gftChris Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Over here, the opposition party - either labour or tories - have a leader, a 'shadow' government, whose job it is to basically act as if they were in power, saying "this is what we'd do in education" or whatever. The leader of the opposition is the person you know for sure is running for prime minister in the next election, and you get five years of him and his policies. If he flipflops or backtracks you can call him out on it pretty quickly, as a result of this. Obviously in America, this isn't the case, and that's why we have these campaigns for the right to campaign for presidency. Maybe it's just because it's what I've grown up with, but it seems like the idea of having a leader of each party, particularly the main opposition, is a good way to go. Purely from the point of view that any slandering of your eventual candidate happens 4-5 years prior to the election, rather than 6 months before. What do you guys think? Is it something you'd like to see your party do? If not, what benefit does *not* having a party leader offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Over here, the opposition party - either labour or tories - have a leader, a 'shadow' government, whose job it is to basically act as if they were in power, saying "this is what we'd do in education" or whatever. The leader of the opposition is the person you know for sure is running for prime minister in the next election, and you get five years of him and his policies. If he flipflops or backtracks you can call him out on it pretty quickly, as a result of this. Obviously in America, this isn't the case, and that's why we have these campaigns for the right to campaign for presidency. Maybe it's just because it's what I've grown up with, but it seems like the idea of having a leader of each party, particularly the main opposition, is a good way to go. Purely from the point of view that any slandering of your eventual candidate happens 4-5 years prior to the election, rather than 6 months before. What do you guys think? Is it something you'd like to see your party do? If not, what benefit does *not* having a party leader offer? The short answer is no. While the long Presidential campaign is annoying, many times the candidates who get nominated by the party are not the early favorites(Obama in 08 for example), many times the best candidates are State Governors who are not involved with national politics(Bush in 00), and even if a candidate does not get nominated they can either propel themselves into the national spot light(Huckabee in 12) or ruin their future chances(Dean in 04) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Also in your system a vote for one party is a vote for the party and its leadership, I like that I can chose my Congressmen and Presidents based on who I think would be the best to do each and not just what party I want in power. So if I felt the best choice for congress was a republican and the best choice for president was a democrat I could vote that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Interesting, I think a lot of people here would very much like that. There's a lot of 'tactical' voting going on because of the way the system works here. You vote for your local councillor, and whoever wins gets on seat in parliament; traditionally the party leaders get a 'safe' seat so they're not in danger, though a couple lost theirs this year. Then, whichever party has the most seats - or, in the case of a minority, whichever party forms the best coalition - gets its leader as prime minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Another thing that comes up here but would not make a difference there is the 'type' of voting. For you guys I guess it's just vote A or B on the ballot card? Since we have so many choices, there are a bunch of voting systems we could use. The current 'first past the post' system has left us with a majority government in terms of seats (331/650) but that only 37% of the people voted for. On the other hand, you have a party like UKIP that got about 12% of the vote, but only 1 seat. The greens got 4% and only 1 seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Another thing that comes up here but would not make a difference there is the 'type' of voting. For you guys I guess it's just vote A or B on the ballot card? Since we have so many choices, there are a bunch of voting systems we could use. The current 'first past the post' system has left us with a majority government in terms of seats (331/650) but that only 37% of the people voted for. On the other hand, you have a party like UKIP that got about 12% of the vote, but only 1 seat. The greens got 4% and only 1 seat. Depending on what you are selecting but for national elections (senate\house\president) it is pick either D or R or sometimes an Independent. Granted the electoral college for president is a bit confusing since you are not technically voting for the president but for your states electors to pick the president. If you want a break down- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.