donutsweeper (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
donutsweeper) wrote2008-11-03 12:08 pm
donutsweeper) wrote2008-11-03 12:08 pm
Entry tags:
VOTE!!
Since I know all my US friends will be voting tomorrow I thought I'd share some very important facts about the day:
That's right! If you vote and show your "I voted" sticker you can get free Starbucks coffee, free Ben & Jerry's ice cream and a free Krispy Kreme donut!
So, do your civic duty and yadada, and then go get yourself some treats!
Voting = FREE FOOD!!!!!!
That's right! If you vote and show your "I voted" sticker you can get free Starbucks coffee, free Ben & Jerry's ice cream and a free Krispy Kreme donut!
So, do your civic duty and yadada, and then go get yourself some treats!
no subject
The random calling doesn't make sense to us either *g* When Brown finally took over mid-term he was dithering for a few weeks about whether to call and election.
Basically it means that any government can look at the state of the economy, general feeling and gamble whether it's going to get worse or better in another year. And they can call snap elections too with only a few weeks to campaign, etc. It's like when it was our Queen's Golden Jubliee; the election was due that year but Blair called it the year before with the 'excuse' that he didn't want the election to detract from the Jubilee, but everyone (from all sides) knew it was because he had some unpopular bills coming through and didn't want to risk them causing problems for him.
They keep saying we need to have fixed terms, but it's like proportional representation, it's going to take a super brave government to upset the system that got it into power.
Do you know I am not 100% certain, nor is J. We think in theory they can, but in practise, given there aren't enough seats in the house for all MPs anyway, if the government have any kind of reasonable majority their side is going to be filled up. Traditionally the small parties sit together in one particular place on the opposition side of the house.
no subject
no subject
I guess it must be the same everywhere - after all looking at the popular vote for Obama and McCain it was a heck of a lot closer than the actual senate seats given out per state.
We do think that PR might, possibly come in at some time. Scotland (we have our own Parliament for some things but are still part of the general government for others, very confusing) has it to an extent, ditto the Welsh assembly, so . . .
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Both our countries have, in effect, the 'first past the post system'. Which means that it's not actually in any way, shape or form truly representative.
All over LJ and the news, etc. etc. everyone is talking about Obama's landslide and how the country showed whom they wanted. Okay . . . But look at it this way: his landslide victory is in no way in line with the popular vote, is it? The landslide comes from Senate seats. The popular vote put him just over 51% - thus in reality your country is actually not overwhelmingly saying 'we wanted Obama', but your system makes it look that way.
And the same is true here as well. Last time Blair got in with considerably less than the 'popular' vote (down in the mid 30%s with the second party only a couple of percent less) in fact IMS it's been a while since any party got over 50% of the popular vote. Even in Labour's 'landslide' election they only got 43% of the popular vote.
As the Lib Dems have been saying for years/decades, the system isn't fair and in effect 'doesn't work'.
Look at it that way, and you can see they and others opposed to 'first past the post' have a point.
Scary almost when you look at it so closely.
no subject
But it's better then it was, when a few old guys determined who ran things.
no subject
Oh, yes!