Stat him

>Race: The
>Class: Absolute
>Sex: Boy

Is he the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate?

I didn't think the MRLP had anyone standing this election.

They made the RAVING MONSTER book compatible with P&P fucking ages ago, and they STILL haven't acknowledged how fucking stupid it is.

BLOOD FOR THE BARON!

No, he's Conservative. I was talking about the guy to May's right. Who are you talking about?

>brit/pol/
Isn't support for Lord Buckethead more brit/leftypol/?

I believe he's independant

for anyone curious here's a fairly informative news article on the man: bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/40217791/who-is-lord-buckethead-the-man-who-stood-against-theresa-may

I eagerly await the day that Lord Buckethead brings the Roboskulls to oust Labour and the Tories from Parliament.

>Picture only moments before Lord Buckethead throws Empress May down a shaft and into the core of the Death Ben

Nah, the MRLP did run and were present in Maidenhead, which is May's constituency, you can just about see their leader, in the traditional white suit and hat, on the right of OPs picture. Lord Buckethead is an independent who runs in maidenhead whenever he feels like annoying whoever the major candidate is, in the past that being Tatcher and Major. Also running in Maidenhead this year was Elmo.

It occurs to me that it's odd that I find this perfectly expected and normal yet still find American politics wierd.

>the Death Ben
OK, fucking stolen.

I really like that all the candidates have to stand there while the votes are being tallied. It really brings a lot of personality to the entire proceedings.

The difference that causes this is mostly just how easy it is to register as a candidate in Britain. If America has similarly flexible entry we'd see some true fucking weirdos.

>burgers voted for harambe and for JK simmon's character in RA3

Change you can believe in.

>A candidate called Lord Buckethead took on Margaret Thatcher in 1987, and John Major in 1992.
>It's quite hard to work out whether its the same man, though, because on both occasions he wore a bucket on his head.

I feel like I've heard this story before.

Correction: He didn't run in Maidenhead before. He runs wherever the Tory leader's seat is.

The Monster Raving Loony Party got more votes than the women's equality party.

He and Vermin Supreme should get on a ticket together

Compared to Professor Pongoo all of this is perfectly normal

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/15/scottish-voters-picked-penguin-professor-pongoo

He actually won more votes this time around against May than he did against John Major and Margaret Thatcher. Really, who could argue with his manifesto?

>MY 2017 MANIFESTO: Strong, not entirely stable, leadership

>1. The abolition of the Lords (except me).

>2. Full facial coverings to be kept legal, especially bucket-related headgear.

>3. No third runway to be built at Heathrow: where we’re going we don’t need runways.

>4. Ceefax to be brought back immediately, with The Oracle and other Teletext services to be rolled out by the next Parliament.

>5. Regeneration of Nicholson’s Shopping Centre, Maidenhead.

>6. Buckethead on Brexit: a referendum should be held about whether there should be a second referendum.

>7. Nuclear weapons: A firm public commitment to build the £100bn renewal of the Trident weapons system, followed by an equally firm private commitment not to build it. They’re secret submarines, no one will ever know. It’s a win win.

>8. Nationalisation of Adele: in order to maximise the efficient use of UK resources, the time is right for great British assets to be brought into public ownership for the common good. This is to be achieved through capital spending.

>9. A moratorium until 2022 on whether Birmingham should be converted into a star base.

>10. Legalisation of the hunting of fox-hunters.

>11. New voting age limit of 16 to be introduced. New voting age limit of 80 to be introduced too.

>12. Katie Hopkins to be banished to the Phantom Zone.

>13. Stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia. Start buying lasers from Lord Buckethead.

>14. Prospective MPs to live in the seat they wish to represent for at least five years before election, to improve local representation in Parliament.

>15. Free bikes for everyone, to help combat obesity, traffic congestion and bike theft.

youtube.com/watch?v=JguqwBmQ59c

>It occurs to me that it's odd that I find this perfectly expected and normal yet still find American politics wierd.
I've never thought about it that way before, but you're right. I think what makes it work is partly that they're taken seriously enough to keep the joke going, and partly because it helps to force "proper" politicians into awkward situations semi-regularly, especially if in amongst the lunacy and obvious piss-taking their are sensible points.

Speaking of the Monster Raving Looneys, they had a cat as their leader for a number of years.

>Catmando (1995–2002; also spelt "Cat Mandu") was a cat who served as joint leader of Britain's Official Monster Raving Loony Party (OMRLP) from 1999 to 2002, along with his owner, Howling Laud Hope. He is the only cat ever to have been named leader of a political party.

>Following the 1999 death of the party's founder, Screaming Lord Sutch, the OMRLP held a leadership election with Alan "Howling Laud" Hope (who was then the party's chairman and deputy leader) and Catmando as the only two candidates. The vote was a tie, with Hope and Catmando each receiving 125 votes. Hope, as the party chairman, had the deciding vote, and decided that he and Catmando should serve as joint leaders.

>As joint leader, Catmando oversaw the greatest electoral performance the OMRLP had seen to date, fielding 15 candidates in the 2001 general election. Catmando served as joint leader until his death as a result of a traffic accident in July 2002. Hope then became the party's sole leader.

>Following Catmando's death, the party proposed that there should be cat-crossings at all major roads

You can see Laud Hope in in the white suit and hat to the left of Elmo.

>It occurs to me that it's odd that I find this perfectly expected and normal yet still find American politics wierd.
In Britain the joke candidates are just jokes, they never win

>It occurs to me that it's odd that I find this perfectly expected and normal yet still find American politics wierd.
well in the brit system the person with the most votes wins.

>You can see Laud Hope in in the white suit and hat to the left of Elmo.
Lost it completely at "to the left of Elmo"

...

>You can see Laud Hope in in the white suit and hat to the left of Elmo.

>you will never be British

Without hesitation, I would die ten consecutive excruciating and tortuous deaths if it meant saving even a single British life.

Did vermin supreme escape america?

>Ceefax

It was a strange feeling to be up late enough to see that on the telly, the smooth music playing throughout...

Obligatory "In America the joke candidate did win" comment

That was the joke.

>catmandu
10/10 basford norte
is that rudd?

Your whole existence is a sick joke

Jokes aside, Imagine if an anonymous candidate took office. He could sell himself as an ideal or a title rather than a man,

its perfect, "lord buckethead" could hold office for decades with the person behind the mask changing every few years.

>"This is why we make our characters at the same time."

youtube.com/watch?v=EEdF2K5BITI

Its so odd to think its gone. Every day for 38 years, and then disappeared forever.

I don't know wether I like a legacy of Bucketheads or a Dark Knight Returns style old man still going better.

Thats actually a neat start to a Cyberpunk campaign.

>Election season begins.
>Lord Buckethead runs alongside the Corporation backed candidates.
>The Corps get complacent in their campaigning as theyve got getting the expected result down to a science.
>Results day
>Buckethead has won
>Corps go mental, rapidly try to discover any glitch or hacking in the voting machines.
>He won legitimately
>The amount of media coverage means its impossible to prevent him taking the position.
>Players are Secret Service having to protect him against what attempts on his life the Corps throw at him.

t. triggered /pol/tard

Don't forget Fish Finger Man.

... we should make a party out of these mad fuckers.

>It turns out Buckethead is a legitimate alien warlord.

Fucking loved my weekly Bamboozle m8. Got my kaleidoscope nightmare weirdo pixel comic at the same time. And teletext was literally the best gaming reviewing that ever was or has been done.

Proper little twenty minutes entertainment for kid me.

Fishfinger is a disgrace. You have the amazing chance to dance behind the leader of the Lib Dems and you choose the crappiest fishfinger costume you could cut out of fuzzy felt.

Dereliction of duty, send him to the Tower.

Brit here

Fuck you

We've got first past the post senpai.

I actually saw that one on the telly.

yeah, its better than whatever burgers have.

>complains about American voting
>doesn't understand the difference between Popular and Electoral vote

>executive is elected by a convoluted system where a person's vote is determined by how abandoned their state is.
burger elections are weird

Didn't the electoral college just fail to do exactly what it's there for and let the mob rule and elect a candidate who knows nothing about politics

I can only presume Dark Lord Mandelson ordered the Death Ben's creation... seems like something he'd do

Fucking awesome.

>TFW burger
>TFW will never live in a country that lets leather gimps become politicians

No, because the Popular elected Hillary. The election was less that Trump won, and more that Hillary lost, especially after everyone realized that the Dem party was just playing the Sanders supporters and that they had no intention of letting him run.
Also, because the general public opinion has been strongly against the rising trend of supporting career politicians, and since Trump isn't actually a conservative and is more of an unholy fusion between Industrialist and Populist, he appealed to a large amount of electorates who wanted a more economically focused candidate.

They exist in order to avoid rule without representation. If it was only Popular, then peole would only bother campaigning in just 3 cities in the country, which would leave many Americans in the less populous areas be without proper representation in their own federal election. While it doesn't always work as intended, its generally considered a better alternative to basically trying to invite the same shitty situation of rule without representation which the US revolted against Britain over. Otherwise, you'd just be in a scenario where retarded conflicts like the Civil War would happen with a higher frequency and occur over the littlest thing.

And besides, its really not convoluted. Its just "each state has elected representatives chosen by their constituants, and they vote on which candidate they want of the behalf of their state. Last I checked you don't have to be a genius to understand this, and I'd hope a Brit would be able to as well considering you're a fucking 1st-world nation with a decent education system.

>that Action force reference

>If it was only Popular, then peole would only bother campaigning in just 3 cities in the country, which would leave many Americans in the less populous areas be without proper representation in their own federal election
This wouldn't be necessary if the USA had a solid parliamentary system instead of the weird fuckery it does have.

>gigantic rectangular object appears in your planet's orbit
>the sound of TICK... TOCK is deafening
>all power cuts out
>is that... is that the moon?
>no
>the surface of your world is illuminated by the massive clockface of the DEATH BEN
>it counts down
>YOUR TIME. IS UP.

The Congress is hardly weird, its just 2 Parliaments instead of one to once again avoid marginalizing the lesser-populated states through the addition of the Senate. It only gets weird because the USA is a fucking massive nation with each state usually being big enough to be its own country (Texas alone is around the same size as Germany, and England can barely fit inside California), which means when populations shift across them the House of Representatives has to readjust their seating limits and allocations. Really its not fair to compare them to the British Parliament, since that system requires less work and organization since it doesn't have to manage 50 micro-nations with vastly differing cultures, economies, resources, environs, and in some cases infrastructure, that all tend to have animosity towards each other. It'd be more fair to compare the US to something like the UN but more extreme, since as a nation we have to try to maintain consolidated federal power despite how vastly different each state can be from the other.

So really, the Congress kinda has to be at least a tad more complicated out of necessity, because of both their great size AND their high population. If it was only one or the other, and if it had fever states a parliament could work (like it does in Canada), but with 50 micro-nations, and the fact that it would not only be a real bitch to consolidate them, but would also again be more unfair to states and people not living in the Eastern states, that is not likely to change at all.

so you are saying that a representative system that is deliberately unfair to the majority of your population is better.

A fuckit, phone deleted my post via a shitty ad.

Gist was, they didn't want representation, as they were sane men and it would have been disastrous (unless you split the colonies or make new rules, they'd max out at a massively outnumbered 26 MPs) - they wanted local government, and with the borders where they were that would include foreign policy (they really wanted to settle westward), which seeing as that sparked the war that the new duties were raised to pay for the mother country would never allow (also mercantile ideas of colonies at the time)

TL;DR, they only adopted the catchy 'no taxation without representation' phrase after breakaway looked certain

Not him, but yes. The alternative would result in the marginalization of entire regions and an eventual breakdown of the union.

How does that have anything to do with electing a single person by popular vote? You already have equal representation in your upper house of parliament.

No, because you're trying to put words in my mouth. what I'm saying is a system that allows for representation of the whole nation, rather than just the 10% of the total national size living within a single isolated area, is better, since you can't trust a nation ruled exclusively by those people to be able to watch out for the common interest of all people in the nation living in widely differing situations and places.

Afterall, you wouldn't want some rich fuck who has only known life on the coast trying to make policy for a blue-collar warker living right in the middle of the prairie? That would just fuck those people over since the person over on the coast has no knowledge of the culture, economics, lifestyle, and the million other factors that those people have to live with. Now, I'm not a politician, I'm an Ecologist, and I'll tell you its the same idea in my field, where you don't want someone who knows only highly Ustic hardwood forests trying to make ecological policy for a Shortgrass semi-arid prairie, that kind of shit is the reason why prairie ecosystems have been degrading because people wit no knowledge of the resources and disturbance intervals of those places fucked things over.

Think of it as the same way all your colonies and expanded parts of your Empire were taken away from you guys, because its unfair for a people to be judged by a foreigner as they know nothing of their situation and would not have their best interests in mind.

An Island should not rule a continent.

You already have a legislature that does exactly that.
>american culture is so foreign that popular vote would split the union.

Because the nation's population is not evenly distributed you moron. It features some areas with highly dense pockets interspersed with vast swathes of land, as well as some states, having a less dense population due to environmental and logistical factors. Its not fair to someone living in the midwest if, due to popular vote, their issues and desires are marginalized by a single city over in the North East.

In fact, this is the exact same reason why the American Civil War happened, because Lincoln won the election without a single Southern Electoral vote, and less than 10% of the Southern Popular Vote, so the Southern Aristocracy drummed up support to convince their states to secede for fear of their states being exploited and marginalized by what was essentially a foreign power to them. That, and the slavery issue, but it gets complicated from there.

Its the same reason why India was taken away from you guys. Because no one wants to be exploited by foreigners who have no reason to care for their slave-citizens and know nothing of their lives and culture. The reason why your Parliament is ale to work as efficiently as it does now is because you're essentially no longer an empire, have a less heterogenious culture, and the smaller size makes keeping everything controlled and representative much easier.

Why is it more fair to punish the thousands that live in populous states than it would be to punish the (still) thousands that live in states with small populations?

Unless the federal government has a lot less power (and I know some argue for that), some states by necessity will have more power, but why should it be the under-populated ones?

So you are saying that people who live in more desolate or sparsely populated areas should have a much higher vote than people that live in more densely populated areas because americans will start a civil war. Despite having an entire legislative body that specifically exists to give american states an equal voice in policymaking and running the nation.

>india was taken away from you because you were oppressing them
and funny how india ended up having the british parliamentary system and it has hasn't been broken apart. Meanwhile Pakistan had an americanized voting system where the less populous half had more rights than the more populous half and ended up breaking into two parts.

Because the original idea was for us to be a union of separate and equal partners. When the federal government inevitably grew more powerful and centralized, the waters became muddy. At this point, I don't have a solution and nobody does, or at least not good ones. So we limp along. It's not perfect, it's certainly not fair, but if we change it we are pretty sure it will break.

Can

Can he

Can he see in that thing

how about granting less powers to your president and more to your Legislature?

>equal voice
>people who live in densely populated areas should matter more

Listen to your own argument.

>a person in a city should matter less than a person living in the countryside

It's supposed to be that way, but since Kennedy the power of the executive branch has been increasing at a seemingly exponential rate. It's alarming, or it should be, but Democrats are too busy cheering when their guy does it and the same is true for the Republicans.

It's a solution we can't implement. Or at least are unwilling to try.

They already do.
>laughing political machines.jpg

>but why should it be the under-populated ones?
Because it isn't. New York has way more political and economic power than Montana does especially in the House of Representatives. The Senate, and the Electorate exist so that Montana still has a say in the goings-on of their own nation and aren't fucked up the ass by places like Maryland or Texas and can still have at least some level of fair representation instead of virtually none at all.

You seem to be under some delusion that the less populated states somehow ave more sway than the more populated ones, which is patently false. No matter how many Electorate votes North Dakota may get (which mind you all those votes are capped and spaced around based on population and stuff anyway), they will still not have as much economic pull as say Virginia or Washington. However having a senate, and the way the electorate is organized, allows them to still be able to voice and have some ability to actually be heard and considered by their own nation.

I mean think about it. Say you lived in Liverpool, and suddenly one day you were told that votes coming from London will be worth twice as more than you, or that none of the PM candidates will be listening to constituants from your town, wouldn't you be fucking pissed? Wouldn't you want to spit in their face and say "fuck you, my city needs representaiton"

The US is like that, but on a larger scale, and with even mroe diverse cultures and opinions, so if they tried that shit, the results would be catastrophic, and you'd have enough people pissed off about it that the nation would be broken up in civil wars and secession over night

The point isn't to make the people in the countryside more important than the city-folk, its to make some means to even slightly bridge the gape and make them feel equally represented under the law, as well as at least somewhat feel like they actually have a fucking say in who the next King Lizard of their nation is you twat.

Except most of the prolific political machines, such as Tammany Hall, are primarily focused around the urban lower-class and Union Workers, and tend to not care much about rural folk since they're too spread apart and disparate to make for an effective support force

>economic power.
which has more to do with new york being a major city on the eastern coast while montana has a lot of dinosaur fossils.

Anyone who doesn't think that economics has power and effect on politics is a blind fool.
Also, you're just being semantic, the point still stands.

Extra retarded. A situation in which one individual vote in one area has more deciding power than individual votes in another area is exactly the situation that occurs with an electoral college. In a popular vote system, straight plurality or any form of preferential voting notwithstanding, any individual member of the electorate in any place has has exactly the same amount if decisive power, and therefore incentive to vote, as anyone else.

What does that even have to do with the electoral college in it's current state? It was made so that demagogues wouldn't be voted to the highest office in the land and electors were supposed to vote according to their own wishes. Now your system is a frankensteins' monster which is a popularity contest where people campaign in a few swing states whose electors end up swinging to one side or the other.

The UK has Lord Buckethead standing next to May and Elmo for goofs and traditions to show that all 3 candidates are equal while they await the voter's response. America has a system where someone can trail by 3 million votes, win in states by a margin of 80000 and be declared president with a bloated executive portfolio.

...

shjtposting is saving Veeky Forums

And who plays the great game now? We do. Not you, and that's something you pawned off on us.

>we do
sweetie, your country is about to go back to mining coal and disregarding scientific facts. Your election system resulted in delivering a man who can't speak properly.

Its because its more than just about population you fucking retarded twat. How do you not get it? Are you legitimately retarded, or are you so married to the idea of "Farmers have more representation than me" idea that you cannot see it as fallacious?

The problem is that Individuals are more than just individuals. States are not like fucking counties, they are micro-nations with their own economies and cultures. If you were to count everything up based on popular vote, due to the concentration of the population the only centers of political power and control in the country would be in places like New York, Massachusetts, and Los Angelas. As time would go one, since the votes of the people in the less populated parts of the country would not have as much weight, the candidates would then ignore those people in favor of campaigning in only those heavily concentrated areas. Those cities have different markets, cultures, and resources than the less populated onces, which means that a candidate focused on winning and appeasing to those pockets of the population, which would result in them forsaking and not even attempting to make efforts to reach out to people in the rest of the country. This would in turn breed a heavy air of resentment towards the high-density areas be those living in the less dense areas, which will result in either secession and/or an increased drop in voter turnout in those areas even greater than we have now. Meanwhile the Electorate system makes it so that the candidates have to make at least a some effort to try and reach out of people in other states and locales and try to show them that they're at least present in the candidates mind and that he's actually putting in the effort to try and address them and their needs. With a Popular Vote only system, they wouldn't even get that much of a concession. How would you feel if your PM Candidates feel that your county wasn't important enough to ever visit or even address or acknowledge you

We do have a party, it's the monster raving looney party. They had a better immigration policy than either of the main 2 parties did.

And the US will still be more economically important than England either way.

Which is because of the cities that are being being undercut in an election that would be direct in a normal country.

I would vote based on the party whose policies that I agree with the most. They would be elected in the legislature and form the next executive