Off-topic but I wish they ran a long primary with a dozen or so candidates for leadership like the Democrats did this year and the Republicans did in 2016. Would be good for figuring out who votes...
Off-topic but I wish they ran a long primary with a dozen or so candidates for leadership like the Democrats did this year and the Republicans did in 2016. Would be good for figuring out who votes for who in Labour.
Trust me, you don't want your (assuming) politics turning into our politics. The last democratic/republican leadership elections that went that way did no justice and just fragmented the already...
Trust me, you don't want your (assuming) politics turning into our politics. The last democratic/republican leadership elections that went that way did no justice and just fragmented the already severely fragmented bases and just delayed time to actually get things done.
I can see why on the surface this would be a fine thing to have more choice, but it's sort of the reason we have devolved into a severe two party system which is the farthest thing from being ideal.
Sure enough. I'm not American but here in Brazil we had 13 candidates for president and we got a right-wing populist vs a center left establishment candidate purely by virtue of the Democratic...
Trust me, you don't want your (assuming) politics turning into our politics. The last democratic/republican leadership elections that went that way did no justice and just fragmented the already severely fragmented bases and just delayed time to actually get things done.
Sure enough. I'm not American but here in Brazil we had 13 candidates for president and we got a right-wing populist vs a center left establishment candidate purely by virtue of the Democratic process and, like in the US, the left got firebombed, although even worse than in the US by 10 million votes.
I can see why on the surface this would be a fine thing to have more choice, but it's sort of the reason we have devolved into a severe two party system which is the farthest thing from being ideal.
Problem is, the UK also uses FPTP for it's general/parliamentary elections so there is nothing you can really do outside electoral reform or, "luckily for you", using regionalism/separatism to take a region alone and fuck over the 2 party system before you leave the country (if the British third parties drop out of the parliament and join one of the 2 major parties this is the role the SNP will play.) Since people have more than 2 political views but can only jave 2 parties representing you're kinda forced to have a long, drawn-out primary to pick a nominee.
Any election process that chooses a single leader for an entire country is going to disappoint a lot of people when the country is divided. The best we could probably do is make sure people like...
Any election process that chooses a single leader for an entire country is going to disappoint a lot of people when the country is divided. The best we could probably do is make sure people like their own representatives, but to do that you'd probably have to get rid of FPTP and single-member districts.
No. Best you can do is organize and build power independent of the electoral system. Electoralism is just a periodic check on which factions in society are winning the battle of ideas. It doesn’t...
No. Best you can do is organize and build power independent of the electoral system. Electoralism is just a periodic check on which factions in society are winning the battle of ideas. It doesn’t change anything fundamentally, it just marks the underlying changes as they happen.
I agree that organizing and persuasion are important, but people are still going to disagree sometimes and there still needs to be a way to decide what happens.
I agree that organizing and persuasion are important, but people are still going to disagree sometimes and there still needs to be a way to decide what happens.
There were six candidates to begin with, there were hustings and debates all throughout the race. Considering our population is a fraction of the United States, it only makes sense that it's...
There were six candidates to begin with, there were hustings and debates all throughout the race. Considering our population is a fraction of the United States, it only makes sense that it's scaled down.
It probably didn't receive as much international coverage since, a) The United States a larger and more influencial superpower, b) There's laws here in the UK that encourage political coverage to non dramatised on TV, c) The final three candidates all aligned pretty similarly politically and all had a mutual respect for one another, which doesn't make spicy exciting TV, and d) the pandemic meant things had to be much more scaled down and low-key.
Curious to hear what you think they could/should have done differently.
There. Given the UK is under a 2-party system (UKIP is already under the conservative umbrella, Liberal Democrats are presumably next) (with the exception of the regionalists like the SNP or the...
The final three candidates all aligned pretty similarly politically
There. Given the UK is under a 2-party system (UKIP is already under the conservative umbrella, Liberal Democrats are presumably next) (with the exception of the regionalists like the SNP or the other celtic/anti England parties) thanks to FPTP the labour party should accept it's more analogous to a big-tent party like the US Democratic party and run a big-tent (6-13 candidates) primary like the Democrats did. (Albeit with ranked choice voting or maybe just turning the election into a "who's most liked in the party/how willing are you to vote for this guy in the general" contest for the sake of keeping dissatisfaction to a minimum.) Holding the primaries state by state is not a good idea though, that time can be filled by debates.
It's pretty much 'political calculus' thanks to you having the same electoral method as the US and inevitably getting the same, terrible results as the US. (2 party-system, swing seats, popular vote being an afterthought, political moderation,etc.) Without dumping FPTP.
No thanks. More political theatre is not what the UK needs. Party leader is down to the party, not to the public and not to the current media political circus. After the result of your examples...
No thanks. More political theatre is not what the UK needs. Party leader is down to the party, not to the public and not to the current media political circus.
After the result of your examples why would you want to encourage it? Trump and Biden?!
Off-topic but I wish they ran a long primary with a dozen or so candidates for leadership like the Democrats did this year and the Republicans did in 2016. Would be good for figuring out who votes for who in Labour.
Trust me, you don't want your (assuming) politics turning into our politics. The last democratic/republican leadership elections that went that way did no justice and just fragmented the already severely fragmented bases and just delayed time to actually get things done.
I can see why on the surface this would be a fine thing to have more choice, but it's sort of the reason we have devolved into a severe two party system which is the farthest thing from being ideal.
Sure enough. I'm not American but here in Brazil we had 13 candidates for president and we got a right-wing populist vs a center left establishment candidate purely by virtue of the Democratic process and, like in the US, the left got firebombed, although even worse than in the US by 10 million votes.
Problem is, the UK also uses FPTP for it's general/parliamentary elections so there is nothing you can really do outside electoral reform or, "luckily for you", using regionalism/separatism to take a region alone and fuck over the 2 party system before you leave the country (if the British third parties drop out of the parliament and join one of the 2 major parties this is the role the SNP will play.) Since people have more than 2 political views but can only jave 2 parties representing you're kinda forced to have a long, drawn-out primary to pick a nominee.
Any election process that chooses a single leader for an entire country is going to disappoint a lot of people when the country is divided. The best we could probably do is make sure people like their own representatives, but to do that you'd probably have to get rid of FPTP and single-member districts.
No. Best you can do is organize and build power independent of the electoral system. Electoralism is just a periodic check on which factions in society are winning the battle of ideas. It doesn’t change anything fundamentally, it just marks the underlying changes as they happen.
I agree that organizing and persuasion are important, but people are still going to disagree sometimes and there still needs to be a way to decide what happens.
There were six candidates to begin with, there were hustings and debates all throughout the race. Considering our population is a fraction of the United States, it only makes sense that it's scaled down.
It probably didn't receive as much international coverage since, a) The United States a larger and more influencial superpower, b) There's laws here in the UK that encourage political coverage to non dramatised on TV, c) The final three candidates all aligned pretty similarly politically and all had a mutual respect for one another, which doesn't make spicy exciting TV, and d) the pandemic meant things had to be much more scaled down and low-key.
Curious to hear what you think they could/should have done differently.
There. Given the UK is under a 2-party system (UKIP is already under the conservative umbrella, Liberal Democrats are presumably next) (with the exception of the regionalists like the SNP or the other celtic/anti England parties) thanks to FPTP the labour party should accept it's more analogous to a big-tent party like the US Democratic party and run a big-tent (6-13 candidates) primary like the Democrats did. (Albeit with ranked choice voting or maybe just turning the election into a "who's most liked in the party/how willing are you to vote for this guy in the general" contest for the sake of keeping dissatisfaction to a minimum.) Holding the primaries state by state is not a good idea though, that time can be filled by debates.
It's pretty much 'political calculus' thanks to you having the same electoral method as the US and inevitably getting the same, terrible results as the US. (2 party-system, swing seats, popular vote being an afterthought, political moderation,etc.) Without dumping FPTP.
No thanks. More political theatre is not what the UK needs. Party leader is down to the party, not to the public and not to the current media political circus.
After the result of your examples why would you want to encourage it? Trump and Biden?!