since everything is more spread out here they aren't within walking distance
Would be interesting to compare the ratio of polling places here and there. My guess would be that you've hit the nail on the head with these two points if the polling stations are further away from you, and you have less of them, you're going to get queues. Add that to the fact that US ballot papers have a million questions on them, whereas here we usually just mark one box* with a cross beside the candidate we are voting for it sheds some light on the root of the problem, but I agree, a comparison of the ratio of polling booths per head would be an interesting read.
*or if General and local elections fall on the same day, up to three; counting all the types of elections that we have in the UK I think there's a theortical maximum of five or six, but I don't believe that this has ever happened. Personally the maximum I've ever had to mark was two ballot papers.
The difference between you in the states, and us in the UK, seems to be one of scale then, we have lots of small polling booths (usually at a local school or church hall), and everyone usually has one within walking distance. Election day here in the UK is also not a public holiday (although many schools shut as their halls are being used), bizarrely it's always a Thursday, so I also pop into my local polling station on my way to work; as I take the bus,it adds all of an extra 10 minutes to my journey as I have a longer walk to the bus stop.
That's what I thought of first as well, and I'm under 30; I just like That Mitchell and Webb sound. Besides, Radio 4 is usually the starting place for good comedy. The Hitch-Hikers guide to the Galaxy, through Goodness Gracious me, to Dead Ringers all started on Radio 4. Along with the timeless classics such as just a minute and I'm sorry I haven't a clue, radio 4 makes good listening for anyone who likes good comedy, not just the over 30s (yes I know you were joking, but unfortunately, the "over 30s only" has a seed of truth too it).
As others have indicated, I spoiled my ballot on purpose, as I was dissatisfied with the choices on offer. I view that as a positive way to abstain, rather than be counted among the apathetic, or, as government spin puts it, those who are happy with the current government. As there is no "none of the above" or "re-open nominations" box on UK ballot papers it's the closest thing I have to a protest vote without voting for people I fundamentally disagree with, like UKIP or Labour (I live in a Tory\Lib-Dem marginal).
What if you were able to take your time with voting instead of being rushed through a line/queue with 20 people waiting for you to finish when you finally get to the polling station? Whereabouts do you live*, and how long do the people near you take to put a cross in a box? I have never ever had to wait more than 10 seconds to vote, and have weeks running up to election day to make up my mind (admittedly last general election I changed my mind at the last minute and spoiled my ballot paper). Usually there is absolutely no one else at the polling station except the clerk and returning officer.
*If you're not in the UK, we have quite small constituencies and lots of polling stations in each, combined with a low voter turnout. That means no waiting and quick results.
W I don't vote either, because it a) would have no effect, and b) all the parties look the same and are likely to lie and change their policies once they get in anyway (like Labour did). Do you do it affirmatively by spoiling your ballot paper, or do you stay home, and get counted among the apathetic or as the Labour spin puts it, those people who are happy with the way things are? IMO voting is a duty, even if you spoil your ballot paper, but people should at least make the effort to go down to the polling station. Imagine the message that would be sent by thousands of spoiled ballots. It would be a lot stronger than the message being sent know, where the parties just write it off as people who can't be bothered.
Sorry, my mistake, but IIRC last time he was in the states, the US congress gave him something like 20 standing ovations, so I didn't catch the sarcasm as I thought you might have actually thought that was also reflected here in domestic opinion (I obviously don't know if you are American or British).:-)
Politically, I'm closest to the LibDems, I think. I don't find them particularly inspiring, though. Lembit Opik's recent antics are an embarrassment. I can't let you get away with that, he's a single man, and she's a single woman; the whole thing is a storm in a tabloid tea-cup. However, I digress from my main point I agree with largely you here, the Lib-Dems aren't inspiring, but at least they've been consistent. Unfortunately, although I agree with them socially I cannot bring myself to vote for them due to their insistence on higher taxes, and I'm an economic liberal, so believe in smaller government etc.
The Conservatives' attempt to reinvent themselves is a blatant sham. It looks so much like the pre-1997 "New Labour" project that it isn't funny. David Cameron is Tony Blair all over again.
-Stephen Again, I partly agree, but I think it's too early to judge as they haven't really put out any policies (and IMO rightly so as Labour would just take all the popular ones). But I like the direction of travel that "Dave" is taking them in. On the surface, at least, they are becoming less authoritarian, and if they stand on this platform at the next general election, I might be able to place a vote for them at the next election. Perhaps I'm just idealistic and naive, but I know that there is no party that will represent all my political beliefs, but if one can hit more than half I think that a vote for them isn't a vote for the least worst party, but a positive vote.
You'd think that after all the positive praise awarded Blair's government and their ties to international policy, Awarded by whom? IIRC They are behind to the Tories in the polls by 6 to 8 points. Personally I think that they are on a downward spiral, they look headed for defeat to the Scottish Nationalists in the upcoming Scottish Parliament elections, and when (the Scottish) Gordon Brown takes over from Tony Blair, the people of England will resent them even more (last election they lost the popular vote in England, but ended up with more seats due to our first past the post system; combined with their Scottish and Welsh seats, it gave the a healthy majority at Westminster).
It's interesting that both you and the OP are talking about who to vote against. Is the political situation both here in the UK, and over in the States so bad that a vote is no longer a positive statement for a political party? I know I'm having a hard time deciding who to vote for.
If by "quite a bit of time" you mean one question, (IIRC by Keith Vas) and around 30 seconds, at Prime Ministers Question time, then yes they did. There was also an early day motion, but that's outside parliamentary time, and just consists of MPs signing their names, no debate involved. Oh, and Big Brother is on Channel 4, not the BBC.
I live in a Tory\Liberal marginal seat, so a vote for NuLabour[sic] is as much use as a vote for The Monster raving loony party Fortunately my political views are no where near those of the Labour party, but the joys of the first past the post system are not lost on me. Instead of this pointless move, why aren't they doing something useful, like introducing the single transferable vote system. That would re-engage more people than this gimmick.
what empowers the two houses of Parliament? Parliment derives it's power from the monarch, not from a constitutinal document. The monarch derives her power, from God (she is also head of the Church of England, we don't have any seperation of church and state, thank you Henry VIII); a legacy of the devine right of kings.
They disn't include Oxford or Cambridge either, both have universities much more pre-eminant than Boston; what point are you tring to make. This list has nothing to do with institutions of higher education; if your RTFA, the criteria they use are: "The ICF selects the Intelligent Community list based on how advanced the communities are in deploying broadband, building a knowledge-based workforce, combining government and private-sector "digital inclusion," fostering innovation and marketing economic development."
Besides what makes Boston such a centre of education anyway? As you can tell, I'm from the UK and when I think of American Universities, I think of Harvard, Yale, Princton and the Ivy league. AFAIK Boston isn't on the Map in that respect.
I would define the UK as a democratically elected republic with a monarch figurehead This phrase shows me that you are very wrong; a republic by definition*, does not have a monarch as head of state. Secondly, the UK hasn't got a single constitutional document, instead the constitution is takes the form of a series of acts of parliment and other documents, from the Magna carta, and 1689 bill of rights, various acts of union up to the 1998 human rights act (none of these are formally called our constitution, but IMO constitutional lawers would generally agrree with me), combined with a healthy dose of tradition. Parliment passes and changes our unwritten constitution as eaisly as any other act.
As for the monarchy, the power it holds (technically the Queen can declare war, disolve parliment and and sign legally treaties amongst other things)is passed to the Prime Minister by Royal perogative, and is hence held accountable to parliment (this is one of those things done by tradition, AFAIK no law mandates this). The UK's constitution is a quagmire, and there is no simple term to describe it, the one we use is, as I mentioned, "constitunal monarchy"; as a form of government, and democracy for the decision making process.
*As demonstrated by the fact that people who oppose the monarch are called republicans, see also the dictionary: 3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
So how would you define the UK, in your system? I define it as a democracy, as we vote for MPs to represent us, and parliment is soverign. Most people would call that form of decision making representative democracy. Our form of government however is that of a constitutional monarchy, as the head of state is not elected but born into the role. I repeat, being a democracy does not exclude you from being a republic or a constitunial mornarchy.
However it's perfectly possible to have republics or monarchies that are undemocratic, see current day China or WWII Japan. What you have to remember is that a democracy is a form of decision making, not a form of government in itself; unless you are takling about direct democracy, and the nearest we have to that are the Swiss.
Did you even read the rest of my post? hell, did you even read the seven words after those you quoted? I'll summerise for your benifit; being a democracy and a republic are not mutually exclucive.
Why do people always recite this "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic" nonsense, as if the two are mutually exclusive, it would be like me saying, the UK's not a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy, which would be wrong. The UK is both a constitutional monarchy and a democracy. Dictionary.com defines democracy as
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (emphasis mine) The USA and the UK both fit this definition. Most of the world uses the word democracy as shorthand for democratic republics such as the USA, constitutional monarchies like the UK or direct democracies like the Swiss. It's obvious that the GP was using the term in this way.
No, he's right, it's 668. Think of an average street, even numbers on one side, odd on the other(at least that's how it works here in the UK); hence the neighbours are 668, and 664./pedant
It's not the EU The title is misleading, Norway isn't even part of the EU! France and Germany, as sovreign nations, are following Norway's example. It dosn't appear to be anything to do with the EU at all.
There is *no pressure* on Apple to bow down to any of the EUs demands Indeed, Norway isn't even part of the EU, the title is a little misleading. However, if the EU as a whole followed the trail layed by Norway (instead of just a couple of EU countries), then apple could be in trouble, pulling out of a market as large as that of the now 27 member EU, would be a bad idea, there would be more to gain by following the rules than there would be to lose from exiting the market.
Article 8 of the human rights act (1998) does give us the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
If I'm not mistaken, you British don't use one of those, but IANAL. Oh, we have a constitution, we just haven't seen the need to keep it in one place, It's based on multiple documents including the Magna carta, the bill of Rights various Acts of Union and many more besides (the most recent is probably the human rights act), all combined with a healthy dose of tradition. However IMO it's about time we compiled it into a single document like other modern constitutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Would be interesting to compare the ratio of polling places here and there. My guess would be that you've hit the nail on the head with these two points if the polling stations are further away from you, and you have less of them, you're going to get queues. Add that to the fact that US ballot papers have a million questions on them, whereas here we usually just mark one box* with a cross beside the candidate we are voting for it sheds some light on the root of the problem, but I agree, a comparison of the ratio of polling booths per head would be an interesting read.
*or if General and local elections fall on the same day, up to three; counting all the types of elections that we have in the UK I think there's a theortical maximum of five or six, but I don't believe that this has ever happened. Personally the maximum I've ever had to mark was two ballot papers.
The difference between you in the states, and us in the UK, seems to be one of scale then, we have lots of small polling booths (usually at a local school or church hall), and everyone usually has one within walking distance. Election day here in the UK is also not a public holiday (although many schools shut as their halls are being used), bizarrely it's always a Thursday, so I also pop into my local polling station on my way to work; as I take the bus,it adds all of an extra 10 minutes to my journey as I have a longer walk to the bus stop.
That's what I thought of first as well, and I'm under 30; I just like That Mitchell and Webb sound. Besides, Radio 4 is usually the starting place for good comedy. The Hitch-Hikers guide to the Galaxy, through Goodness Gracious me, to Dead Ringers all started on Radio 4. Along with the timeless classics such as just a minute and I'm sorry I haven't a clue, radio 4 makes good listening for anyone who likes good comedy, not just the over 30s (yes I know you were joking, but unfortunately, the "over 30s only" has a seed of truth too it).
As others have indicated, I spoiled my ballot on purpose, as I was dissatisfied with the choices on offer. I view that as a positive way to abstain, rather than be counted among the apathetic, or, as government spin puts it, those who are happy with the current government. As there is no "none of the above" or "re-open nominations" box on UK ballot papers it's the closest thing I have to a protest vote without voting for people I fundamentally disagree with, like UKIP or Labour (I live in a Tory\Lib-Dem marginal).
*If you're not in the UK, we have quite small constituencies and lots of polling stations in each, combined with a low voter turnout. That means no waiting and quick results.
Sorry, my mistake, but IIRC last time he was in the states, the US congress gave him something like 20 standing ovations, so I didn't catch the sarcasm as I thought you might have actually thought that was also reflected here in domestic opinion (I obviously don't know if you are American or British). :-)
-Stephen
Again, I partly agree, but I think it's too early to judge as they haven't really put out any policies (and IMO rightly so as Labour would just take all the popular ones). But I like the direction of travel that "Dave" is taking them in. On the surface, at least, they are becoming less authoritarian, and if they stand on this platform at the next general election, I might be able to place a vote for them at the next election. Perhaps I'm just idealistic and naive, but I know that there is no party that will represent all my political beliefs, but if one can hit more than half I think that a vote for them isn't a vote for the least worst party, but a positive vote.
When we tried it here in the UK, a judge said it would be"worthy of a banana republic". So what works for Oregon may not work for us.
It's interesting that both you and the OP are talking about who to vote against. Is the political situation both here in the UK, and over in the States so bad that a vote is no longer a positive statement for a political party? I know I'm having a hard time deciding who to vote for.
If by "quite a bit of time" you mean one question, (IIRC by Keith Vas) and around 30 seconds, at Prime Ministers Question time, then yes they did. There was also an early day motion, but that's outside parliamentary time, and just consists of MPs signing their names, no debate involved. Oh, and Big Brother is on Channel 4, not the BBC.
I live in a Tory\Liberal marginal seat, so a vote for NuLabour[sic] is as much use as a vote for The Monster raving loony party Fortunately my political views are no where near those of the Labour party, but the joys of the first past the post system are not lost on me. Instead of this pointless move, why aren't they doing something useful, like introducing the single transferable vote system. That would re-engage more people than this gimmick.
They disn't include Oxford or Cambridge either, both have universities much more pre-eminant than Boston; what point are you tring to make. This list has nothing to do with institutions of higher education; if your RTFA, the criteria they use are: "The ICF selects the Intelligent Community list based on how advanced the communities are in deploying broadband, building a knowledge-based workforce, combining government and private-sector "digital inclusion," fostering innovation and marketing economic development."
Besides what makes Boston such a centre of education anyway? As you can tell, I'm from the UK and when I think of American Universities, I think of Harvard, Yale, Princton and the Ivy league. AFAIK Boston isn't on the Map in that respect.
As for the monarchy, the power it holds (technically the Queen can declare war, disolve parliment and and sign legally treaties amongst other things)is passed to the Prime Minister by Royal perogative, and is hence held accountable to parliment (this is one of those things done by tradition, AFAIK no law mandates this). The UK's constitution is a quagmire, and there is no simple term to describe it, the one we use is, as I mentioned, "constitunal monarchy"; as a form of government, and democracy for the decision making process.
*As demonstrated by the fact that people who oppose the monarch are called republicans, see also the dictionary:
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
So how would you define the UK, in your system? I define it as a democracy, as we vote for MPs to represent us, and parliment is soverign. Most people would call that form of decision making representative democracy. Our form of government however is that of a constitutional monarchy, as the head of state is not elected but born into the role. I repeat, being a democracy does not exclude you from being a republic or a constitunial mornarchy.
However it's perfectly possible to have republics or monarchies that are undemocratic, see current day China or WWII Japan. What you have to remember is that a democracy is a form of decision making, not a form of government in itself; unless you are takling about direct democracy, and the nearest we have to that are the Swiss.
Did you even read the rest of my post? hell, did you even read the seven words after those you quoted? I'll summerise for your benifit; being a democracy and a republic are not mutually exclucive.
No, he's right, it's 668. Think of an average street, even numbers on one side, odd on the other(at least that's how it works here in the UK); hence the neighbours are 668, and 664. /pedant
It's not the EU The title is misleading, Norway isn't even part of the EU! France and Germany, as sovreign nations, are following Norway's example. It dosn't appear to be anything to do with the EU at all.
The House of Lords is also the supreme court of the UK, as the Law lords(same as US supreme court judges) sit there as legislators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_functions_of _the_House_of_Lords
Separation of powers? What's that?
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
However IMO it's about time we compiled it into a single document like other modern constitutions.