"Andy" wrote in message
news:cdba9186-7ca5-42af-b6d0-4720c4b9346e@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Living in the UK, I'm somewhat envious of the "primaries" happening in
> the US. I think this is a great idea, and it's thrown up plenty of
> interesting debates.
> How could we bring some of the benefits of this approach to the
> parliamentary system used in the UK? I've had a little think about
> this and come up with the idea of "standardised" leadership elections.
> Firstly , the parties MPs would choose a candidate. Secondly, the
> parties other elected officials, such as councillors, assembly members
> and MEPs would get a choice, and lastly the "rank and file" party
> activists. This would produce three able candidates, of which the
> general public would have the chance to vote on. An additional
> advantage of such an arrangement would be the leadership hopefuls
> would have to pitch their case to voters of other parties. Should the
> party concerned have no MPs, then their leader could be appointed to
> parliament as a non-voting member. Would the commons not benefit from
> a speaker for the Greens or UKIP, who have no MPs but considerable
> public support.
Those primaries (and all that goes with them) cost a small fortune to anyone
who wishes to run in them. This ensures that only those with $$$ can afford
to be elected in the US. It also ensures that the next presidential race
starts almost as soon as the last one finishes. Here in Britian we have
laws that prevent this situation because the money and time that can be
spent on an election campaign is strictly limited. And a good job as well.
|