John Edwards: "Yep, I am indeed a liar and a giant douchebag!"

[Sheilbh]

Disagree. I much prefer the European culture of politics to the puritan Anglosaxon one.

Well in the UK an affair isn't a resigning issue anymore unless it's seen as going against your political personality or money's involved.  And in the UK it's not puritanism, it's prurientism. 

[DGuller]

Why?

Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? 

As was said before by me as well as others, that's not a settled question yet.  In US, it's illegal to pay off your lovers with funds that you solicit for running a campaign.

[DontSayBanana]

Disagree. I much prefer the European culture of politics to the puritan Anglosaxon one. Public officials should be judged on the basis of one thing only: competence (including past track record in performance of the duties). Their non-office-related conduct should only matter if it involves a criminal activity and/or misuse of power.

Of course the fact that he used campaign funds etc. is another story whatsoever, but the fact that he had an extra-marital affair and a kid with his mistress should be nobody's concern.

Really?  At the very least, it's fiscal stupidity, since then there's child support and what-not potentially involved.  The fact of the matter is that a politician is elected based on their perceived ability to uphold the ideals of a given community.  We've got a few "puritanical" ideals to work around that Euros don't seem to have.

For example, if this had been an NJ-specific case, the guy would have had to promote his own fiscal responsibility while trying to explain $435 a week in child support payments (based on Senate salary, no supplemental income or deductions, and the latest versions of the child support tables)

[alfred russel]

Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? 

Public officials are elected on the basis of character and trustworthiness as much as anything else.  If you're going to run for political office, you need to be prepared to live in a glass house.  If that elected official's judgment is that questionable in private matters, how can you trust that it'll be any more reliable in public affairs?

Disagree. I much prefer the European culture of politics to the puritan Anglosaxon one. Public officials should be judged on the basis of one thing only: competence (including past track record in performance of the duties). Their non-office-related conduct should only matter if it involves a criminal activity and/or misuse of power.

Of course the fact that he used campaign funds etc. is another story whatsoever, but the fact that he had an extra-marital affair and a kid with his mistress should be nobody's concern.

You kind of have a point, but the guy was having an affair while his wife was battling cancer--and apparently discussing getting married once she died. Even in Europe there are limits to what will be tolerated.

[Admiral Yi]

Disagree. I much prefer the European culture of politics to the puritan Anglosaxon one. Public officials should be judged on the basis of one thing only: competence (including past track record in performance of the duties). Their non-office-related conduct should only matter if it involves a criminal activity and/or misuse of power.

Of course the fact that he used campaign funds etc. is another story whatsoever, but the fact that he had an extra-marital affair and a kid with his mistress should be nobody's concern.

In Europe aren't you typically voting for a party rather than an individual?

[Sheilbh]

In Europe aren't you typically voting for a party rather than an individual?

That varies from country to country.  I think France, Germany and, of course, the UK all have some element of a direct constituency election - France has individual leaders too, of course.

However I believe most PR systems used in Europe allow you to vote for individual candidates or for a party.

[Admiral Yi]

That varies from country to country.  I think France, Germany and, of course, the UK all have some element of a direct constituency election - France has individual leaders too, of course.

However I believe most PR systems used in Europe allow you to vote for individual candidates or for a party.

And in those countries with direct constituency elections, how often do people vote based on party affiliation?

[Neil]

Why?

Because it's his private life and he did not do anything illegal? 

Some things are wrong.  Like being gay.

[Sheilbh]

And in those countries with direct constituency elections, how often do people vote based on party affiliation?

It depends.  I imagine about as often as in the US.  According to polls their people who identify as Republican or Democrat vote for their party around 75-85% of the time.  Of independents two-thirds lean one way or another and those leaners vote for one party or the other as often as self-identified partisans.  10% of the electorate, roughly, in the US are true centrist independents who are swing voters.

In the UK your vote is generally determined by national political story - do you like Gordon Brown/the government? - and a tribal sympathy/antipathy to one party or other.  In certain circumstances such as a corrupt MP (and our definition of corruption is considerably narrower than in the US) then people will often vote against that party - or if someone runs a nasty campaign (for example Labour running a class war campaign in Crewe), or the party is perceived be disrespecting the area (for example Labour trying to parachute a party loyalist into a safe seat over a respected local figure).

[Martinus]

That varies from country to country.  I think France, Germany and, of course, the UK all have some element of a direct constituency election - France has individual leaders too, of course.

However I believe most PR systems used in Europe allow you to vote for individual candidates or for a party.

And in those countries with direct constituency elections, how often do people vote based on party affiliation?

About the same as in the US - i.e. in national elections people tend to vote based on party affiliations, less so in local elections.

[Martinus]

In some states adultery is illegal. 

Sorry, was using the Western democracy standard. I bet a lot of stuff that politicians do is also illegal in Iran or Saudi Arabia (e.g. drinking).

[Admiral Yi]

It depends.  I imagine about as often as in the US.  According to polls their people who identify as Republican or Democrat vote for their party around 75-85% of the time.  Of independents two-thirds lean one way or another and those leaners vote for one party or the other as often as self-identified partisans.  10% of the electorate, roughly, in the US are true centrist independents who are swing voters.

In the UK your vote is generally determined by national political story - do you like Gordon Brown/the government? - and a tribal sympathy/antipathy to one party or other.  In certain circumstances such as a corrupt MP (and our definition of corruption is considerably narrower than in the US) then people will often vote against that party - or if someone runs a nasty campaign (for example Labour running a class war campaign in Crewe), or the party is perceived be disrespecting the area (for example Labour trying to parachute a party loyalist into a safe seat over a respected local figure).

Taking into account the fact that in some cases Europeans are voting for party lists and not individual candidates, and that the US has primaries in which party loyalists must choose between members of the same party, it seems there are some structural reasons for Europeans to be less concerned with the character and personal foibles of their representative.

[Martinus]

You are confusing two things here. When people vote for party lists, they still vote for individual candidates on these lists, and the ones who received most votes are the ones who get in from the list in question. The only difference is that it is possible for someone with less votes get in over someone with more votes, because the guy who gets in was on a list that got more votes in total.

[Sheilbh]

Taking into account the fact that in some cases Europeans are voting for party lists and not individual candidates, and that the US has primaries in which party loyalists must choose between members of the same party, it seems there are some structural reasons for Europeans to be less concerned with the character and personal foibles of their representative.

Yep, but as I say having to vote for a party list isn't the European norm. 

But I'd counter that in the US there are more structural issues to enable and to tolerate corruption, which is worse than getting your end away and whatever that tells you about someone's character.

[Admiral Yi]

"Getting your end away?" 

Does that mean getting your Zeb wet?