h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Over 350 people are on the ballot for governor of California. Arnie is just the only one anyone is taking seriously.

I mean, really... Gary Coleman?

Do you have a better example we could discuss then Jodan ?

Math

No, they took out the paperwork to file, but as of yesterday, there are 14 or 15 people on the ballot, including Gary Coleman, Arianna Huffington, Ah-nold (although it isn't officially filed yet), a porn star named Angeline, possibly Larry Flynt (publisher of Hustler), the lieutenant governor Cruz Bustamante, and others.

The creepy guy that financed the signature gathering portion of the recall dropped out. I can't decide if it was the celebrity of other candidates or if it was the realization on his part that his past (concealed weapons charges, grand theft auto, etc) wasn't going to stand up to scrutiny.

"What if you vote, the person you vote for wins, and then is awful, incapable of getting anything done, having voted for this person do you have the right to complain ?" --was this you, Blatherskite, or was it Math?

Either way, of course you have the right to complain. What I meant is that if you are not willing to take the five minutes out of your life it takes to vote, then I really think you don't have much of a right to complain about the work the people you couldn't be bothered to help select do. If you vote, it doesn't matter if the person who won is someone you voted for or not...at least you voiced your opinion at the ballot box, which in my view, allows you to voice your opinion later.

At election time I spend a couple of hours reading the various bits of advertising they post as well as some reporters views. I check any referances they use, and see if I can find a candidate that I'm actually willing to support. I haven't so far. So I haven't used my votes, not out of lazyness, but out of considered decision.

Math

Gray Davis, the current governor of California also wants to run, so that he can replace himself

All you need to get on the ballot is a bit of money and like 60 signatures.

As the only one remotely qualified who talks sense, Huffington has my vote.

That quote wasn't me. I agree with your sentiments, though. One of my favorite things to say is, "He's not my ! I didn't vote for him." This is how you console yourself when the guys you vote for never win.

Huffington is doomed.

"To sidetrack a moment; why then does the US pressure other governments into becoming democracies, as it does not hold to this ideal itself ?"

It means "become a republic", basically. Have an elected government. I have no idea when "democracy" started to be used to mean "republic" (there are no pure democracies in the world), but I suspect it goes back to the late 19th century when the European monarchies started to seriously flirt with republican ideas of government. Because "republic" had connotations of non-monarchy and elected head-of-state, the old Greek term "democracy" gets used instead.

Of course, you have "republics" in the world that do not function as such - North Korea, Syria etc. Like a lot of political words "republic" has had it's meaning worn-away by good old History.

But really, the terms are a form of double-speak, like saying the US has a two-party system. All I see is one big group of politicians, with some more this way, and some more that, but other than Paul Wellstone and Jim Jefferies, no one's really stood up and said what needs to be said. If there's nothing else to be said for Arnie, he doesn't need anyone's $. Now if only that were true of the congressional members.

Arnie is also good friends with Jesse Ventura. I'd love to have Ventura on the ballot here.

Arnie is using the slogan "Toatal recall" and the movie poster

Arianna showed up in her hybrid car and pointed to Arnies SUV and said it was a good example of what they stood for. The crowd loudly cheered Arnold on.

"All I see is one big group of politicians, with some more this way, and some more that, but other than Paul Wellstone and Jim Jefferies, no one's really stood up and said what needs to be said."

It would be interesting to see what would happen if political parties didn't come into the equation and people had to stand purely on their own political beliefs. Voters in the countries where democracy has existed for decades usually vote by "tradition" rather than on party policy. A good example of this is Britain's Labour Party. In the 1980s the LP was a far-left party with a staunchly socialist agenda. This caused the formation of a splinter party, the Social Democratic Party who were a more liberal/centre-left party. The Labour Party remained the main opposition party throughout the 1980s, the SDP got a small amount of votes and eventually merged with the Liberal Party. In the 1990s, Tony Blair reformed the Labour Party and made it a social democratic party with a liberal/centre-left agenda (sound familiar?). The Labour Party won a landslide victory in 1997, largely thanks to it's core socialist supporters who were just voting for "The Labour Party". So, in short, the SDP people won in the end, just by taking over the Labour Party rather than through their own Party.

I have written an article contrasting the political systems of the US and the UK. Comments please.

A1145440

I have written an article contrasting the political systems of the US and the UK. Comments please.

A1145440

I posted there
Should be enough for someone to quibble with considering I am not all that knowlegable.And terrible at typing

One question I have regarding UK politics : Is there any form of proportional representation in the House of Commons ? If Labour wins 56% of the votes, does it get 56% of the seats? If so, how do they determine which specific seats that party takes? Or is it a case of whichever party wins the majority of votes in that district gets control of that seat ? Hoping someone across the pond will answer. I feel I understand the US system fairly well, but would like to understand the British system better

The UK voting system is a lot like the US vote for Representatives. Whoever wins a majority in the district wins the seat for that particular district.

Whichever party wins a majority of seats gets to choose their own Prime Minister and organize their own government.

So you can look at the election in the UK in two ways. Either you vote for the Prime Minister you want, and get stuck with whatever local representative attaches himself to the PM's coattails, or you vote for the local representative you want, and accept a disenfranchisement for the office of PM.

that sort of sucks, doesn't it? But of the two, which is the "better" option? I would think that trying to influence local politics would bet the less distasteful of the two.

It's all a matter of perspective. However you choose to look at it, the end result is still the same.

I get the impression when I discuss this topic on this site that Brits don't concern themselves with the local representative, but vote for the party and the PM. That probably makes the most sense out of the two possible perspectives... local governments do not have the sort of autonomy US governments do anyway, so I guess a top-down approach to voting makes sense.

Thanks, Blatherskite !

It also might be that since UK is so much smaller than the US (in land area anyway) all politics is local by comparison. The whole UK is not that much larger than the state of Utah (where I live)- it's only about half again as big. Any insight from beyond the pond ?

We also have local elections to bring in local government and appoint members to local councils to deal with local matters. Sort of like voting for a mayor, I suppose.

In the national elections we vote for someone to represent our area in the house of commons. On a weekly basis, these representatives are supposed to hold 'clinics' in the area they represent to help sort out local issues. However, often a party will put a candidate they like in a party 'safe seat' so that this member can join the house of commons eg Michael 'Portaloo' Portillo in the last general election. These people rarely care about local issues (and are often Tories ). The problem with such representaives is that they spend so much time away from where they represent they lose touch with local issues. This may be worse in the US due to greater distances because of the size of the country.

But given the complexity of the British politcal system, it can make things very interesting.