[KBandit]

hilarious ...

http://www.badmash.org/videos/videos_flv.php?v=george_bush_512K_Stream

 

[Woolly]

....good, but, the Majority of you guys voted for him (well, not really, even we know that !!!!!)

 

[dshealey]

I was not aware of a viable option!

 

[Woolly]

...don't wanna do politics, but in most democracies I know (even in constitutional monarchies), usually, the guy(or guyette) who gets the most votes, seems to get elected.... but, you have Bush

 

[NCoe]

...don't wanna do politics, but in most democracies I know (even in constitutional monarchies), usually, the guy(or guyette) who gets the most votes, seems to get elected.... but, you have Bush

So correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that only a very small portion of the Brits acutally had the opportunity to vote for Blair since only his district votes for or against him. Also, how many people voted for the Queen? People who live in glass houses...

 

[Woolly]

.. OK, you're wrong. ... Blair was voted in (democratically) as the leader of his party, then the Great British electorate vote for the party. In UK elections, you don't actually vote for the person (BTW Blair is my MP).

And the Queen(or her Family) has been there since her German predecessors secretly invaded the UK in the mid 19th century

 

[NCoe]

.. OK, you're wrong. ... Blair was voted in (democratically) as the leader of his party, then the Great British electorate vote for the party. In UK elections, you don't actually vote for the person (BTW Blair is my MP).

And the Queen(or her Family) has been there since her German predecessors secretly invaded the UK in the mid 19th century

Thanks for the clarification. I always thought that in addition to the party name, the names of the individuals standing for election as MP appeared on the ballot. Thus the vote for the individual was direct and the vote for the party was indirect. I guess you can indeed teach this old dog new tricks.

 

[Woolly]

Thanks for the clarification. I always thought that in addition to the party name, the names of the individuals standing for election as MP appeared on the ballot. Thus the vote for the individual was direct and the vote for the party was indirect. I guess you can indeed teach this old dog new tricks.

...wellllllllllllllllll yes-ish and no-ish !! the mp's name and party both appear on the ballot - but, most Brits could not name their MP (unless, like in my constituency it's someone fairly high profile). Due to force of habit, despite the personal carisma of the individual contenders, most Brits will vote for their party (not MP) of choice. This is why, someone like Blair, if he wants one of his cronies elected, he will put him to stand in a 'safe' labour seat - i.e. tradditionally 'working class' area, where people will always vote Labour, because their family and friends always have and always will. You will never see a prospective Cabinet minister standing in a marginal constituency.. This is how we in our (Sedgefield) constituency got Blair - until he was proposed, no one had ever heard of him in the area, but it was an 85% certainty that he would be elected.

 

[Woolly]

...and, before anyone complains about this being in the 'Humor' section, don't forget, politics (at least in the country) is a joke.

 

[NCoe]

...wellllllllllllllllll yes-ish and no-ish !! the mp's name and party both appear on the ballot - but, most Brits could not name their MP (unless, like in my constituency it's someone fairly high profile). Due to force of habit, despite the personal carisma of the individual contenders, most Brits will vote for their party (not MP) of choice. This is why, someone like Blair, if he wants one of his cronies elected, he will put him to stand in a 'safe' labour seat - i.e. tradditionally 'working class' area, where people will always vote Labour, because their family and friends always have and always will. You will never see a prospective Cabinet minister standing in a marginal constituency.. This is how we in our (Sedgefield) constituency got Blair - until he was proposed, no one had ever heard of him in the area, but it was an 85% certainty that he would be elected.

This should probably be elsewhere but is an interesting civics lesson (at least to me).

Based on your statements it seems to me that much like here a person could be PM if their party:
A. Received the most popular votes which is what usually happens here.
B. Received the the most popular votes but not a majority. This happened when Clinton was first elected. It would probably require a coalition government there.
C. Gained the most seats but did not have the most popular votes. Unlikely but theorectically possible. The same sort of thing has happened here at least twice.

Unfortunately here as there too many people vote for the party and not the candidate. That is the lazy person's way out of having to think about what is going on.

Cheers

 

[michman]

I voted for Larry Flynt..... dammit!

 

[meese]

I was going for None of the Above.

 

[dcwchfc]

On a recent tour of UK, we were told, when touring Windsor Castle, that the parents and grandparents (or however far back they go) came from France, and it was many many years that they changed the family name (to Windsor) to sound more British.
The most impressive room to me was the armor room, where Henry VIII's armor was on display as well as that of all the Kings that preceeded and followed him.

 

[NCoe]

I was going for None of the Above.

That option is available in Nevada (at least it used to be at one point). Unfortunately it didn't trigger a new election if "None of the above" happened to win. I did actually vote that way on a couple of occasions.

 

[KBandit]

majorities ...

....good, but, the Majority of you guys voted for him (well, not really, even we know that !!!!!)

don't look at me, brother. i voted for kerry, but i supported wesley clark. clark was the only one with the cojones to say that iraq was (is) an enormous mistake.

bush is clearly a bible-thumping imbecile. even prince charles would've made a better president (running for cover).

 

[justincase]

don't look at me, brother. i voted for kerry, but i supported wesley clark. clark was the only one with the cojones to say that iraq was (is) an enormous mistake.

bush is clearly a bible-thumping imbecile. even prince charles would've made a better president (running for cover).

Thank God for our GREAT president and his saving our country from the leftists.

 

[meese]

Saving the country? How about destroying it, and several others at the same time. All depends on your perspective and preconceptions, I guess.

I'm not even touching the god reference.

 

[justincase]

Saving the country? How about destroying it, and several others at the same time. All depends on your perspective and preconceptions, I guess.

I'm not even touching the god reference.

Boy this could this heat things up...I better stop after this...

It's not supprising that someone that doesn't believe in God, doesn't believe in freedom. So I do understand why you fear those of us that do believe people should be free.

 

[KBandit]

hey ... for a laugh, go to google and search on the word, "failure." check out the first link that pops up.

it appears that silicon valley knows the score! LOL!

 

[justincase]

hey ... for a laugh, go to google and search on the word, "failure." check out the first link that pops up.

it appears that silicon valley knows the score! LOL!

I thought this was a humor forum.

You liberals have NO SENSE of humor. You’re all going to hell anyway.

I’m just having a little fun with ya...relax…

Remember: You lost the election, WE WON….Know your role….

BTW: I got alot of the Clinton searches then you'll ever have of Bush...

But again...You guys are so easy....