For some time, the British Conservative Party has been experimenting with choosing its candidates for the House of Commons by open meeting, at which any British voter (who lives in that district) may attend and vote. Now the Conservative Party is starting to send ballots to all the voters of a particular constituency in the postal mail, to choose its nominees. See this BBC story.
The next House of Commons election has not yet been called, but parties in Britain traditionally choose their nominees early, because no one ever knows when the next election will be called.
“The next House of Commons election has not yet been called, but parties in Britain traditionally choose their nominees early, because no one ever knows when the next election will be called.” Which explains why we desperately need fix term parliaments.
Oh, puh-lease! The ability for parliaments to be dissolved at any time is one of the strengths of the Westminster parliamentary system, not one of its weaknesses. A snap election usually comes about as a result of a vote of no confidence in the Government, a remedy that is not available in the U.S., where the government (Administration) is chosen by the President, not by the people’s elected representatives. Or perhaps you think that the few members of Senate committees who participate in the confirmation process constitute the entirety of the people’s elected representatives.
Does the UK register voters by party? If so, the Conservatives will be letting independents and registrants of other parties help nominate their candidates.
“According to the Conservative Party, it is the first ‘open primary’ contest held by a British political party.”
As you note, the Conservatives have experimented in some jurisdictions with open meetings to choose their nominees. These meetings functioned much like what we call caucuses; anyone who wanted to participate had to register in advance. The meetings were called by that sexy name that people love to hang on various processes: (dum-de-dum!) “open primaries.” The Conservatives even used this process to choose their candidate in the last London mayoral election.
But this vote-by-mail process will be a true open primary.
The Brits evidently do register voters by party. I recall the election in which Duncan-Smith was chosen as leader of the Conservatives. After the race had been narrowed to two candidates by the MPs, grassroots party members made the final choice by mail.
I predict that the ruling Labour Party will wait as long as possible to hold a general election, since Labour’s poll ratings are so low.
In France’s last presidential election, the Socialist Party held a primary to nominate its candidate. The polls were open from 4:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. Only party members could vote, and 50%-plus was required to win.
Since the woman candidate got more votes than her two male opponents combined, no runoff was necessary.
According to this piece, the Conservatives held a closed primary in one constituency in 1970.
The winner of that primary, Geoffrey Howe, was later Margaret Thatcher’s last deputy prime minister.
Rosa you clearly have no idea about British politics. Parliament does not dissolve itself rather the Prime Minister and he or she alone decides when to call an election. The last time there was a successful vote of no confidence was in 1979 the previous successful vote of no confidence to this one was 1924. You fail to realise that in comparision to a US president a British Prime Minister has far more power.
Steve voters are not registered by party in Britain. The election to elect Iain Duncan Smith was only open to Conservative Party members.
#7: The party obviously wouldn’t let non-members participate in choosing its leader.
As I said of Duncan Smith’s election as leader in #3: “… grassroots party members made the final choice by mail.”
Since UK voters do not register by party, how did the Conservatives identify their party members?
British parties have dues-paying membership, so each party has a list of its true members. But there is no such thing in Britain as a voter being asked which party he or she is a member of on voter registration forms.
The U.K. Parliament is one of the most UNREPRESENTATIVE gerrymander regimes in Western Civilization.
A LARGE percent of the gerrymander district winners in the House of Commons get less than 40 percent of the district votes.
A bare majority of all party hacks in the House of Commons are elected by about 22-25 percent of the voters.
An EVIL powermad TYRANT Prime Minister is chosen by the gang in control and claims the power to do whatever his/her gang wants — since there is NO written *constitution* in the U.K. regime — I.E. NO body has ANY *rights*.
ALL *rights* are subject to the control of the party hacks — regardless of ALL of the alleged election reforms in the last 200 years in the U.K.
U.K. Constitution NOW – with a Bill of Rights NOW
P.R. NOW
A.V. NOW — with separation of powers
Guess why the U.S.A. States rebelled in 1775-1776 and had written constitutions created.
Answer- for any MORONS on this list — to try and guarantee RIGHTS against the party hacks — monarchs and oligarchs.
The backwards drift towards ABSOLUTE Dark Age TYRANNY continues in the U.S.A., the U.K, Canada, etc. (all gerrymander regimes) — due to the party hacks and the brain dead lazy media.