>>
|
754124.jpg
Gale Cake
754124
>>8140
>For example in the UK TV media are required to be impartial in elections,
That means basically nothing with regard to the media circus, and is merely removing the right of broadcasters to broadcast what they want.
>and every party gets a limited amount of free time to broadcast its message on TV.
That's kind of dumb. The government is paying so that parties can advance their own agendas? Not even the candidates, but the parties? Yeah, I wouldn't consider that positive at all. It reinforces partisanism, and funds the sort of thing that's causing the problem we were talking about.
>at least we don't have to listen to "I am a mendacious cunt and I approved this message" on the TV.
Hearing what the candidates support is not bad, assuming you want to make an educated choice on voting day.
>>8153
>However, we still have the pants-on-head-retarded 'First Past the Post' voting system. Hopefully the upcoming referendum will actually do something other than bugger-all, but AV isn't all that much better (though combined with the constituency reshuffle it might bring us a little closer to proper proportional representation).
I don't know what the hell that stuff means. I think you guys use "post" when you mean "mail"? That doesn't make sense in context, though. I don't know what referendums you guys have going now, and I doubt anyone knows stuff like that outside of their own state (Although I think damn near everyone's heard of the marijuana legalization thing going on the ballot here) I don't know what AV is. I assume a constituency reshuffle is the same as a redistricting, in which case yeah, that should help, as long as it's done in a sane manner, which is not really a given considering the country in question.
|