"That won't fly here" - political attitudes to elections

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

When the Queensland LNP elected a "leader" who is not sitting in the Legislature, there was great controversy. We, Canadians, were confused.

Such things have happened before, and when they do, we get a member of the legislature to stand aside so the Leader can earn a seat. As well, the Leader, upon becoming Leader, is Leader.

Apparently, Queenslanders said they won't fly here. The new "leader" is called the "Election Team" head, and, any thought of one of his members standing aside would cause great controversy.

On a similar note, the New Zealanders over in the NZ2011 thread, thought I was insane when I asked why National would run in a seat they don't want to win. I guess that won't fly there either.

I'm curious if we could get together all these sorts of things to compare and contrast.

Another example: in the UK it is not that uncommon for someone to run in an area where they, not only do not live, but have no connection. Here in Canada that sort of thing would draw attention, especially if it's off in some other province.

In Canada it's not uncommon for the party leader to hand pick some candidates for some reasons (IE increasing the number of women in winnable seats) but somehow I don't think that'd fly in some other countries.

In the US it is normal and in fact standard for a party to not run in seats they can not win. In Canada, the UK, Australia, and NZ, that is not the case.


Anyone else have any examples?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

It's one thing for a leader to find a random seat, it's another for a random to do it.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Having a "Quebec Lieutenant" is a Canadian thing, of course. I'm not aware of other nations that do this sort of thing with geographic or ethnic groups.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I don't to stifle discussion, but is there anything OTHER than carpetbagging that is different between our systems?