I'm an American in the UK, and I'm glad I didn't play the "Gordon Brown is shaking his head" drinking game tonight during the debate.
The thing that bothers me the most about UK elections is the whole concept of voting only once - for one party. I rarely vote along party lines in the states - splitting my votes between the parties so I can vote for the person I feel is the best candidate. If I was voting this election, I would hate to find myself in a position where voting for the best MP would yield the PM I would most dislike - and I'm sure that's not an uncommon occurrance.
Heh. I've avoided the previous debates but saw half of this one.
Given our Cabinet system of government, until Tony's presidential style the theory was that it shouldn't matter who is the PM, which is why no-one voted for Gordon to become PM - he became the new leader of the Labour party, Labour was in power, ergo he became PM. Which is an arguement that the party leader debates are a bad idea (personally I think one leader debate plus debates between the various cabinet/shadows on different topics would have been better).
When I vote in US elections, I get some info on the Senator and Rep candidates, but the rest of the roles on the ballot... no chance. I bet 99% of people just go on party lines.
Also there is a very large assumption of conformity with MPs - most MPs do tend to vote along party lines - which means to a degree, unless they're a complete rebel, who your MP is DOESN'T matter as much as the party they follow, because when push comes to shove, chances are he will vote to type
As an American in the UK, one thing I find odd is how all the campaign signs in peoples' yards look so... hostile. The Lib Dems signs (at least around here?) are bright orange diamonds with black bands across - they look like hazard warnings. Why would I vote for a hazard warning? Labour's bright red and yellow doesn't seem much friendlier. Perhaps there is more historical context that I don't grasp.
I also enjoyed the Daily Show bit about the debates, but haven't been able to sit through one myself.
We don't want friendly; Politics IZ SERIUZ BUSNISS!
When printing was less sophisticated, posters were red/blue/yellow paper with the candidates name across, and that was it. People's faces was just... wierd (this was pre-Tony) The idea is to make sure the colour is visible from across the street - subtle isn't an option. Think neon signs on the cheap...
As an American in the UK, one thing I find odd is how all the campaign signs in peoples' yards look so... hostile.
This really made me laugh out loud. On the bus on the way here (I'm at my on again/off again job) I saw a huge, huge sign in someone's front garden (more of a yard, since it was a set of flats?) that said "CONSERVATIVES" in huge lettering. It must be half the size of an American sized billboard. I'm sure the people who own the sign can't see in and out of any of the windows in their house, nor can anyone else around them.
It's getting little to no coverage in most of the US, but I keep up other ways. I think what I find unusual about the UK system is the fact that technically there's a way to interact with your representative and possibly even feel vaguely represented. The last time I tried to contact one of my US representatives (about the "defense" of marriage act) I basically got a form letter back that essentially said "fuck you, I believe in Jesus and W and they hate gays so I'm gonna vote the way I want." Good thing everyone voted for her opponent in 2008. She was gross.
Technically, US Reps/Senators are supposed to represent the people too, aren't they?
MPs do work hard on behalf of their constituents (mostly, in between house-flopping etc), but you'll still likely get form letters back on most topics. If your MP is Ann Widdecombe or Nadine Dorries and you asked about gay marriage you'd probably get the same answer. Only expressed ever-so-politely. :)
They are supposed to, yes but mostly they treat it like they've been elected king of the region and instead of taking into account the requirements of the constituents they make whatever vote they like.
I think I'm just used to my husband's family who are very politically active in the UK and it's definitely always felt like there is a way to be involved with your representation there, whereas in the US you may live hundreds of miles from your Senator's office in your own state.
Having been involved in a national campaign against a bit of legislation (which we won when it got dropped at the end of the last Parliament), it was interesting to see the response letters, because people posted them on a mailing list. After the initial ones, all the Tory responses were almost identical, which we considered to be major progress, because it meant that we were getting the message across and they'd actually come up with a party policy on the subject.
Comments 31
The thing that bothers me the most about UK elections is the whole concept of voting only once - for one party. I rarely vote along party lines in the states - splitting my votes between the parties so I can vote for the person I feel is the best candidate. If I was voting this election, I would hate to find myself in a position where voting for the best MP would yield the PM I would most dislike - and I'm sure that's not an uncommon occurrance.
Reply
Given our Cabinet system of government, until Tony's presidential style the theory was that it shouldn't matter who is the PM, which is why no-one voted for Gordon to become PM - he became the new leader of the Labour party, Labour was in power, ergo he became PM. Which is an arguement that the party leader debates are a bad idea (personally I think one leader debate plus debates between the various cabinet/shadows on different topics would have been better).
When I vote in US elections, I get some info on the Senator and Rep candidates, but the rest of the roles on the ballot... no chance. I bet 99% of people just go on party lines.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I also enjoyed the Daily Show bit about the debates, but haven't been able to sit through one myself.
Reply
When printing was less sophisticated, posters were red/blue/yellow paper with the candidates name across, and that was it. People's faces was just... wierd (this was pre-Tony)
The idea is to make sure the colour is visible from across the street - subtle isn't an option.
Think neon signs on the cheap...
Reply
This really made me laugh out loud. On the bus on the way here (I'm at my on again/off again job) I saw a huge, huge sign in someone's front garden (more of a yard, since it was a set of flats?) that said "CONSERVATIVES" in huge lettering. It must be half the size of an American sized billboard. I'm sure the people who own the sign can't see in and out of any of the windows in their house, nor can anyone else around them.
Reply
Reply
MPs do work hard on behalf of their constituents (mostly, in between house-flopping etc), but you'll still likely get form letters back on most topics. If your MP is Ann Widdecombe or Nadine Dorries and you asked about gay marriage you'd probably get the same answer. Only expressed ever-so-politely. :)
Reply
I think I'm just used to my husband's family who are very politically active in the UK and it's definitely always felt like there is a way to be involved with your representation there, whereas in the US you may live hundreds of miles from your Senator's office in your own state.
Reply
D
Reply
Leave a comment