>>Which is the historic goal, to take power over selection from the "party
>>bosses." The phenomenon of omeone like Ken Livingstone, popular with
>>grassroots Labourites, being denied the nomination for mayor on the Labour
>>tickett couldn't happen in the US. That's the good side of it all.
>
>Of course the bad side is that he'd never get elected here.
On the contrary, popular celebrity candidates are the only kind that can get elected in the US. What cannot get an electoral mandate, because there is no way it can ever get a place on the ballot, is the political manifesto of an organised political party.
Americans don't seem to grasp that the point of a political party is an organised consistent political manifesto, rather than relying entirely on the qualities of individual candidates. An organisation of many people, with a cohesive democratic manifesto, is not subject to the same pressures as an individual candidate. An individual can be bribed, a political party is much more difficult and certainly more expensive to bribe. An individual candidate can be threatened or assassinated, but its a lot harder to physically threaten a political party. A political party's manifesto is not subject to individual whim and it is a lot easier for voters to have an idea of where a political party stands on a range of issues.
But the notion of political parties in electoral politics is, literally, a foreign concept to Americans. The US doesn't have anything like that, the system bans political parties from meaningful participation in electoral politics.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas