Well obviously not
all of them. I
was using the term 'hate' metaphorically, although for many it's quite real.
And I was pointing out that if 90% voted this time much the same as last time, theres not much hating going on, if any. You are presuming people changed heir vote out of hate without any evidence.
Are you suggesting they love labour
Im not suggesting that any more than you should be suggesting hate: we dont know.
Dong20 said:
One might argue that it's a side effect of a manifestly undemocratic democracy, or perhaps it's just that they don't want to take their medicine?
Dandelion said:
But no one has even asked them to take their medicine! All parties have refused to talk about it. I think you might say all parties which have failed to explain how they will deal with the budget defecit have been rejected except by their core diehard supporters.
Well. that's just wordplay. Anyone who isn't a confirmed halfwit surely understands that major public spending cuts (and some related rises) are necessary regardless of what the three monkeys spake (or didn't). Those who fail to grasp the blindingly obvious don't generally merit my consideration, the reasons for which should be obvious.
I doubt anyone has judged who to vote for on the basis of how they intend to make 100 billion in cuts, because none has said a word about it. im not a half wit, have spent hours reading about this and Im not sure whether we face a disaster or not. Its very unclear. Anyone who has only listened to the debate highlights may have seen politicians queried about this, and every time they say we will make some efficiency savings and it will be fine. They all say this, none argue. They have all put forward their view that this isnt an issue.
Yes, 30 million voters acted in concert ...
{to arrange a hung parliament}
No, 90% voted just as last time, So 3 million voted to engineer a hung parliament. Worked quite well.
It never really did. I mean when exactly did Parliament fairly and equitably represent the 'man in the street'?
Thats true. But nowadays people are more interested and more rebellious. So once they would have voted lab or con depending if they were dustmen or lords.Now hardly anyone is either and it is blatantly obvious they are not being represented. A bunch of professional politicians has totally run away with the ball and we want it back. Carry on that way and suddenly you get abreakthrough of 200 BNP when they get to the critical mass.
PR is the Lords is all but pointless, not a bad idea but really, what tangible benefits would it bring given it's limited legislative authority?
well since you ask, a years delay is sufficiently long to be annoying, and then very annoying if every bill keeps being rejected by the lords. Whats more, if the lords was clearly representative and keeps disagreeing with the commons, people will start to notice that their will is being blatantly flouted by the commons. Then come next election... The accusation levelled against the lords evry single time it challenges the commons is that it is undemocratic and should stop interfering. Being elected proportionately it would truly represent the conscience of the nation nagging at the government. There is absolutley no justification for any kind of elected government in a democracy which isnt democratic. What did you say was the justification for the commons? That it gives a clear result? Why is this good?
Of course mainstream parties are at odds with most of the electorate, the raw numbers alone evidence this, again. That's surely news to no-one.
Goodness! Theres hardly a politician on the telly just now who isnt arguing that because they got 1% more than the other chap then the united will of the people means they must have their way. It seems to be news to them: someone needs to explain it to them quite pointedly.
Why? I mean if 3 people voted for party X out of 40 million votes cast doesn't that suggest party X don't have much to offer - or are they merely tragically misunderstood?
For example, we a have a green! Exactly the same applies to lib dems. It is very hard to get in if you are a lib dem, but then suddenly there is a by election, people vote what they want instead of how they feel they must, and suddenly a lib appears. Then they hang on for decades. Under the current system people believe they cannot vote for the party they want, because if they do they will end up with the party they hate. Surely this is obvious? But if you reckon the population doesnt want any of the fring parties and I reckon they do, then give me single transferrable vote and we will see. If your right nothing will change. If im right, we will get a lot more libs and greens.
Without 'Party' politics people might feel less constrained from voting on the issues.
When was the electorate ever asked to vote on an issue? er? staying in the EU about 1975? Never since?
For politicians to be more fairly represntative of such desires generally requires more granularity of represention, a move opposite to that generally mooted.
What do you mean? At present to get into power you have to have the support of 40% of the population. Thats not very granular. To get an MP you probably need about 40% in any one constituency. Now, on PR you might need 1/650 of the total votes cast nationally to get 1MP, maybe 100 votes per constituency. The alternative under the present system is for the 60,000 trainspotters all round the country to all move to Crew, put up someone for parliament and vote for him. That would work, but is it fair to require them to do this?
Local councils can seek to fill that gap, but really, for the most part how well does that work.
It did work 100 years ago. More recently all their powers have been taken away by central government, so it doesnt work at all.
Heaven forbid that such a thing might lead toward true democracy rather than away from it!! Still, there seems little or no danger of that occurring since it requires active, (preferably) informed participation by people.
Im an informed chap, but whats the point of voting for who i want. They cant win....Why would a sensible person waste their time going to vote when they know it will have no effect? You presume people dont care, rather than they have made a sensible decison it is a waste of time.
One solution might be to impose the same rule for representation in Parliament as applies to deposits; win less than 5% of the vote and you get none. Not especially democratic, to be sure - but then neither is what happens now.
Thats true, but since it would have to be accompanied by a rule that if you get 6% you get 6% of members, it would be much more fair than now. Were you seriously suggesting that because plaid cymru got 0.6% of the vote their three members should be barred from parliament?
Things do need to change, but I think it's more complex than just PR, literally and methaphorically - because people need to change too. Which brings me back to three paragraphs up ...
Yes. Why do you presume people are incapable of making an informed choice between more than 2 parties? The actual attempts by any party to explain themselves to voters are truly pathetic...because under our system it doesnt matter.
