3 ms·
> MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of th
by vinay427 8y ago
> MPs don't in fact choose the PM in the UK system either. It's much more indirectly the case that someone who appears that they would have the confidence of the house to pass legislation may be invited by the Queen to form a government.
Yes. My point stands that the PM is inherently different from a President. The President's party can have no representatives in either body and still be elected by the people. Local elections have no bearing on their election, as you're aware.
> for some reason your party leadership elections (primaries etc) are run by the government
The US doesn't have party leadership elections, which is kind of my point. The primaries are for an elected position, not a party leader. My ideal is a California or France-style runoff. Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be?
- chrisseaton 8y agoI think one benefit of electing a set of representatives who then elect a leader amongst themselves or with party members is that they should be able to get along together to get things done. If you elect a set of representatives who want one thing, a higher house of representatives who want another, and a premier who wants something else, nothing gets done. > Why shouldn't the people vote on who their final choices should be? People's final choices are whoever applies to be on the ballot and meets the requirements such as signatures in support. If a group of people (a political party) choose to get behind one candidate, and other candidates in the party agree not to run after that choice, then that's the parties' business - the government shouldn't be involved in running that vote and shouldn't force the party to accept non-members in that decision.