Originally posted by FireOh well. The way I see it, they voted because of the religious right. "God's nation", "destroy the evil commies that threaten our democracy". All that bullshit that people gave in to. I might be wrong, but if someone can prove I am, go ahead.
No not really, American politics aren't my specialty, plus that's pretty hard to predict/explain anywayz.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Zebedee is forgetting that we do not directly elect rulers in this country, only local representatives who cannot be stopped from combining as they wish, so his entire argument is basically irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if he was talking about their mandate or not, he was talking about removing the right of a party to be in power for more than one or two terms, which is a ludicrous point to raise when we don't vote parties into power, only local politicans who are then free to form associations- that parties come to power as a result of that is not a direct result of the poll. Moan about whips all you like, it changes nothing. I'm not talking of theory, merely the sheer and unquestionable practicality of the matter. It's not like barring a President from a third term, not at all.
The entire thrust of his point is, basically, irrelevant. You cannot stop people voting for local representatives, and the majority of the party mechanic isn't even voted for. So that pretty much ends the matter.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter if he was talking about their mandate or not, he was talking about removing the right of a party to be in power for more than one or two terms, which is a ludicrous point to raise when we don't vote parties into power, oinly local politicans who are then free to form associations. Moan about whips all you like, it changes nothing. I'm not talking of theory, merely the sheer and unquestionable practicality of the matter. It's not like barring a President from a third term, not at all.The entire thrust of his point is, basically, irrelevant.
I didn't read it like that. I read it as, "it's wise for the people to avoid allowing politicians to complete longterm objectives". Almost the ultimate expression of conservatism. Actually Parties are voted into power through local representatives. Opinion polls influence when a party will go to election. Ergo Gordon Brown has decided not to. This is because he is unsure that he will gain sufficient local representatives to form the type of Government he wishes, which is able to implement his vision of "socialism" (small almost invisible s).
I see nothing strange in Zebedees statement. He merely feels letting any politicians complete long term goals usually results in less Freedom for the individual. The Thatcher and Blair years would incdicate this might well be true.
Originally posted by lord xyzThere are advantages with the Republicans' views as well as there are disadvantages with the Democrats' views.
Oh well. The way I see it, they voted because of the religious right. "God's nation", "destroy the evil commies that threaten our democracy". All that bullshit that people gave in to. I might be wrong, but if someone can prove I am, go ahead.
You paint a picture that is far too one sided. Democrats/Liberal do not have a stronghold of good ideas, really, to many the current Republicans are just worse due to some of the arguments you brought up.