[user104658]

Originally Posted by lostalex

this is why the UK system is so weird. people don't elect people, they elect parties. garden brown was never elected by the people to be PM, but he was PM for many years...

It just doesn't seem very democratic to me.

Every elected official should be an individual and vote however they like.

In the US, many Democrats are against abortion, or pro gun rights, they don't have to stick to the party. And they can be elected to president by the people, they don't have to be elected by just the party elite.

Weeellll... Brown was only PM for 3 years, and that was after the resignation of Blair. I'm sure similar can happen in the US, unless "House of Cards" has been lying to me?? (Isn't the whole point that Kevin Spacey knows he won't be elected President, so he gets there through political manipulation instead...)

It's supposed to be that people elect a party here, choosing a representative in their local area and then the party with the majority of MPs getting into power and the party leader then being PM by default. However, I would say that since Thatcher, the elections have actually "unofficially" been very presidential and quite similar to US elections. For example, the one this year was very much about Cameron and Miliband, even in the press, and Miliband is probably the major reason for the Tory victory when it comes down to it. Also, as other examples, UKIP was all about Farage and the SNP in Scotland has been all about Alex Salmond and now Nicola Sturgeon.

The ballot papers may SAY that you're voting for your local candidate but... Most people are really voting for the leadership.