All 5 entries tagged Elections
View all 50 entries tagged Elections on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Elections at Technorati | There are no images tagged Elections on this blog
May 10, 2008
Writing about web page https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pHtXzcM6CuvUZxqC3wcTNZQ
If you look at the three colours Google has chosen as the first three colours for charts, you'll realise this poll was almost inevitable...
And don't worry, this is completely anonymous and unofficial.
So please fill in the form, and enjoy the appropriately coloured graph:
September 07, 2007
As I understand it, the US President can only serve for a maximum of two terms. Something like that, anyway.
I've never seen the point of this. The only argument I've heard for it is to stop someone abusing power for decades by starting illegal wars (for example) and other distasteful stuff. But surely if someone did that you'd just exercise your right to vote for the other guy, wouldn't you? If the guy in charge was invading countries like it was going out of style and introducing policies you didn't like then you'd elect his rival. He couldn't be worse, could he?
Surely one of the advantages of a democracy is that it should keep the leader honest because otherwise he might not be the leader for much longer...
But anyway, back to the point: US President term limit.
What I think would be much better would be 3 major candidates in each election, not just two: a new Republican candidate, a new Democrat candidate, and the existing President defending himself*. That way if the President is amazing and is bringing about World Peace, ending hunger, and recycling as much rubbish as he can get his hands on then the people can keep him for as long as they want. On the other hand, if he's utter crap and a moron then the people can vote for a new President while still voting for their party of choice.
I can't see any problems with that plan, but I can see many advantages...
* "Himself" purely because all the past Presidents have been men; I see no reason why a woman couldn't be President.
June 27, 2007
Writing about web page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6244358.stm
Tony Blair as peace envoy to the Middle East!? Tony Blair!? Tony Blair!? Tony Blair!? Either this is a joke, or the sanity of the UN leaders needs to be assessed...
Was he, or was he not, one of the people who started the war in Iraq!? Isn't he a war criminal!? (I've checked the dictionary, and he is; there's
a set of criteria that are consulted before engaging in war, in order to determine whether entering into war is justifiable, and as I understand it the evidence used for going to war was a steaming pile of bull plop.)
Apparently his plan requires "huge intensity", but what I want to know is: what the hell does that mean!? It doesn't mean anything, surely? Surely it has to be "intensity of [something]", not just "intensity"...
Also, Ian Paisley can't count:
I just want to say to the prime minister this one word: He has entered into another colossal task.
I really really hope this is either a joke or me misinterpreting the article...
Also what's the deal with having a new Prime Minister without an election? Aren't elections how Democracy is supposed to work? (That's not to say I think he'll be a bad Prime Minister - it's not exactly a tough act to follow - it's just I'd have liked to have had my chance to not care enough about the result to vote on it...)
January 28, 2006
Writing about web page http://www.sunion.warwick.ac.uk/portal/Print.asp?url=ELECTION_MANIFESTO&candidate_id=1938
She'll be great. Vote for her. Go on, you know you want to…
There, that's my out–of–character Union Elections support done. Now after you vote for Michelle Foy (The One To Employ) for FDSO and abstain for the rest, or whatever, we can all get on with our lives and forget about this minor inconvenience.
Seriously, though, she will make a good FDSO.