> OK. I think wrong. You just really love your country. Again, congratulations, you live in a country that can't be improved. You're a lucky fella.

Let's see, K has a problem with the way we elect our officials (I won't address any of his accusations that we're fascist). Let me review the process that the UK just went through to elect their speaker of the House of Commons (I'll try to be as accurate as possible, forgive me if this is not all correct. I heard this on NPR from the British correspondent).

So, after a 3 month break from the last time they met, instead of discussing the issues of the day, they proceed to elect a new speaker. The steps are as follows:
1. Someone makes a nomination, then gives a speech extolling the virtues of the nominee.
2. The nominee accepts or declines and then gives their own speech. This is the first time the nominee is made known to anyone, so there is NO campaigning involved.
3. The members of the House then vote. They do this by standing up and walking out of one of two doors. One is for yes, the other for No.
4. The process is repeated.
5. Once a Speaker is elected, the members forcibly grab the person out of their chair and carry him/her to the Speaker's chair.

Voila.

Now, some things to note. None of the candidates are known ahead of time, so there is no campaigning. They vote on each person BEFORE they even know who else there might be. The number of votes is not revealed until the end of all of this. And it takes about 30 minutes per nominee to get through all of this, probably more, if the proceedings are anything like a normal House meeting. This year, 12 people were nominated.

Now, tell me the electoral college is silly. Oh, wait, you can't.

Fer"actually thinks this process is kind of cool"rick