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 said:...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![]()
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 said:.. 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![]()
...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 electedNCoe said: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.
This should probably be elsewhere but is an interesting civics lesson (at least to me).Woolly said:...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.
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.meese said:I was going for None of the Above.![]()
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.Woolly said:....good, but, the Majority of you guys voted for him (well, not really, even we know that !!!!!)
KBandit said: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).
Boy this could this heat things up...I better stop after this...meese said: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.
I thought this was a humor forum.KBandit said: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!