At 12:38 PM 8 October 2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From what I understand, in the parliamentary system such as Canada, you > vote for the party whose policies you agree with, and then expect your MP > to vote in Parliament in a manner that is for the good of the country. > >In the USA you vote for an individual and he'd better vote the way YOU >want or you throw him or her out at the next election -- and they all know >that, which is why no one will take a stand on anything even remotely as >controversial as metrication.
This is pretty close to what I understand. And it supports my contention that the difference is in cultural rather than mechanics of elections. If you "expect your MP" to vote what is good for the country, that is a cultural thing. You can certainly vote against your MP in the next election if he does not do that. However, what percentage of people anywhere in the world see any difference between "for the good of the country" and "the way I think he should vote"? What percentage would recognize that what is good for ME is not good for the COUNTRY? In the immediate context, do you think anti-metricationists in the USA KNOW that metrication is good for the country but fight it anyway? I rather doubt that. Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
