what do you think is the lamest democracy on planet earth?

i think its the u.k.. the people don't even elect their prime minister yet they think they are a democracy

 

thats what you get for being 16 then isn't it

 

That’s the toughest question I have heard in a long time so I will have to give it some thought. Cheers!

 

Democracy has about a 100 - 150 year life span.


Google tragedy of the commons. The older the democracy, the lamer it is.

The younger the democracy, the more it seems to get bombed or subverted.

However, I think the US citizens have an even tougher time, at least right now.

 

Of course we elect our PM.

 

I think they mean because Brown stepped into the position with out contest - that is true.
Were supposed to elect a goverment not a PM.
We may have the opportunity to tell Mr brown what we think of him - in under two years.

 

But that's how our system works. Hell, the only other decent choice we have for parliament is the Torie's. Personally, I'd rather Labour than the Torie's so I don't think it's that much of a big deal.

...Is it a big deal anyway, or do Americans just don't understand?

 

How does that work though? Who picked Brown to step in? And if you elect your PMs then why didn't he have to be elected?
(Sorry I'm a little slow on the political front but I do want to know)

 

We vote for a party to represent us and to act as parliament. Each party has a 5 year term, whereafter a general election takes place. Seeming as the 5 year term is not up yet, but Tony Blair has retired, Gordon Brown has taken over as leader of the Labour party by appointment of Tony Blair to replace him.

Make sense?

 

Wasn't there still an internal vote to decide if Brown would be the man to take over? I'm not positive but I'm sure there were a couple of people challenged him for the job.

 

Okay yeah, so does that mean you will have another election when the five years are up? Is that in a year?

 

Yeah, I think it's in a year. So Brown has to do alot in a short time if he wants to stay for a full term.

 

Okay, thanks for the explanation Matthews.

 

i don't understand why some Americans don't get this or see it as a big deal.

in the American government if something were to happen to the President, even if he is impeached or steps down then the Vice-President takes over with no election.
And if something happens to the Vice-President the Speaker of the House of Representatives takes over again with no election.

The election still takes place at the end of the original term of the President that had been in office. So if it happens in the second year of the presidency, then whoever takes over serves the remaining two years till the next general election.

So, it makes perfect sense to me. Just hopefully you lot will be smart enough to not keep Brown in when it comes time to get him out.

 

then again maybe many Americans just don't know how their own government works.

 

And replace him with whom exactly ?

 

um ... er ... a toaster

 

or even better a toasted sandwich maker

 

That bit LAM missed out.
Nobody managed to get minimum of 45 votes [I think] apart from Brown.

Bid for Labour Leadership [candidates]

In his resignation speech on 10 May, Tony Blair stated he would stand down as Prime Minister on 27 June. After years of speculation, Gordon Brown formally announced on 11 May 2007 his bid for the Labour leadership. Brown launched his campaign website the same day as formally announcing his bid for leadership "Gordon Brown for Britain". On the Wednesday following this announcement it became clear no other candidate would gain enough nominations to get on the ballot paper with Brown. On Channel 4 news on 16 May 2007 it was announced Andrew Mackinlay had nominated Brown giving him 308 nominations, sufficient to avoid a leadership contest. He formally became Leader of the Labour party at a special Party Conference held in Manchester on 24 June.

*looks around* both of us ? - no problem



Matthew-

 

In an interview with Jeremy Paxman in April 2005, Blair agreed that "people are entitled to know what they're voting for" and insisted that if re-elected as PM he would serve a full term. Well, I guess he had his fingers crossed or something.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1465141,00.html