Tony Blairs Labour party won the the last general election with 26% of the vote (less then the Conservatives but thats another storey).
Tony Blair than says that he is going to retire as the labour party leader some way through this term which means he will also no longer be Prime Minister.
The Labour party will then elect a new leader who will automatically become Prime Minister.
If you're a Dem, and reading this forum, then Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even if you are a GOP, Richardson of New Mexico is a viable alternative; and likewise with others of both parties. America is one of the few nations left that can be considered a democratic, republic. Voting citizens should focus on the individual issues and a candidates' position in regards to those issues, party affiliation is a concentrated effort to lump everyone into a group to sway the vote in a generalized direction, in so much as, the two party system has become nothing more than competitive fund raising. Why do you see the ideologies of both parties directed to the extreme fringe and avoiding a centrist stance? Why not give some thought to weighing a candidate's commitment to the issues and not so much to party affiliation. If the U.S. continues along these lines we will end up with a government similar to that in the U.K. (see quote below)
[ QUOTE ]
At least you guys have the chance of a vote, we in the UK are going to get a Prime Minister that no one even voted for!
[ QUOTE ]
Voting citizens should focus on the individual issues and a candidates' position in regards to those issues,
[/ QUOTE ]
i agree. to a point. there was a few good dems voted in in the last election. they were better than the reps they ran against, but because they won, the dems gained majority control over the house. this caused a few very bad dems to gain much more power. those few who are at the helm in the dem party are the reason i vote straight rep. in the big picture, voting for those few good dems hurt us overall because now we have extreme libs in control, and those few good dems are somewhat forced to take marching orders from the higherups in the party. they could lose their party backing.
so i think that until this way of "appointing" the power is changed, many of us will continue to vote for the party instead of the individual.
[ QUOTE ]
so i think that until this way of "appointing" the power is changed, many of us will continue to vote for the party instead of the individual
[/ QUOTE ]
That is the crux of my original point. Reading past the point of my post you quoted, you may note that I also don't like my elected representatives to base their vote along party lines, but to vote for the consensus that they should represent. IMO the only way to lessen the prompting of “follow the leader” is to eliminate the extremist (through the electoral process) one by one. Voting a straight ticket allows those party members with the most extreme views to garner publicity and use their notoriety to sway more centrist views away from bi-partisanship. JMHO
Who would you choose for PM ? I agree that the system over there has great suction , but .... who is the best one ?
I ask this over here all the time . Our very own Buffbob once said that " even when you get the one you voted for you don't get what you want " Thats not an exact quote but close I think , if not, he can set me straight.
Personally , I am not concerned as to the end result , and there will be an end , then a beginning [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
I wouldn't mind a woman for Pres. Just not that woman!
But I wouldn't worry about her. Most of her own party can't stand her either.
I wonder if Ann Coulter will be busy in '08-'12 [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]