Attention, Lurkers...

[Biggles]

As the Scottish Parliament is elected by PR we have now have some experience of the process. By and large, I am content. There are a number of parties represented in the Parliament including Greens and Independants. I think this is good for the democratic process. It certainly has the bigger parties looking over their shoulders.

The Scottish Parliament looks after Law, Energy (except nuclear) , Health, Education, Social Services, Roads and Transport etc., in fact just about everything except Defence and Foreign Office stuff.

Admittedly 5 out of the 6 parties are left of centre, but that is more a reflection of Scottish society than PR.

I have no strong views regarding the need for an upper house. We only have a single layer of Government and it seems to work ok.

The Monarchy is bit of living (mostly) history. It is fun, but I wouldn't want it to play any role in Scottish politics other than the purely ceremonial (and that kept to the minimum).

I think PR could work ok for the UK as a whole. It would, however, put an end to huuuuge majorities.

[Rat Faced]

rat.

My question wasn't about different systems of "PR" as they exist...it was how YOU wish it to be...seeing as my questions are about how and why you wish to change things.

I am well aware of the many ways in which it can be applied

I agree with your concerns over the popular vote but isn't it done the way it is now because each MP is supposed to represent that particular area. Personally i think it is a fair way to elect ones local representative.
Britain doesn't have a president, however if it went down that road then i believe the popular vote should elect him...not the party "seat" vote.....

Ah, but I vote for a Party...

These days I dont know any of the candidates, and even when I was active I only knew the Labour Parties.

Granted, if I knew the candidate, I would probably vote for him rather than for a Party... in the UK, this rarely happens.

[Rat Faced]

vidcc knows this...

I'm sure this little spat was for the benefit of our non-UK members

[hobbes]

Ah, but I vote for a Party...

This is why I was a bit baffled by all the ballyho about Bush winning his second term. You know, that thread where people not old enough to vote apologised to the world or the headline that called Americans idiots.

And The Daves' uninformed post that Americans had blind faith in Bush and followed him without question. I had no idea people could be so clueless. I must admit that I was quite concerned after reading the post he made about his conversation with his dad. Were they just talking phish or did they actually believe the lies they were telling each other.

Kerry lost by not convincing the swing voters that he was going to make a difference. Bush won by default.

Why the world thought we were stupid and brainwashed is bewildering to me. With Bushs' party, people with jobs keep more of their money, story end.

I have the luxury to vote my heart (Kerry), most vote with their wallets.

[Maxtor2]

Hobbes, I couldn't really support Kerry, for a few reasons. The main one, however, was John Edwards. Edwards, in my opinion, didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. He wanted to contest the vote in Ohio for as long as possible, rather than give a concession speech, even though the recounts would do notable harm to the nation. Additionally, he didn't have an answer ready for one of the most important questions for determining a president; if the time comes, will the president save himself or the country? If Edwards didn't have an answer ready, then that means he entered the race (and got quite far) knowing that he wasn't ready for the office of vice-president. And, if he accepted an office that he knew he was not capable of filling, he is already looking after himself rather than the country. Please notice that I'm using president and vice-president interchangeably, as they are supposed to be interchangeable.
To me, such is unacceptable. I still hate Edwards, though I am starting to see Kerry in a better light. I think he's started to shape up after his loss; he delivered a nice concession speech (as did Michael Moore; that speech at the People's Choice awards was not a victory speech for the award, it was a concession speech over politics), he appeared to do some work in the election in Palestine, and the loss should give him some humility (and probably needed experience). If Kerry moves to the center a bit and develops a praiseworthy foreign policy strategy (with some realist political theory in it), then he would make a great candidate.

One very ironic thing is that Bush actually kept most of his campaign promises from 2000. A few years ago, people were chanting "if anyone keeps his campaign promises, I'd be happy to vote for him", and then approximately half of those people decided to vote against Bush. I will enjoy looking back on this in ten years.

[thewizeard]

I am curious if any of you (assuming you are actually there), actually read our blathering, and if it sways you at all, at all?

Come on now, don't be shy...

... Err..err, uhm no, I mean yes of course we.. I mean I do!

Actually could you rephrase the question?

[Rat Faced]

Hobbes,

British and US politics are different... as I said, I never find out about a candidate, so im forced to vote for a Partis manifesto.

I did say that if i knew a candidate, then i would probably vote that way, and not via Party.

Indeed, the fact that Blair is in charge of the Labour Party has made me change the party i've voted for since I was 18... i cannot support the person.

I did vote for him for his 1st term.. before I knew what he was like.

Does that make sense?


In the USA, there is a lot more learnt about the Candidate. In the UK, its the Party Manifesto...