Adam Heart-Mother
Piper at the Gates of Dawn
Posts: 24
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 0
|
Fair comment, I'm not happy with any of them at the moment TBH
|
|
| 08-19-2007 05:56 AM |
|
Narrow Way
More
Posts: 292
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 1
|
floydianyid Wrote:Democracy is a joke, It would be so much better if we could vote on every important decision rather than electing a party that is full of ****.
That WOULD be a democracy.
In America we hoodwink ourselves with this democracy bit. We have a republic.There's a democratic "process" in elections, but then there is a way to win the most votes but lose the election.
Good luck to you guys with your election.
Edited By Narrow Way on 1187533115
|
|
| 08-19-2007 06:18 AM |
|
Dyolf
Pink Floyd
Posts: 5,325
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 25
|
Narrow Way Wrote:there is a way to win the most votes but lose the election.
:Oo: ???
PFO Brother of Wings on the Pig & pinkfloydfan1 and Cousin of BOOOSH
|
|
| 08-19-2007 06:40 AM |
|
Narrow Way
More
Posts: 292
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 1
|
:unclesam:
Yep, that's why so much weight is put on winning "states" rather than votes. Our president isn't elected with popular votes, he or she is elected with "electoral" votes.
:unclesam:
Edited By Narrow Way on 1187534856
|
|
| 08-19-2007 06:47 AM |
|
Philintheflesh
The Wall
Posts: 2,557
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 13
|
Dyolf Wrote:Narrow Way Wrote:there is a way to win the most votes but lose the election.
:Oo: ???
That`s technically possible in the UK too, but far less likely than in the US. (eg Gore winning the "popular" vote but losing in 2000).
The disenfranchisement of millions voting for a party in one state, and yet that whole state, and all it`s electoral votes, going to the opposition (specially a populous one like California) doesn`t apply.
In the UK, votes are for your local MP (Member of Parliament) of which there are 659....the average constituency being less than 100,000. So a party would have to be damn unlucky to win the "popular" vote, but lose the election.
....They`d have to win seats "heavily", & lose seats "narrowly" all over the place for that...possible, but highly unlikely.
The real loser in either the UK or US system is any "3rd" party...that`s why the LibDems always push for PR.
Icy wind of night be gone...this is not your domain
|
|
| 08-19-2007 09:49 AM |
|
Dyolf
Pink Floyd
Posts: 5,325
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 25
|
Philintheflesh Wrote:Dyolf Wrote:Narrow Way Wrote:there is a way to win the most votes but lose the election.
:Oo: ???
That`s technically possible in the UK too, but far less likely than in the US. (eg Gore winning the "popular" vote but losing in 2000).
The disenfranchisement of millions voting for a party in one state, and yet that whole state, and all it`s electoral votes, going to the opposition (specially a populous one like California) doesn`t apply.
In the UK, votes are for your local MP (Member of Parliament) of which there are 659....the average constituency being less than 100,000. So a party would have to be damn unlucky to win the "popular" vote, but lose the election.
....They`d have to win seats "heavily", & lose seats "narrowly" all over the place for that...possible, but highly unlikely.
The real loser in either the UK or US system is any "3rd" party...that`s why the LibDems always push for PR.
Cheers.
Did you research that or have you lived in both countries?
PFO Brother of Wings on the Pig & pinkfloydfan1 and Cousin of BOOOSH
|
|
| 08-19-2007 03:09 PM |
|
Philintheflesh
The Wall
Posts: 2,557
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 13
|
Dyolf Wrote:Cheers.
Did you research that or have you lived in both countries?
:D
Neither!...But I follow the US elections pretty closely...since the Florida "hangin` chads" of 2000 anyway.
Icy wind of night be gone...this is not your domain
|
|
| 08-19-2007 03:38 PM |
|
rolanddoe
Wish You Were Here
Posts: 1,972
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 18
|
Actually, Phil, the real loser would be whichever candidate was more adversely effected by the third party's presence. There never would have been any Bush Administration or concern over hanging chads were it not for a very vainglorious fool named Ralph Nader, who accomplished nothing other than the subversion of the democratic process with his candidacies.
Edited By rolanddoe on 1187570328
|
|
| 08-19-2007 03:52 PM |
|
Philintheflesh
The Wall
Posts: 2,557
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 13
|
I guess that was true in 2000...those "Green" votes going to the Democrats, had Nader not run.
The LibDems in the UK is perhaps a little different, in that they are an established political force, regularly get 25% of the vote, but often only emerge with a handfull of "seats" (ie MPs).They can sometimes use this to affect the balance of power in Parliament, but if either Labour or Conservative win by a sizeable majority, their power is pretty much zero.
Icy wind of night be gone...this is not your domain
|
|
| 08-19-2007 04:37 PM |
|
Dyolf
Pink Floyd
Posts: 5,325
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 25
|
Philintheflesh Wrote:I guess that was true in 2000...those "Green" votes going to the Democrats, had Nader not run.
The LibDems in the UK is perhaps a little different, in that they are an established political force, regularly get 25% of the vote, but often only emerge with a handfull of "seats" (ie MPs).They can sometimes use this to affect the balance of power in Parliament, but if either Labour or Conservative win by a sizeable majority, their power is pretty much zero.
The LibDems have never had any real power in parliament, and probably never will - they're simply not trusted by the British public (as a whole). The Torries are looking a little shifty too with MPs defecting to the Labour party.
PFO Brother of Wings on the Pig & pinkfloydfan1 and Cousin of BOOOSH
|
|
| 08-20-2007 04:57 AM |
|
Home
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
