Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djtestudo
Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds to me that this is what we do.
The party as a whole chooses the candidate through the primary. Only the members of a party can vote in that primary, as technically they are separate; each party holds them at the same time (for the most part) for convenience.
How does it work in the UK? Are the elections for leaders (Prime Minister, etc.) public? I always assumed that it was more like how the Speaker of the House is elected in America; from within the congressional/party leadership.
|
I'm pretty sure independents can vote in the primary in most states. Could be wrong, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
You must admit though, that Hillary is the party choice within the present context "ie - it not being the final choice"
My contention is that when a decision is brken up into pieces, this damages the quality of the result. I believe:
The party should make one decision of who is the candidate - through the membership of the parliamentary party or a combination of.
The people then should have a straight, and clear, choice.
Of course there is an anti-Hillary mob, as there is an anti-Bush mob. These people dont decide the election, the middle ground do.
|
I disagree. I think democracy would be healthier with *more* candidates in the actual election, rather than having it be party-vs-party. In the US, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, your vote is 'wasted'. Unfortunately, a strong third party candidate (like Ross Perot, before he imploded) can tilt the field towards the *least* popular candidate.
[ LEFT ---Cand. A--Cand. B.----------------|middle|------Cand. C-------------- RIGHT ]
Most voters would prefer either Candidate A or B over candidate C. But since candidate A and B split the 'left/liberal' vote, candidate C has a much better chance of winning.
In our (the USA's) voting system, the primaries let the 'left' (democratic) side and the right (republican) side pick their favorite candidate, then left can fight against right, and you don't have a 'split the vote' issue. There are other systems, like runoff elections, and "single transferable votes" that are supposed to fix this sort of problem. Our (again, in the US) system is a cobbled-together compromise that seems to work 'ok' (except for the last 7 years... ;-)). I would love to see something better come along, though.