posted
What IS the point of being affililated with a party!?! It seems pointless - I'm gathering it's so you can vote in the Primaries to decide who is going to be put up to run as president.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
It's the football supporter mentality, it seems. You don't look at the candidates and chose who you think is best; you "support" a team, and then vote for whoever that team elects as Captain.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sounds like the Electoral College in general.
I've yet to hear talk of any lawsuits or even of any "blame it on Nader" nonsense yet.
It looks like Bush won by a narrow (but fair) margin (so far).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"...you 'support' a team, and then vote for whoever that team elects as Captain."
Well, no, actually, it's what Andrew said. You "support" the team, and then you and the other supporters elect the "Captain".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Ahh, right. Does that carry through to the election? Were you voting for Bush/Kerry, or Republican/Democrat? Over here, you vote for the party, and that party can change their leader at any time, for any reason.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Wow: that's crap, Liam. Here you can split your votes up however you like: only suckers (or the uninformed) vote along party lines.
I voted on many local issues this year: two people I voted for were republicans (their counterparts were either shills or ran really dirty campaigns- I dont trust anyone that needs to resort to slander) but I voted for Kerry.
You can be registered with any party and still split your vote however: it's just demographics here.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
We don't register with parties though, so that whole part of the equation doesn't exist.
And we don't directly vote for a party, as such. We vote for our local Member of Parliamnent, who is suppossed to reflect the views of his constituency in the House Of Commons. The party with the most seats in the House of Commons picks the PM, Foreign Secretary, and so on, but votes still have to be agreed by people from all parties, and quite often Labour MPs won't vote in ways that Blair would like them to (and the same with the Tories).
So, technically you are voting for a person - your MP. But the general effect of that is that you are voting for which party runs the House Of Commons.
Oh, and there are Council elections where you vote for the people who will actually run your local council. You can have a Tory council and a Labour MP, although it's not overly common.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And over here, it's different yet again. The different parties come up with lists of candidates (they have no connection to political subdivisions or anything like that), and you can vote for one of these people.
It doesn't really matter which MP of a single party you vote for, it's more important that you vote for the party you think will do the best.
Then, the Monarch appoints a 'formateur' whose job it is to come up with a viable coalition government and an accord between the governing parties. The government can in theory be any combination of parties, but it helps an awful lot if this combination has a majority of seats in parliament.
This formation process can be quite a difficult one, as was the case last time, when Labour and the Christian Democrats didn't want to be in one government. Which was a bit of a shame, since the voters seemed to *want* a Christian Democrat/Labour government.
There are those who would like to see a republican form of government, without a Queen and with a President. But those ideas have never really gotten anywhere.
posted
Hmmm...it seems kind of indirect to me. Here, we vote directly for the person that will hold the office (and we hold them accountable thusly).
What's the term limitations on your PM? I read that Blair wont run again nad is now considered (by some) a lame duck.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
We don't really have 'an office'. The PM has no real powers beyond being 'the face' of the Government and being responsible for the actions of the rest of the Government (that includes the Queen). He is also the Minister for General Affairs.
And AFAIK, there is no limit on the amount of times someone can become PM. There are elections every four years, and it is up to formateur and the parties to decide who gets what Ministry.
[ November 04, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Harry ]
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: What's the term limitations on your PM? I read that Blair wont run again nad is now considered (by some) a lame duck.
I'm not sure if Harry's referring to us or them, but there is no length of time someone can be PM. Maggie was in charge for 11 years (imagine 11 years of Bush. Scary).
Blair has said that he wants to run for one more term, and then step down, so no, he's not a lame duck. In any case, that term isnt' as applicable as it is in the US, since the PM can change at any time.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Canada's system is the same as the UK, understandably. Witness the retirement of Chretien and Paul Martin becoming PM, then we had an election that kept him there.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
