Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, viivvaa66 said: The truth is often very insulting, I’m sorry about that. So personal insults are OK and your opinion is actually the truth. Conversation over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 4 minutes ago, viivvaa66 said: A voting system that gives 33.8% of the voters the right to elect the government and ignores the will of 65.2%, can’t honestly be called a democracy. Democracy is often defined as the rule of the majority, with free and fair elections, the UK voting system doesn’t even come close to meet those requirements. The truth is often very insulting, I’m sorry about that. There was no will of 65.2% this is utter nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 7 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: So personal insults are OK and your opinion is actually the truth. Conversation over. If statement like 33.8% is less than 50%, 1+1=2, the earth is round are just opinions, than I agree conversation is over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 5 Moderator Share Posted July 5 12 minutes ago, viivvaa66 said: A voting system that gives 33.8% of the voters the right to elect the government and ignores the will of 65.2%, can’t honestly be called a democracy. That’s not how ours works. It might seem pedantic, but voters in our system elect representatives (MPs). The MPs are mostly, but not exclusively, members of parties. The party with the most members then selects which MPs from the 650 form the government. I’m with you on not liking it, or at least not believing it to be the best system, but this particular argument isn’t quite framed correctly. If you had PR, the government minister MPs would still be selected by whoever came out on top. It might be the case that with PR you could get one party win 40% and 3 others 20% each, say, and they decide not to do any coalition deals. The 40% party would then pick the government minister etc roles, despite winning (say) 40% of a 60% turnout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 30 minutes ago, bickster said: Not sure on the Aussie system (not enough knowledge) but electing two chambers from one vote cycle seems utterly pointless The two chambers operate on different cycles. The senate is a six year cycle but it’s election split with 50% of senators up for reelection in each three year lower house election term. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 (edited) 3 hours ago, viivvaa66 said: If statement like 33.8% is less than 50%, 1+1=2, the earth is round are just opinions, than I agree conversation is over. The conversation is over because I am personally offended by your statement that I am afraid of democracy. I was a Civil Servant for 37 years. I have actually delivered our democratic process at elections for the last 25+ years. I posted in every one of the election threads urging people to vote and explaing why it's so important. I have voted in every election since the age of 18. Some of my family died protecting democracy in WW2. If I wished to be offensive I could ask you why you are so keen to introduce a process that gives extremists a disproportionate say in the running of the country. I could also ask if that's because you hold extremists views. But I wouldn't do that because it's offensive and nonsense. If I accidentally offended you on a personal level I would also be man enough to apologise. Anyway.......I must go now. I have a busy weekend of cowering from democracy ahead of me. Edited July 5 by Mandy Lifeboats Spelling mishsteaks 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, blandy said: That’s not how ours works. It might seem pedantic, but voters in our system elect representatives (MPs). The MPs are mostly, but not exclusively, members of parties. The party with the most members then selects which MPs from the 650 form the government. I’m with you on not liking it, or at least not believing it to be the best system, but this particular argument isn’t quite framed correctly. If you had PR, the government minister MPs would still be selected by whoever came out on top. It might be the case that with PR you could get one party win 40% and 3 others 20% each, say, and they decide not to do any coalition deals. The 40% party would then pick the government minister etc roles, despite winning (say) 40% of a 60% turnout. A democracy is defined as majority rule, or as opponent often call it tyranny of the majority. The UK system doesn’t work like that, so can it be called a democracy? It clearly doesn’t meet the criteria for a democracy. Either MP’s are elected by FPTP or PR, when they meet in parliament the rules will be the same. A majority of MP’s select a party to form a government. The only difference would be that with PR, that would also mean a majority of the people would be behind the government. If no party have majority on their own, the same as under the current system will take place, some form of coalition needs to be created that provides a majority of MP’s to select a government. In resent history we have had two Conservative government that needed support by either LibDems or DUP to form a government. The coalition could either be that the parties forms a government together, or that one of the parties form the government and the other parties support the creation of that government. In your example either the party with 40% of the MP’s needs to get support from one of the 3 parties with 20%, or the 3 parties with 20% could form a coalition. This situation could also happen under FPTP, but not very likely since it’s rigged towards a two party system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, viivvaa66 said: A democracy is defined as majority rule Completely untrue Quote Democracy -- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Why are you posting false inormation? Are ypu trying to undermine democracy by speading false information? Why do you hate democracy so much? Sorry......none of that is true.......I have just stooped down to your level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 9 hours ago, viivvaa66 said: Still the coalition didn’t harm the country as much as when Cameron was in charge alone. Cameron did no where near as much damage as boris and the worst PM in history truss did. Truss was a **** disaster. Absolute fool. Sunak wasnt great but the majority of the mess was caused under truss and boris that he was left with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 54 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Completely untrue Why are you posting false inormation? Are ypu trying to undermine democracy by speading false information? Why do you hate democracy so much? Sorry......none of that is true.......I have just stooped down to your level. From Marriam-Webster: democracy noun de·moc·ra·cy di-ˈmä-krə-sē plural democracies Synonyms of democracy 1 a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority I’m going to ignore you from now on, since you do not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 Just now, viivvaa66 said: I’m going to ignore you from now on, since you do not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. Oh My God. How will I cope without your approval? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viivvaa66 Posted July 5 Share Posted July 5 16 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: Cameron did no where near as much damage as boris and the worst PM in history truss did. Truss was a **** disaster. Absolute fool. Sunak wasnt great but the majority of the mess was caused under truss and boris that he was left with. And still people thinks that coalition governments are the worst thing ever. Originally the idea was that each MP should be partially independent and represent their constituency, but today MP’s mostly vote along party lines. That gives the PM more power than ever before to get his ideas and policies through parliament without any real checks and balances. Coalition governments would be a way of raining in some of that power, since it will involve more people/parties in the decision making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 16 hours ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: Labour got more votes than any other party. They are in power. Under PR the party with more votes than any other party could find itself in opposition. Which of those seems right? If 40% of people vote for the cat party, but 10% vote for the poodle party, 11% for the Labrador party, 9% for the spaniel party, 12% for the terrier party and 10% for the bulldog party I don't think it's unfair for the Dog coalition to form the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 6 Moderator Share Posted July 6 6 hours ago, viivvaa66 said: From Marriam-Webster: democracy noun de·moc·ra·cy di-ˈmä-krə-sē plural democracies Synonyms of democracy 1 a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority I’m going to ignore you from now on, since you do not contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. Well it seems you don’t understand dictionaries or are being wilfully selective with your dreadful quoting. Please stop making nonsensical arguments it doesn’t help 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, Danwichmann said: If 40% of people vote for the cat party, but 10% vote for the poodle party, 11% for the Labrador party, 9% for the spaniel party, 12% for the terrier party and 10% for the bulldog party I don't think it's unfair for the Dog coalition to form the government. That's a great way of putting it. The bulldog party wants everyone to have a dog with a short nose. The labrador party wants a dog that's good with kids. The spaniel party believes long ears are compulsory. The terrier party wants a working dog for pest control. The poodle party wants a dog with a curly coat. They get together and breed a long eared, short nosed dog with a curly coat that's good with kids but hates rats. It can't hunt rats because of its short nosed, scares the kids because it looks awful, has curly hairs that fall out everywhere and it's ears are longer than it's legs and scrape along the floor. Everyone buys a cat instead. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 17 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: That's a great way of putting it. The bulldog party wants everyone to have a dog with a short nose. The labrador party wants a dog that's good with kids. The spaniel party believes long ears are compulsory. The terrier party wants a working dog for pest control. The poodle party wants a dog with a curly coat. They get together and breed a long eared, short nosed dog with a curly coat that's good with kids but hates rats. It can't hunt rats because of its short nosed, scares the kids because it looks awful, has curly hairs that fall out everywhere and it's ears are longer than it's legs and scrape along the floor. Everyone buys a cat instead. Love your post and take your point, but we're never going to agree on this one. But I have a lot of respect for your commitment to democracy, work on election day etc so happy to respectfully disagree with you 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 3 minutes ago, Danwichmann said: Love your post and take your point, but we're never going to agree on this one. But I have a lot of respect for your commitment to democracy, work on election day etc so happy to respectfully disagree with you I am glad it made you smile. I had to think very hard to come up with all the dog attributes. I am happy to agree to disagree on this but may I ask you a question please. You are now in charge and you can introduce any voting system you want. How would YOUR version of PR work? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 Just now, Mandy Lifeboats said: I am glad it made you smile. I had to think very hard to come up with all the dog attributes. I am happy to agree to disagree on this but may I ask you a question please. You are now in charge and you can introduce any voting system you want. How would YOUR version of PR work? I'm honestly not sure, I'd have to ask people smarter than me to introduce a range of options, and even were I in charge and had the power to select my preferred option, I think it would still need to go to vote. But an option that retains some link between constituency and MPs would be my preference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 6 Share Posted July 6 Just now, Danwichmann said: I'm honestly not sure, I'd have to ask people smarter than me to introduce a range of options, and even were I in charge and had the power to select my preferred option, I think it would still need to go to vote. But an option that retains some link between constituency and MPs would be my preference. I would happily move to PR if I could see a system that 1. retains the link between constituency and MPs, 2. prevents extremists rising to power 3. was simple to understand and administer 4. produced a decisive winner more often than it produced a coalition winner But I can't come up with anything like that. I am glad that we agree on the link between MP's and their constituency. People moan about their MPs. But few people go to their surgeries and moan to them directly. We have a system where you can have face to face discussion with your MP. That's wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted July 6 VT Supporter Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said: That's a great way of putting it. The bulldog party wants everyone to have a dog with a short nose. The labrador party wants a dog that's good with kids. The spaniel party believes long ears are compulsory. The terrier party wants a working dog for pest control. The poodle party wants a dog with a curly coat. They get together and breed a long eared, short nosed dog with a curly coat that's good with kids but hates rats. It can't hunt rats because of its short nosed, scares the kids because it looks awful, has curly hairs that fall out everywhere and it's ears are longer than it's legs and scrape along the floor. Everyone buys a cat instead. Sorry, but you're wrong about this. Cat's are bloody awful, I'd go without. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts