Hi All, for my 1000st post! LATimes on difference in UK and US elections:

[rumpel]

In Britain, the Campaigning Is Short, and Anything but Sweet
Some political analysts say the approach has an edge over that seen in the U.S. Others fear the differences between the countries are blurring.

By John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writer

LONDON — It is quick, intense and doesn't cost a lot of money. As it came to its conclusion Wednesday, Britain's latest general election campaign provided some interesting comparisons with the American way of choosing national leaders.

In Britain, each party can spend a maximum of about $37 million for all 645 seats in Parliament. In the United States, more than $700 million was spent on the last presidential election alone.


snip

"One of the great advantages of our system is that we don't have political advertising, and that really does reduce everything to the 10-second sound bite where every policy has to become as simplistic as possible," Toynbee said.

One clear difference between the U.S. and Britain is the amount of time candidates here spend facing hostile, or at least aggressive, questioning.

When was the last time a nationally prominent journalist in the United States declared to a sitting president that his campaign boasts were baloney? That's what John Humphrys, host of BBC Radio's "Today" program, did to Blair on Wednesday in a discussion on growth and employment.

Snip

"What everybody thinks of about the American system is that it is open and critical and everybody can speak their mind, and you would expect there to be more John Humphrys in a way in the U.S. system," Barker said.

But he added, "Some of your more right-wing television presenters do indeed resemble Rottweilers, do they not?"

full article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britelect5may05,1,5458257.story?coll=la-headlines-world

BTW Dailykos made it into the article, too!

:hi: Have Great Day!

[dogday]

1. Congratulations on your 1000th post...................

[rumpel]

2. thank you, and welcome to DU dogday

[Peace Patriot]

3. Congrats, rumpel! I always enjoy your posts! (--including this one)

Long ago--it feels like centuries--before November 2, 2004, I had committed myself to a Constitutional amendment banning all private money in U.S. political campaigns--enough! fini! I thought this was the heart of the matter--we MUST clean up this pigsty of a political system. All campaign contribution reform has failed because the notion does not have status as the law of the land. The rich have used the 1st amendment to trump any real regulation of their overweening influence. We need to give clean elections equal legal status with the 1st amendment. The amendment would also devote a % of the federal budget to candidate access to the voters, and reclaim some our airwaves for political debate. I was also thinking of 6 week campaigns with the entire nation--all public airwave media (TV, radio) and civic action devoted to electing our representatives in government. The key, though, was money: one person, one vote; not multi-millionaires determining candidates and elections, and purchasing influence.

Can't get a Constitutional amendment, though, if you don't have the right to vote. Back to square one.