The UK Election!!!!

Officially call for a 3-day discussion period.After this period, get with Legend to determine if a vote is warranted.If so, conduct the vote.

In order to make any democracy, especially an open direct democracy, there need to be sets of rules by which its processes are conducted. We can make this work if we have and follow a set of rules designed to facilitate such an open process.IMHO, I have proposed such a structured set of rules with a safeguard to mitigate abuse.I, as the document's author, am willing to make any changes to this proposal that, in my opinion, are reasonable and add to the fairness of the process.I will not add any major new sections nor entertain any suggestions that I think needlessly complicate the processes in each section.I will not entertain obfuscation.This is intended as a basic starting structure. The only goal is that it work adequately enough to start a structured process. Refinements and expansions can be done through the Amendment process defined within the set of rules.One question I can be sure will come up is why the multi-vote scheme in Section 3? This is a technique that is often used in small groups under ISO 9000 Business Improvement processes. It allows a significant minority, a large one but short of a majority, to bring forward an issue that otherwise may not be entertained. The majority still rules the roost under such a scheme since a majority vote is necessary to accept and implement any policy.This can have surprising benefits since it often opens eyes to issues the majority did not even know it cared about.During this discussion period I will do my best, within my limited time to participate, to answer any questions on the intent and proposed operation of the rules.If this measure fails it will be incumbent upon some other group to propose a structure for our conduct of governance.As we have already seen, without a charter of some structure by which to proceed people take it upon themselves to decide and implement based upon their own ideas instead of those approved by the society.

Day one has passed without comment or interest.

It was a fun thread until I got serious and tried to make it work.My apologies to Legend, you and the rest of the horde.Consider my proposal rescinded.

If he says to go drink beer and play with girls then count me in.

Well, as I understand it, there was Labour , like Democrats here, that were the incumbents, and spent wildly, like Democrats here, and got themselves in trouble with scandals and the like, like Democrats here.Then there were the Tories, like Republicans here, that wanted to spend wildly but on other stuff than Labour, like Republicans here, but didn't have any real oomph with the electorate, like Republicans here.This is where things get different. There was a third group, the Liberal Democrats, that wanted to spend wildly, but on different things than the other two and who had a leader who was not a Ross Perot type of guy.Well for the first time in British politics the leaders of the three had a couple of debates on TV. The Labour guy floundered, the Tory was wishy-washy but the LibDem surprised everyone by being charming and intelligent. Not a Ross Perot type at all.Anyway all the pundits said the LibDems were going to show some real strength which would result in a "hung" parliament. Strange thing is, unlike American pundits, these Brit pundits were right overall even though they got the details wrong. Owing to their great showing in the debates by a personable charming leader and a message that really did ring to the people the LibDems ended up with fewer seats than they started with. Go figure.The election was held, though it was only a formality since some stellar polling group had already called the election exceptionally accurately. But I guess since the ballots were already printed, the voting machines were in place, workers hired on, etc. (kind of a sunk cost situation) they went ahead and voted anyway.It ended up in a hung parliament just like the pundits and the polls said with the Tories out front but not by enough. Labour, in lack luster fashion, picked up a good set of the remaining seats though not enough, while the new exciting LibDems ended up, as I said, with less seats than they started with. I guess Brits are like that. Go figure.Anyway, the two "out" parties, Tory/LibDem, got together and decided to partner then went to the Queen and said they would lead and the Queen said, and I quote, "OK."Though the actual details at the time of their happening were somewhat more exciting than this synopsis conveys that's about it.Edited by AZPaul3, : Got all the players bassackward. Fixed.

Who knows?The history of British coalition governments is kind of sparse. Coalitions only seem to come into being as a result of some national emergency. The ongoing financial crisis of present being as good an excuse as any.I have not kept up with the state of GB's economy. In the US it still sucks. If this is the same in England then maybe the coalition will last a while longer. It seems that coalition governments over there fall apart when the emergency is over.My, admittedly meager and cursory, reading of the present situation is that this AV vote thing has badly hurt the LibDems, 3rd party prospects in general and Nick Clegg specifically. I wouldn't expect a string of coalition governments in England's future.A technical question, please.Mr. Clegg is playing the good partner, at present, and is operating well within the coalition. This seems to have angered many of his LibDem members, such that there is talk of giving him the boot.If Clegg were to lose his leadership position in the party, would that end the coalition? Or is the LibDem party part of the coalition, with its new leader taking over as Deputy PM? How would that work? Would there be a "no-confidence" vote in the parliament?

Like most politicians everywhere once they take their seats and recognize they have become part of the power elite they won't give that up easily. Probably not much.

From this side, where day to day nuances are not reported, this coalition seems to be going well. It has held together longer than I expected. What's the inside buzz from your side?Personally, I think you would make a right fine Deputy PM.

oops. Well, there goes your chance to be deputy PM.Hey, btw, whaddya think of this Sandoval character?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

These kinds of spats, I take it, have been going on more or less for the past 4 years and yet the coalition has held. Are they hanging on by their finger nails or is this government more stable than it appears? The LibDems not having pulled themselves up in the by-elections seems a good motivation to stay the course. And I could imagine both sides fearing a Labour rally if they split, yes?

Then on to May '15. Thanks Mod.

No. I asked because you asked me to ask. Any Nevadan who might end up as Deputy PM of the UK is not one to be trifled with.

And the prospects for next May? Reasonable for UKIP to eclipse LibDem as the third party?I hear another hung parliament coming. Who gets to the queen first, Conservative/UKIP or Labour/LibDem coalitions?You guys know how to put some drama into an election. Over here it's all clowns and smoke between TweedleDem and TweedleRep: no spoilers, just who steps on their dicks less often.

Yah, we got some of the biggest dick heads known to the entire political world. You got that right.