Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

ukip (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 55 of 311 < 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 >

Topic Locked

kangel 17 May 14 4.59pm
Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm "slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say. I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip: [Link] Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote. Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm It is not democratic to deny people the ability to vote for members of different parties. You might really like a particular Tory candidate and a particular Labour candidate but you cannot vote for both of them. Even if you decide just to vote for say the Tory who is bottom of their list, then your vote contributes to the possible success of the Tory at the top of the list, who you may particularly dislike. That's not so much 'undemocratic', I'd say it's just a slightly different variation of democracy. Do you vote in the London Assembly elections? It's a very similar system. Also, presumably the Prime Minister is someone who you might not intend to vote for, do you think that makes parliamentary elections undemocratic? Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP. If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue. People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it.
Alert a moderator to this post

kangel

17 May 14 4.59pm

Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

"slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say.

I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip:

[Link]

Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote.

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

It is not democratic to deny people the ability to vote for members of different parties. You might really like a particular Tory candidate and a particular Labour candidate but you cannot vote for both of them. Even if you decide just to vote for say the Tory who is bottom of their list, then your vote contributes to the possible success of the Tory at the top of the list, who you may particularly dislike.

That's not so much 'undemocratic', I'd say it's just a slightly different variation of democracy. Do you vote in the London Assembly elections? It's a very similar system. Also, presumably the Prime Minister is someone who you might not intend to vote for, do you think that makes parliamentary elections undemocratic?

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP.

If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue.

People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it.

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 17 May 14 5.01pm
Quote serial thriller at 17 May 2014 3.31pm Quote Cucking Funt at 17 May 2014 2.58pm Quote serial thriller at 17 May 2014 2.55pm Z [Link] This made me chuckle. Farage absolutely decimated on LBC. He was reduced by 10%??? He was made less dense in a photograph? [Link] (We can all play the 'double meanings of words' game) From 'decus', meaning ten. It's ok, it's a common mistake. A bit like the blurring between 'imply' and 'infer'. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 17 May 14 5.01pm

Quote serial thriller at 17 May 2014 3.31pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 17 May 2014 2.58pm

Quote serial thriller at 17 May 2014 2.55pm
Z
[Link]

This made me chuckle. Farage absolutely decimated on LBC.

He was reduced by 10%???

He was made less dense in a photograph?

[Link]

(We can all play the 'double meanings of words' game)

From 'decus', meaning ten.

It's ok, it's a common mistake. A bit like the blurring between 'imply' and 'infer'.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 17 May 14 5.06pm
Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm "slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say. I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip: [Link] Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote. Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm It is not democratic to deny people the ability to vote for members of different parties. You might really like a particular Tory candidate and a particular Labour candidate but you cannot vote for both of them. Even if you decide just to vote for say the Tory who is bottom of their list, then your vote contributes to the possible success of the Tory at the top of the list, who you may particularly dislike. That's not so much 'undemocratic', I'd say it's just a slightly different variation of democracy. Do you vote in the London Assembly elections? It's a very similar system. Also, presumably the Prime Minister is someone who you might not intend to vote for, do you think that makes parliamentary elections undemocratic? Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP. If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue. People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it. Allocating seats according to the number of votes cast seems like a pretty good idea to me and certainly more representative. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 17 May 14 5.06pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm

Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

"slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say.

I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip:

[Link]

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP.

If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue.

People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it.

Allocating seats according to the number of votes cast seems like a pretty good idea to me and certainly more representative.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

kangel 17 May 14 5.14pm
Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote. [quote How do I vote for my preferred Tory and my preferred Labour candidates then?
Alert a moderator to this post

kangel

17 May 14 5.14pm

Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote.

[quote

How do I vote for my preferred Tory and my preferred Labour candidates then?

Alert a moderator to this post

luckybuck 17 May 14 5.20pm
Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm "slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say. I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip: [Link] Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote. Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm It is not democratic to deny people the ability to vote for members of different parties. You might really like a particular Tory candidate and a particular Labour candidate but you cannot vote for both of them. Even if you decide just to vote for say the Tory who is bottom of their list, then your vote contributes to the possible success of the Tory at the top of the list, who you may particularly dislike. That's not so much 'undemocratic', I'd say it's just a slightly different variation of democracy. Do you vote in the London Assembly elections? It's a very similar system. Also, presumably the Prime Minister is someone who you might not intend to vote for, do you think that makes parliamentary elections undemocratic? Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP. If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue. People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it. As much as I strongly dislike the BNP, if many thousands of people vote for them and they are then represented, it's neither a fiddle nor undemocratic. I find them 'undesirable' too but that's just my individual view. My view shouldn't be able to stamp out peoples' right to a say.
Alert a moderator to this post

luckybuck

17 May 14 5.20pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm

Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

"slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say.

I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip:

[Link]

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP.

If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue.

People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it.

As much as I strongly dislike the BNP, if many thousands of people vote for them and they are then represented, it's neither a fiddle nor undemocratic. I find them 'undesirable' too but that's just my individual view. My view shouldn't be able to stamp out peoples' right to a say.

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 17 May 14 5.27pm
Quote luckybuck at 17 May 2014 5.20pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm "slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say. I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip: [Link] Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote. Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm It is not democratic to deny people the ability to vote for members of different parties. You might really like a particular Tory candidate and a particular Labour candidate but you cannot vote for both of them. Even if you decide just to vote for say the Tory who is bottom of their list, then your vote contributes to the possible success of the Tory at the top of the list, who you may particularly dislike. That's not so much 'undemocratic', I'd say it's just a slightly different variation of democracy. Do you vote in the London Assembly elections? It's a very similar system. Also, presumably the Prime Minister is someone who you might not intend to vote for, do you think that makes parliamentary elections undemocratic? Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP. If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue. People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it. As much as I strongly dislike the BNP, if many thousands of people vote for them and they are then represented, it's neither a fiddle nor undemocratic. I find them 'undesirable' too but that's just my individual view. My view shouldn't be able to stamp out peoples' right to a say. It's funny how people who supposedly cherish democracy get all uptight when candidates who are not to their liking actually get elected. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 17 May 14 5.27pm

Quote luckybuck at 17 May 2014 5.20pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm

Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

"slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say.

I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip:

[Link]

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP.

If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue.

People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it.

It's funny how people who supposedly cherish democracy get all uptight when candidates who are not to their liking actually get elected.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

The White Horse 17 May 14 5.57pm
Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 5.14pm How do I vote for my preferred Tory and my preferred Labour candidates then? Pick between them. Very few electors would cherish the opportunity of being able to vote for multiple candidates/parties and often this leads to a situation where the most popular party simply ends up with several representatives while others have none. Take Penge and Cator Ward in Bromley as an example. Each Labour candidate gets 15% of the votes cast (collectively getting 45%), yet the 3 of them end up with all of the representation. It's nice you've got more choice, but is it actually more democratic? "The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee
Alert a moderator to this post

The White Horse

17 May 14 5.57pm

Send a Private Message to The White Horse

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 5.14pm

How do I vote for my preferred Tory and my preferred Labour candidates then?

Pick between them. Very few electors would cherish the opportunity of being able to vote for multiple candidates/parties and often this leads to a situation where the most popular party simply ends up with several representatives while others have none.

Take Penge and Cator Ward in Bromley as an example. Each Labour candidate gets 15% of the votes cast (collectively getting 45%), yet the 3 of them end up with all of the representation. It's nice you've got more choice, but is it actually more democratic?

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

Alert a moderator to this post

kangel 17 May 14 5.58pm
Quote luckybuck at 17 May 2014 5.20pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm "slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say. I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip: [Link] Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote. Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm It is not democratic to deny people the ability to vote for members of different parties. You might really like a particular Tory candidate and a particular Labour candidate but you cannot vote for both of them. Even if you decide just to vote for say the Tory who is bottom of their list, then your vote contributes to the possible success of the Tory at the top of the list, who you may particularly dislike. That's not so much 'undemocratic', I'd say it's just a slightly different variation of democracy. Do you vote in the London Assembly elections? It's a very similar system. Also, presumably the Prime Minister is someone who you might not intend to vote for, do you think that makes parliamentary elections undemocratic? Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP. If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue. People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it. As much as I strongly dislike the BNP, if many thousands of people vote for them and they are then represented, it's neither a fiddle nor undemocratic. I find them 'undesirable' too but that's just my individual view. My view shouldn't be able to stamp out peoples' right to a say. I have merely said that it is an unfortunate effect of the EU PR system that extremist parties can gain seats. PR for UK elections was rejected by a referendum in 2011. Yet the EU have imposed their dubious PR system on us.
Alert a moderator to this post

kangel

17 May 14 5.58pm

Quote luckybuck at 17 May 2014 5.20pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm

Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

"slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say.

I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip:

[Link]

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP.

If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue.

People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it.

I have merely said that it is an unfortunate effect of the EU PR system that extremist parties can gain seats.

PR for UK elections was rejected by a referendum in 2011. Yet the EU have imposed their dubious PR system on us.

Alert a moderator to this post

kangel 17 May 14 6.00pm
Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 5.57pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 5.14pm How do I vote for my preferred Tory and my preferred Labour candidates then? Pick between them. Very few electors would cherish the opportunity of being able to vote for multiple candidates/parties and often this leads to a situation where the most popular party simply ends up with several representatives while others have none. Take Penge and Cator Ward in Bromley as an example. Each Labour candidate gets 15% of the votes cast (collectively getting 45%), yet the 3 of them end up with all of the representation. It's nice you've got more choice, but is it actually more democratic? We should be able to vote for individual candidates to represent us as we do in UK parliamentary elections.
Alert a moderator to this post

kangel

17 May 14 6.00pm

Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 5.57pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 5.14pm

How do I vote for my preferred Tory and my preferred Labour candidates then?

We should be able to vote for individual candidates to represent us as we do in UK parliamentary elections.

Alert a moderator to this post

The White Horse 17 May 14 6.04pm
Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue. People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it. They got 6.2% of the vote in an election that elects 72 representatives. With 2 MEPs, they actually only ended up with 2.8% of the seats when an exactly proportional system would have given them 4 seats. "The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee
Alert a moderator to this post

The White Horse

17 May 14 6.04pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm

Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm

If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue.

People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it.

They got 6.2% of the vote in an election that elects 72 representatives. With 2 MEPs, they actually only ended up with 2.8% of the seats when an exactly proportional system would have given them 4 seats.

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

Alert a moderator to this post

The White Horse 17 May 14 6.05pm
Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 5.58pm Quote luckybuck at 17 May 2014 5.20pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm "slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say. I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip: [Link] Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote. Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm It is not democratic to deny people the ability to vote for members of different parties. You might really like a particular Tory candidate and a particular Labour candidate but you cannot vote for both of them. Even if you decide just to vote for say the Tory who is bottom of their list, then your vote contributes to the possible success of the Tory at the top of the list, who you may particularly dislike. That's not so much 'undemocratic', I'd say it's just a slightly different variation of democracy. Do you vote in the London Assembly elections? It's a very similar system. Also, presumably the Prime Minister is someone who you might not intend to vote for, do you think that makes parliamentary elections undemocratic? Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP. If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue. People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it. As much as I strongly dislike the BNP, if many thousands of people vote for them and they are then represented, it's neither a fiddle nor undemocratic. I find them 'undesirable' too but that's just my individual view. My view shouldn't be able to stamp out peoples' right to a say. I have merely said that it is an unfortunate effect of the EU PR system that extremist parties can gain seats. PR for UK elections was rejected by a referendum in 2011. Yet the EU have imposed their dubious PR system on us. No it wasn't, the Alternative Vote system (not a proportional voting system) was. "The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee
Alert a moderator to this post

The White Horse

17 May 14 6.05pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 5.58pm

Quote luckybuck at 17 May 2014 5.20pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm

Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

"slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say.

I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip:

[Link]

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP.

If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue.

People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it.

I have merely said that it is an unfortunate effect of the EU PR system that extremist parties can gain seats.

PR for UK elections was rejected by a referendum in 2011. Yet the EU have imposed their dubious PR system on us.

No it wasn't, the Alternative Vote system (not a proportional voting system) was.

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 17 May 14 6.07pm
Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 5.58pm Quote luckybuck at 17 May 2014 5.20pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm "slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say. I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip: [Link] Besides, I don't think it really matters whether people understand the voting system. If anything, understanding the voting system leads to tactical voting. Just tell people to vote for what they want and let the long dead Me d'Hondt make sure the number of MEPs reflects the shares of the vote. Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm It is not democratic to deny people the ability to vote for members of different parties. You might really like a particular Tory candidate and a particular Labour candidate but you cannot vote for both of them. Even if you decide just to vote for say the Tory who is bottom of their list, then your vote contributes to the possible success of the Tory at the top of the list, who you may particularly dislike. That's not so much 'undemocratic', I'd say it's just a slightly different variation of democracy. Do you vote in the London Assembly elections? It's a very similar system. Also, presumably the Prime Minister is someone who you might not intend to vote for, do you think that makes parliamentary elections undemocratic? Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP. If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue. People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it. As much as I strongly dislike the BNP, if many thousands of people vote for them and they are then represented, it's neither a fiddle nor undemocratic. I find them 'undesirable' too but that's just my individual view. My view shouldn't be able to stamp out peoples' right to a say. I have merely said that it is an unfortunate effect of the EU PR system that extremist parties can gain seats. PR for UK elections was rejected by a referendum in 2011. Yet the EU have imposed their dubious PR system on us. Why is it 'unfortunate'? Because there was an outcome you didn't like? PR wasn't an option in the 2011 referendum. Instead, it was some needlessly complicated and spazzy alternate-vote system that nobody understood. Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert a moderator to this post

Cucking Funt

Clapham on the Back 17 May 14 6.07pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 5.58pm

Quote luckybuck at 17 May 2014 5.20pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.59pm

Quote The White Horse at 17 May 2014 4.43pm

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

"slightly complicated" indeed - incomprehensible to many voters I would say.

I'd say most people would understand if they watched this 3 minute clip:

[Link]

Quote kangel at 17 May 2014 4.06pm

The 'system' also results in the 'election' of such undesirables as the BNP.

If people are voting for them in sufficient numbers, then why is that a bad thing? Democracy in action, I'd argue.

People are not voting for them in 'sufficient numbers'. They get a small proportion of the vote and end up with seats due to the EU PR system. Non-democratic fiddle, I'd call it.

I have merely said that it is an unfortunate effect of the EU PR system that extremist parties can gain seats.

PR for UK elections was rejected by a referendum in 2011. Yet the EU have imposed their dubious PR system on us.

Why is it 'unfortunate'? Because there was an outcome you didn't like?

PR wasn't an option in the 2011 referendum. Instead, it was some needlessly complicated and spazzy alternate-vote system that nobody understood.

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham

Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 55 of 311 < 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

ukip (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors