A question about english voting strategy.

[ElMarko]

Once again we Americans are faced with the choice of a giant douche and a turd sandwich. We have one asshole who promises to raise taxes and another who promises to keep us in an expensive war. Sigh,

I need to talk about something that is far enough to be an abstraction for me.

If I understand correctly which ever party wins the majority of the seats in in the British parliament pretty much decides who mans which office and since there are no residency requirements the parties put their top people is elections where they party always win.

So I'm wondering, as an English voter do you even bother to look at the name on the ballot or do you just look at the party?

[Rapscallion]

There are residential requirements, but most candidates who live out of the are just rent a flat or something similar to get around it. In short, personalities and voting records do come into it.

However, I do look at the parties. Monster Raving Looney all the way!

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

Canada uses the parliamentary system, too. I'd say most people vote along party lines, but every once in a while there will be a really exceptional candidate who everyone votes for regardless of their party.

We always end up with one or two independents with seats because they left their party over some disagreement and their constituents loved them for it; so they ignore the party candidate in the next election and re-elect their old friend.

Because Canada has a small population, our ridings are small. Usually everyone knows their MPs personally in some way. The same probably can't be said of US Congressmen and their constituents.

[crazylegs]

Because of the First Past the Post system not only do people look at the names they will also vote tactically to prevent another party to get in, for an example.

I support party A
Party B and Party C will win the election in this constituency, there is insufficient support for A to win.

I wholeheartdly disagree with Party C policies so will vote Party B.

There are 'safe seats' that essentially always vote their party in (Henley - Conservative for example) so that does happen however a lot of seats are 'swing' seats that can go from one party to another (or a third).

[Greenday]

So let me get this straight. You don't vote for the president. You vote for a party. And that party then chooses who to elect, not the people?

Sounds like an excuse for when you get a leader you don't like.

[ElMarko]

I'm not trying to start any fights here. A guy named Kenneth Arrow got the Nobel prize for proving that you can't build a democratic system that doesn't suck. Dismal science and all.

I like the way the Germans do it. They have a bicameral system where one has representatives from geographic areas and the other is proportional by party. I don't know how they choose their executive.

[Boozy]

So let me get this straight. You don't vote for the president. You vote for a party. And that party then chooses who to elect, not the people?

We know who the leader of the party is before we vote, so many people do choose to vote for the leader instead of the party, very much the way you do in the US. (Technically, we don't vote for either. We vote for our local representative. The party with the most representatives after the election forms the government.)

The party can't just put any old person in charge after the election. The prime minister also has to have a seat in parliament; non-elected party leaders can't be PM.

To my knowledge, we have had two prime ministers that weren't party leaders when their party won the election. They both took over from someone else in the interim, and there was an election both times within months of that happening.

What is important to understand is that the Prime Minister of Canada has far less power over our government than the President of the US has over theirs. Power is less centralized in a parliamentary system. The Prime Minister can lead only as long as the majority of elected MPs votes with him. Sometimes that doesn't happen, and the government is overturned, forcing an election.

[AFPheonix]

Ha ha, I just got back from a week toodling across Alberta visiting family. We don't get to hear a lot about Canadian politics down in the States in general, you have to actually look for it if you want to know what's happening up north.
Aren't you guys looking at a possible vote of no confidence here in a few weeks? I kind of caught some of it, but all my family are ragingly conservative so it was hard to get a gauge on what was really going on.

[Slytovhand]

We have a pretty similar process to the UK and Canada (not sure of all your ins and outs though).

The best bit about it is that because the local representatives are essential to the PM having any 'power' (such as it is), it means they are more inclined to listen to the locals, cos they know it's their job on the line. Whereas, I can see that if only 1 person has the power and is voted for, it's a lot easier to stack things.. that is, only the most powerful get any time with the prez for a nice little chat about how things 'ought' to be done.

As well as slightly less cult of personality stuff.

But then - politics (like pretty much everthing else) down here is a lot more laid back

Oh - and the significance of 'lesser' parties can't be overlooked. There's been numerous times when the final decision on a bill has rested on the shoulders of only 1 person (and often more recently, on the shoulders of 3 independants). We've been lucky here of late - the one set of shoulders such things has fallen on is quite rational and seriously considers the issues at hand (IMO).