3 things I like about British politics
First, party conventions are really conventions. In the states, conventions are really just advertisements for the presidential candidate. Here, the party debates and determines their platform. Imagine that! I read in the Guardian today that Tony Blair is really taking heat from the Labour Party at the convention that is currently underway. In the states, it would be heretical for a Republican to tell Bush that they weren't happy with him or for a Democrate to tell Clinton that they weren't happy with him.
Second, it's illegal for candidate to advertise. This is nice b/c we don't have to endure the commercials, billboards, and yard signs. Also, you don't have to be rich or have rich friends to run for office. It makes the democracy much more open and democratic.
Third, everyone gets something in the mail requiring them to register to vote. It seems like such a simple solution. Politicians in the states always talk about getting people to register to vote. Why not send everyone a form to get them to register? Maybe politicians don't want everyone to vote...?
I hope that someone will comment on this...
posted by Andy @ 10:43 pm
1 comments
1 Comments:
Hey Andy. Nobody had commented, and I could imagine your disappointment after your earnest plea... so I guess I will.
I thought what you had to say was interesting regarding the British political system. From my experience there, debate is much more a part of the political process there in general. Members of Parliament actually debate each other during the course of their regular legislating... something politicians in the US only do through soundbites and the media, not direct confrontation (except through the presidential campaign speeches that masquerade as debates).
In my mind, media converage of every single minute of party conventions makes it impossible for delegates and representatives to really hash out their party platform. That all has to be done beforehand in order to present a slick, unified, rock-n-roll presentation of the party for the cameras at the convention. My suspicion is that these sort of platform-making meetings do happen, but behind very thick, very locked, doors before the party decides who its candidate will be.
While it might be interesting, it would be next to impossible here to implement any sort of moratorium on campaign advertising. To say that it makes the process more "open and democratic" is idealistic, and perhaps true; but the cynic in me says that candidates with power over and influence within media outlets would garner "free" advertising masking as journalism, and thus, we'd be back to a political power play.
Your third point is interesting, and I respond to it as someone who has spent hours at the New Jersey DMV recently getting a license, registering my car, and registering to vote. Here's the thing: Conservatively, 90% of people over 18 in the United States with a valid mailing address probably have been to the DMV, Secretary of State, whatever office in their state that handles driver licensing, vehicle processing/renewal, issuing of state ID cards, etc., for some reason or another. There are HUGE signs there, in English and Spanish at my local office, talking about registering to vote. I don't think that sending out letters for people to send back would produce any greater response than going to the local DMV, registering at drives, hitting up the local city office. Also, groups not "targeted" by city offices and DMVs might also be missed through direct mailing... the homeless, transient, non-native speakers, etc. In my opinion, the lack of voter registration in the US is a problem of laziness and apathy, not a vast conspiracy to keep people out of the polling place.
Anyway, that is way more than my two cents. And, you have your comment. Hope all is well there.
Post a Comment
<< Home