I never said that the British electorate weren't idiots for picking Tony Blair but if you understand the political system over here you'll realise that it isn't quite as cut and dried as it seems. Blair would have lost a presidential election. But in the UK the prime minister is the head of the party that gets the most votes. Apart from 50,000 people in the Sedgefield constituency no one can vote directly for or against him. Not to mention that it was widely accepted that Blair would be going some time soon after the election (it was only 5 days later that the party made the first attempt to get rid of him in fact).
It has often been said that Labour won the last election despite Tony Blair rather than because of him.
On the other hand there is nothing preventing Americans voting in a republican congress and a democratic president. Americans get to vote for the person they think would do the best job. And the majority thought that was Bush. And before you get onto the whole "Maybe Kerry would be worse" argument try to remember who put Kerry in the position of challenger? Oh yes, the 50m or so Americans NOT dumb enough to vote for Bush. 
What you need to understand about American politics is that every faction in it believes all the other factions are completely and utterly stupid. No one really wants to get rid of the Electoral College because it theoretically prevents the American populous from doing something Incredibly Stupid
TM. Not that it works, but it makes it really hard to just get rid of.
You can say "realise that it isn't quite as cut and dried as it seems" but in the end, isn't that true everywhere? If you can't change your political in the UK enough to actually vote for someone other than a man who's about to get fired, then your political system really
is screwed up.
I'm not saying Britain is a horrible country, I'm just saying that you all are ones to talk about how stupid we are in this country for voting in ****ty leaders.
Because we all have ****ty leaders from time to time. It's just at the time Bush was elected in, a bad leader had the potential to cause a lot of damage, and so Bush did.
When I looked at the lineup of Democratic candidates that year (not that it helped, since I was a minor, in Colorado) John Kerry was, quite literally, at the bottom of my list, because I couldn't figure out what he stood for, at all. Howard Dean only ruined his chances for excess being excessively exuberant... so we ended up with Kerry. Maybe Kerry was worse... because
he didn't even know what he was going to do.
Go on. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm a minor, have no voting rights, can't control who runs my country, but live in the USA. Tell me I'm stupid because I'm surrounded by idiotic religious ****tards. Tell me I'm stupid so you can WIN AN ARGUMENT based entirely on the fact that I'm from America and therefore my opinion is meaningless.
I'm sorry, but thats just a little offensive. Enough with all this anti-american ****, we aren't living in the middle east here, or are the UKers going to start burning american flags too?
Those are dangerous thoughts. You can't go around assuming a country's entire population are the bad guys just because the loud people from those countrys are calling us stupid. By doing that you're guilty of the same sort of over-classification. Instead hold tight, wait until you can vote, and in the mean time prove them wrong.
