|
"Apparently the thought of dynastic succession without a fair election goes against the grain for the average American - particularly as sons tend to follow in the footsteps of their fathers, and perpetuate unresolved causes." I'll bet you thought this was clever, didn't you? I take it that this was a sarky reference to the presidential election of 2000. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, here's a tip; feel free to file it away for future reference: In the United States, election procedures are "fair" when they are conducted in accord with the law and (when challenged) pass muster with the Supreme Court of the United States. And unlike certain countries I could name, Americans don't change our head of state every time some descendant of William the Conqueror kicks the bucket. For your information, THAT is "dynastic succession." When the time comes, you're welcome to celebrate the accession of Prince Jug Ears to the throne of Edward the Confessor; as for us, well, we did away with that sh*t in 1776. Furthermore, I'd like to ask you when was the last time you cast a ballot for your Prime Minister? Not his/her PARTY, mind, but the MAN. And what happens if Howard gets booted as leader by his party in between general elections? Do YOU get to vote for his replacement, or is that replacement selected by some party caucus of MPs? If the answers to these questions are "never" and "party caucus", then all I can say is, some democracy you've got.
| 
