Sorry I didnt respond to this earlier. Ive been in meetings (still am in video conferences and calls with clients) since before the vote and Im now on a plane with about dozen associates en route to Europe. Aside from all the chaos and memos at least something funny has come out of this. One of the partners shared this little nugget of wisdom during a short moment of down time:
This just in, fifty-one precent of the UK population confirmed to harbour masochistic tendencies. No word yet from industry officials or the UKs finance minister on the expected rise in sales of rope, dog collars and sex toys.
The problem with that is they are aren't so small any more. There are really no far-right parties in America with any strength. The Tea Party is the closest thing to that and they only have a few tens of thousands of supporters but aren't even a significant third party like the Libertarians. Compare this to the National Front with has 21 of 74 seats representing France in the European Parliament, and has dominated regions of the country. Also, in Britain, the UKIP party (notorious for many of its MPs using HORRENDOUS racial slurs and saying racist comments) have about the same support in France. Right-wing radicalism is definitely on the rise in the face of the current refugee and it cannot be overlooked. More and more of France is imposing Islamophobic laws, such as banning creating a non-pork alternative for school lunches, which is ridiculous. I'm actually sort of frightened by the rise of such parties in Europe and what it could mean.
Honestly, you should never underestimate any extremist groups because while they arent the largest (most people tend to be more moderate) they are the loudest. The European Far-Right does scare me a little, but I doubt theyll gain too much power (these people tend to be really loud, but eventually they're ignored or elected, usually the former). That being said, the entire political (and economic) situation will change with Brexit so it could be interesting what happens there (they may become more powerful, especially if the EU's economy goes down the drain).
I don't know much about France's system, but England has a similar system to ours when electing MPs like how we have electors. The results can be the same. The popular percentage doesn't usually equal the electoral percentage. In the UK it keeps the two large parties (The Labour Party and The Conservative Party) on top by a long ways. If the votes were one for one then UKIP would have much more representation than they do now, and that's terrifying.
I honestly have no idea how Frances system works (I'm pretty sure the President at least, if not the PM as well, is/are elected separately from the two houses). I know that its bicameral with a President and a PM as part of the executive and that the two parliaments can be called together as one for constitutional amendments (thank the French Revolution and De Gaul for it being so confusing). Frances PM or President actually called an emergency session of one of the bodies a few hours ago in response to Brexit. France has a two tiered ballot system (it's more proportional than FPTP or Electoral Colleges) in which the first round has a ton of people, but the second only has the top two candidates. The UK and most of the Commonwealth (except Australia and possibly a few others) vote by a first-past-the-post (hyphens are included). The FPTP system has pretty much the same major pitfalls the Electoral College has; popular vote doesnt always mean a victory and votes are more easily split and not counted.. If you want information on this I believe Canadas new Liberal government is trying to change the system, so theres probably all sorts of information on it online (look up: Canada Electoral Reforms, theres plenty of results)
Elections in the parliamentary system of CW Nations work by the party or coalition with the largest number of seats gaining control of the House. Technically they dont vote, the monarch (in this case the Queen) appoints the Prime Minister at the recommendation of Parliament
Its a really fancy way of saying that they implicitly vote for the PM, then do their duty. I suppose it would be like electing Congress who would then elect POTUS. The nice thing is that the executive and the legislative bodies are controlled by the same party or coalition and thus there is less infighting within the government.
That's also why you don't see large hard-right third parties in America. You only see parties shift in their views. The Republican Party is shifting more to the right and the Democratic Party is shifting more to the left. These are polarizing times we're living in.
Interestingly, it has been suggested that the public/average American is not polarized, so much about the issues, but rather about political allegiance and parties (many Republicans are in support of some form of gun control and abortion in some cases). It is possible that a Democrat may agree with a Republicans entire platform but vote against him/her because s/he is a Republican. Of course, Congress and the entirety of Washington is so polarized that getting anything done is a miracle of biblical proportions (trust me I've tried and so has my firm on behalf of a client... in the case of my firm's attempt... it was a fun way to waste five or so million dollars).
That's actually pretty cool. So, "technically being a lawyer" (your words), and being around that kind of stuff, what kind of advise would you have to someone (me) that is interested into going into law and such? I want to have a career in politics when I grow up, and I have a marked interest in law. That's why I enjoy Speech and Debate so much.
Most of my job has nothing to do with politics (we outsource to a lobbying firm when absolute necessary). It's actually a lot of dealing with guys who have degrees from Stanford, Oxford, Yale, etc. and egos that would make you think they have PhDs and singlehandedly built a billion dollar company from the ground up (spoiler: they didn't and they don't like to be told that). Probably the most exciting part of my job is when I have to deal with people that don't want to be dealt with.
As for your question, it depends. Do you want to go into politics or do you want to do politics? Basically, do you want to be a staffer, a lobbyist, etc. or do you want to be a politician? I'm assuming the later. It also depends on if you want to be a lawyer first, then more into politics or just start in politics and move you way up.
My general advice for life and career is that you should spend your education learning about things that excite you and that you can apply to your job, that you should spend your time creating networks of people within and without your profession (be the guy that knows a caterer or two, a beautician, a mechanic, a photographer, an officer in the army, a cop or FBI agent, a couple journalists and so on). Outside of that, learn, learn, learn. The more people you are able to hold a semi-intelligible conversation with the better (you dont have to be able to do their job, but you should know what their limitations are). I can offer you a little bit more information if I know what you want to do (I'm assuming politician), but that isn't really my area of expertise (let me know though, I can probably give a little bit of advice).
