Reply to: Mitt Romney (seeing as you lot are on about thick people)

[Old Hack]

Do they fine you for spoiling your ballot?

No, you're forced to actively abstain through a spoiled vote.

I still feel it undemocratic, in a sense.

They get a turnout of 90%. If you refuse to pay the fine, I believe you can get sent to jail. The land of the free I guess...

[Robinho]

As supposed to the idiot's choice that is Obama and Romney.

[d000hg]

Ron Paul the nerd's choice.

[Robinho]

What's funny?

[d000hg]

Reps should sack Romney and run Ron Paul.

[Robinho]

Clinton, Bush and Obama have all ****ed the economy. No reason to keep voting for bankruptcy (Obama) though.

[Mich the Tester]

<pedant>Torys get less than 50% and half seats<\pedant>

I agree - we should be able to vote for a person rather than party. Though I think I would prefer Vince Cable.

To get back to the point about Mitt Romney - I think he has thrown it away. The American people hate Obama as, in their eyes, he has fooked the economy. Alas the USA economy is over borrowed and no-one can sort it out. Only a correction can do that - it can be 12 ordinary strokes or 6 of the best.

Of course, GW Bush didn't fook the economy at all.

[Moscow Mule]

I actualy agree with you about Cable, as it happens. He seems to be the brightest one out there.

Vince is my MP.

I'm not sure he's the brightest one at all - he suffers from the same vanity as they all do (cf his boasting to two women reporters in this constituency office).

He tends to far to the left for my liking.

[Old Hack]

An American who was over here last week said exactly that. "The big problem the Democrats have is convincing people to vote". He said they tend to turn out more when it's a case of voting out a Republican president, but they're less bothered about keeping a Democrat president in power.

He also said the turnout in the US is < 50% anyway. Which is pretty appalling for a country that makes such a big deal about democracy.

I had a bit of a chat with an Aussie about democracy. As far as I am aware, you have to vote in Australia, literally are fined for not voting.

I sometimes think a very valid part about democracy is the ability not to vote, however perverse that sounds. I vote all the time, but there's something quite sinister about being made to vote.

[VectraMan]

All the democrats have to do to win at the moment, given the make up of the country, is show up.

An American who was over here last week said exactly that. "The big problem the Democrats have is convincing people to vote". He said they tend to turn out more when it's a case of voting out a Republican president, but they're less bothered about keeping a Democrat president in power.

He also said the turnout in the US is < 50% anyway. Which is pretty appalling for a country that makes such a big deal about democracy.

[Old Hack]

I agree, but do you not think we'd vote differently if we actually voted for our leaders? Would we not have a Paddy Ashdown, instead of a Milliband? I don't think more than 50% of people would have voted Cameron in, if it were up to us, but it isn't.

<pedant>Torys get less than 50% and half seats<\pedant>

I agree - we should be able to vote for a person rather than party. Though I think I would prefer Vince Cable.

To get back to the point about Mitt Romney - I think he has thrown it away. The American people hate Obama as, in their eyes, he has fooked the economy. Alas the USA economy is over borrowed and no-one can sort it out. Only a correction can do that - it can be 12 ordinary strokes or 6 of the best.

I wasn't suggesting the tories get half the seats, for less than half the vote, I was musing what would happen if we did vote for our leaders, rather than a party, that they wouldn't get half the vote, by having Cameron in charge, if we voted for the person, the very thing I think is wrong with the republicans in the states.

I actualy agree with you about Cable, as it happens. He seems to be the brightest one out there.

[Robinho]

Obama is tulipe and should be out on his arse but he must be favourite now.

Reps should sack Romney and run Ron Paul.

[BrilloPad]

I agree, but do you not think we'd vote differently if we actually voted for our leaders? Would we not have a Paddy Ashdown, instead of a Milliband? I don't think more than 50% of people would have voted Cameron in, if it were up to us, but it isn't.

<pedant>Torys get less than 50% and half seats<\pedant>

I agree - we should be able to vote for a person rather than party. Though I think I would prefer Vince Cable.

To get back to the point about Mitt Romney - I think he has thrown it away. The American people hate Obama as, in their eyes, he has fooked the economy. Alas the USA economy is over borrowed and no-one can sort it out. Only a correction can do that - it can be 12 ordinary strokes or 6 of the best.

[Old Hack]

FTFY

I agree, but do you not think we'd vote differently if we actually voted for our leaders? Would we not have a Paddy Ashdown, instead of a Milliband? I don't think more than 50% of people would have voted Cameron in, if it were up to us, but it isn't.

[BrilloPad]

The worst thing about the brits, is that for so many years, the Tory candidate comes from a privileged background, and has no idea about the real world, having lived a privileged life. One day, one day, the penny will drop that to beat them, they'll have to get a Tory who's a Grocer's daughter.

FTFY