice so far) where a single group has had a full majority, and even that was technically not a single party, but a close alliance of two parties that are regionally separated and rarely compete with each other - in a way the closest equivalent to the independent senators caucusing with the democrats that Germany has.

          Also, for the office of president of the Bundestag, those two parties are counted as one for "largest party" concerns - ultimately it is taken for granted that those two will be working together, whereas the coalitions that are used to form a majority are usually subject to open-ended negotiations after every election.

              youdontknowme I could not imagine Senator Sanders voting alongside the Republicans

              Nor Sinema either.

                At least it will make it easy to spot the republicans on Putin's payroll.

                Nah blackmail isn't it

                youdontknowme One, the US two-party system means that the largest party automatically has a full majority

                However nothing in the US constitution says that it has to be a two-party system.
                In an imaginary world it could well happen that most conservative democrats and the non-trumpist and a bit more progressive republicans join into a new middle field party. Nothing would stand in the way of this happening.

                With partisan rules you are right. The speaker of the house has the right to bring bills to the floor of the house for a vote (or not to do so, effectively blocking legislation). While many scholars and I would consider this an abuse of the position, it is within the power of the position and has been done over and over again, yes.

                I was not trying to state that German and US political systems are completely the same with just different names. I was simply trying to help a young person to get a better (but admittedly still incomplete) understanding.

                    curious However nothing in the US constitution says that it has to be a two-party system.

                    You could say that the first-past-the-post system encourages a two-party system by making it difficult for new parties to establish themselves. In Britain the party landscape is somewhat more varied, but except for the Lib Dems, most of the significant third parties are regional players.

                    But no matter how much or how little the constitution encourages it, it is there, it is culturally entrenched, and I do not see it changing any time soon with all the tribalism going on at the moment.

                        curious In an imaginary world it could well happen that most conservative democrats and the non-trumpist and a bit more progressive republicans join into a new middle-field party. Nothing would stand in the way of this happening.

                        Very well might happen soon. If Ron DeSantis gets in with his Trump-like ideas (e.g. shipping illegal immigrants from his state to Martha's Vineyard in my state) I wouldn't be surprised at all if liberal-leaning Republicans and conservative Democrats banded against him to have more of a voice.

                          youdontknowme In Britain the party landscape is somewhat more varied, but except for the Lib Dems, most of the significant third parties are regional players.

                          The problem in the UK is that population numbers in a seat vary hugely, and the first past the post system gives us some very strange results. In the last election the SNP MPs won with on average 25000 votes. There are 59 SNP MPs in Westminster, they got about 1.3 million votes.
                          There is 1 Green Party MP, they got about 900,000 votes.
                          The current government has an 80 seat majority, which means they can do pretty much as they like. They had 43% of the vote.

                              hanna_anders in the UK we might as well just have one party. With the SNP taking pretty much all the seats is scotland makes it practically impossible for Labour to be elected. Combine that with the effects northern ireland has with the unionist parties always supporting the Conservatives and sinn fein not taking their seats pretty much grantee a tory government.

                                Avery

                                curious

                                ok, so the speaker is the american counterpart to Bärbel Bas in germany. i made a slight mistake and thought that the counterpart to the "Fraktionsvorsitzender" was meant.

                                youdontknowme In Germany, there have been several cases where the largest party was not part of the majority coalition, but still had the office of Bundestagspräsident.

                                like the later president Karl Carstens (CDU) during the time of Chancellor helmut schmidt

                                        Angelina i made a slight mistake and thought that the counterpart to the "Fraktionsvorsitzender" was meant.

                                        Yeah, those roles are more akin to majority and minority leader. Not a 1:1 mapping since the US legislature does not do coalitions to the extent Germany does (there are no house representatives that do not belong to the two major parties at the moment, and all independent senators are as close to Democrats as the CSU is to the CDU), but probably the closest fit to that you can get.

                                        But yeah, Bärbel Bas would be our counterpart to Kevin McCarthy right now. Only that I expect him to be a lot more partisan in the way he runs the house than her.

                                        Angelina like the later president Karl Carstens (CDU) during the time of Chancellor helmut schmidt

                                        Yeah, the Brandt/Schmidt era had several Union "speakers" since the SPD majority relied on FDP votes and CDU/CSU were the plurality group.

                                              Angelina so the speaker is the american counterpart to Bärbel Bas in germany

                                              I don't follow German politics that closely as to know who currently is in that position. Why would I, when I am not living there. But of course I still know how the system works.

                                                  curious It is formally the second highest office in the country after the President, but considering nobody gives a damn about who our president is when the chancellor handles most of the governing, nobody can be blamed for not knowing about her.

                                                      youdontknowme the chancellor

                                                      I was just reading about Merkel visiting Bush the younger in 2006. She lasted a long time compared to our people.

                                                          Speaking of US politics... I see George Santos flashed a white power symbol in parliament.

                                                          I'm not really surprised given that these people will do anything to "own the libs", but regardless of your political persuasion, the fact that this is even remotely accepted by an elected representative shows just how far US civil society has descended.

                                                            Sin find it somewhat fascinating that that sign is basically designed to be plausibly deniable as an OK sign, and that displaying it in a less overt way sort of makes the message more clear.

                                                            Avery I was just reading about Merkel visiting Bush the younger in 2006. She lasted a long time compared to our people.

                                                            Yeah, we do not have term limits for chancellor, only for president, who can serve two terms at most. And experience and not rocking the boat are big pluses on the conservative side of the spectrum, so Adenauer, Kohl and Merkel each had long tenures of four terms each.

                                                                Sin shows just how far US civil society has descended.

                                                                Nah, the January 6, 2020 riots, when thugs invaded the Capitol Building, overpowered Capitol police, and chased the vice president and his guards into a bomb shelter is a better example.

                                                                  youdontknowme
                                                                  I am aware of the position of that office, however, I live in Switzerland not Germany. So giving - as you call it - a damn about who holds that office currently is from where I am perfectly OK. If I was living in Germany of course, I should know and care who is part of 'my' government.