British Expatriate Network

Will we be playing "Spot The Difference?" with these three countries elections?

I find it a bit rich that the USA is lecturing other nations on democracy and how to run elections, especially as another failed piss-up in a brewery is brewing here, at Democracy-Central. At least the Afghans can claim problems with terrain, the whole novelty of voting and the fact votes are tranported to voting centres by donkey!

Just wondering when someone here will admit that the system is broken, as we have lawsuits filed before the election, partisan Secretaries of State manipulating who can and cannot vote and electronic voting systems with no stored logs - provided by a manufacturer who clearly stated he would help the incumbent, Republican President win the election. This is without going into all the dubious registrations, gathered by the Democrats and certainly not to mention the Republicans involvement in Democrat registrations being destroyed, rather than turned over to elections officers. Is that not the very definition of a complete joke?

A little biased perhaps but why didn't the Americans admit that their system isn't very good and have the British teach the Iraqis and Afghans how democracy can still work without stupid campaigns and truckloads of money needing to be thrown at it? wink

The parliamentary system works pretty well in India which is a far better example to somewhere like Afghanistan, rather than the mythical "Never-Never Land" that the USA pretends to be to the rest of the world.

I have to agree and I will bet that Iraqand Afghanistan will both reform or revert back their systems once the US has less influence on their countries.

What I am having a very hard time with is understanding how so much emphasis is put on to one person in a country that doesn't actually elect a dominent party. The President may belong to Republicans but if the Senate is majority Democrats, how on earth do the Republicans/President get their ideas voted in to show they work/don't work? And also, how can anyone make a difference to something if they are only in office for no more than 8 years? Surely any policy that needs changing takes time. From what I understand they take at least 5 years to take effect. By this time the President is just about on his way out! It's beyond the every day person to see that any benefit/loss a President makes to the job is reflected on the next one in power. It's only when you look back at the history of a particular President and what he tried to do and accomplished in his time in office, that you can see if it actually had any value to the country as a whole.

At least in a system like the UK which ever PM gets elected he gets elected because his party is in the majority throughout the country. And also because he kept his seat as an MP. Any policies that the PM wants, he has a fighting chance of getting them because his party is the majority party. And if he can't even keep his seat as an MP then surely he shouldn't be elected PM.

And what exactly is the difference (besides the obvious) between a Parlimentary system and what they have here?

Sorry to hijack your thread, Pilgrim, but I can't vote until I can understand the basics wink

I think the US is going to be screwed in Iraq when Iraqis elect a Mullah who wants to get rid of US troops.

They'll rig it to prevent that. But they are screwed now and will be leaving with their tails between their legs.

Back to the thread. I think the UN should place election monitors in the US.

Thats what I'm thinking.

Not sure if anyone here has heard of Colorado's Amendment 37. I feel we're a bit of a test market to see if this goes through. Basically it means splitting the electoral votes between candidates, rather than the current winner takes all system

More here; http//rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3200813,00.html

Of course, this is being touted on the radio as a stupid idea, and the idea came from California. The radio ad says "Let California do it if it's such a good idea". This is bound to generate resentment among Coloradans as anything that comes from California is deemed bad.

Maine can legally split it vote, although it hasn't done so since it became law in 1969. :o
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/1...voting.ap/

Nebraska can also split it's vote, don't know if they ever have.