User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 153

  1. #111
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I've very glad that the liberals have shown their true colours, every liberal at heart is a conservative, especially on the economy.

    Tonight the UK 1% toasts the end of the NHS. I expect a Poll Tax before this government ends.

  2. #112
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    It seems that the Conservatives did much as I suspected, through an alternative run-off system. I'm personally quite satisfied with the results so far; the Conservatives are the main party, there are greater checks and balances through a coalition government, single-member districts are retained and if AV passes the district representatives will represent a majority of their constituents.

    The AV system (if it passes) might even result in greater candidate independence from the national party leaderships by allowing multiple candidates from the same party to oppose each other during district elections; I'm not optimistic about that hope (parliamentary systems are structured against this), but its possible.

  3. #113
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Michael Moynihan criticizes the Tories' campaign strategy here:

    Opinion: Lesson from the U.K. -- How Not to Win an Election - AOL News
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #114
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    It seems that the Conservatives did much as I suspected, through an alternative run-off system. I'm personally quite satisfied with the results so far; the Conservatives are the main party, there are greater checks and balances through a coalition government, single-member districts are retained and if AV passes the district representatives will represent a majority of their constituents.

    The AV system (if it passes) might even result in greater candidate independence from the national party leaderships by allowing multiple candidates from the same party to oppose each other during district elections; I'm not optimistic about that hope (parliamentary systems are structured against this), but its possible.
    How does AV ensure that a candidate represents mroe than half their constituency other than by forcing you to vote for a candidate you despise in order that your vote be counted?

    It is in fact an even less proportional system than the existing one, and even less democratic!

    Say I wish to vote for Labour, and say I recognize, as Lark said, that Liberals are nothing but Yellow Tories, and at the same time, I recognize that the BNP are worst of all? I would now have to list the other 3 in order, and then when one of those candidates I oppose is elected, I'd be told, "well, you voted for him"; which is an insult.

    In any case it is unlikely AV will pass the referndum of that the referndumw ill even egt a high enough turnout to make it binding.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  5. #115
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    How does AV ensure that a candidate represents mroe than half their constituency other than by forcing you to vote for a candidate you despise in order that your vote be counted?

    It is in fact an even less proportional system than the existing one, and even less democratic!

    Say I wish to vote for Labour, and say I recognize, as Lark said, that Liberals are nothing but Yellow Tories, and at the same time, I recognize that the BNP are worst of all? I would now have to list the other 3 in order, and then when one of those candidates I oppose is elected, I'd be told, "well, you voted for him"; which is an insult.

    In any case it is unlikely AV will pass the referndum of that the referndumw ill even egt a high enough turnout to make it binding.

    You could just neglect to put anyone in 2nd or 3rd, right?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #116
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    You could just neglect to put anyone in 2nd or 3rd, right?
    I believe then your vote wouldn't count (at least under the version previosuly proposed).
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  7. #117
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    How does AV ensure that a candidate represents mroe than half their constituency other than by forcing you to vote for a candidate you despise in order that your vote be counted?
    1.) Politics is all about coalition-building; majority-based single-member districts make such "minimum-winning coalitions" more transparent than PR, by necessitating that coalitions identify themselves before rather than after elections. And either way, your vote only "counts" (as far as it does, voting participation depends on ideology rather that rational self-interests...except in one Northern Ireland district, apparently) in government if it is part of the effective governing coalition, either directly or indirectly through checks and balances on the official government.

    2.) In PR systems, specific representatives are not accountable to specific voters, making their "representation" little more than a sham.

  8. #118
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    1.) Politics is all about coalition-building; majority-based single-member districts make such "minimum-winning coalitions" more transparent than PR, by necessitating that coalitions identify themselves before rather than after elections. And either way, your vote only "counts" (as far as it does, voting participation depends on ideology rather that rational self-interests...except in one Northern Ireland district, apparently) in government if it is part of the effective governing coalition, either directly or indirectly through checks and balances on the official government.

    2.) In PR systems, specific representatives are not accountable to specific voters, making their "representation" little more than a sham.
    I don't have a clue what you are talking about, sorry. :s This isn't me being rude, I just genuinely do not understand how AV makes coallition-building more transparent, or that coallitions must identify themselves before an election, or anything of the sort.

    Likewise, do you think it's right or wrong that we should be forced to vote for all but one candidate?

    And finally, on your point of "rational self-interest" - well the 8 million Labour voters voted to defend public services, welfare and their jobs from the massive attacks promised by the Tories - this seems like a defence of self-interest to me. I'm not sure what your point Re the Alliance Party is.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  9. #119
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    1.) Politics is all about coalition-building; majority-based single-member districts make such "minimum-winning coalitions" more transparent than PR, by necessitating that coalitions identify themselves before rather than after elections. And either way, your vote only "counts" (as far as it does, voting participation depends on ideology rather that rational self-interests...except in one Northern Ireland district, apparently) in government if it is part of the effective governing coalition, either directly or indirectly through checks and balances on the official government.

    2.) In PR systems, specific representatives are not accountable to specific voters, making their "representation" little more than a sham.
    That sure was the case in the UK this time, no idea why so many people opted for the party that's going to reduce the prospects of their getting a job or benefits or even relief from the present tax burden.

  10. #120
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    I don't have a clue what you are talking about, sorry. :s This isn't me being rude, I just genuinely do not understand how AV makes coallition-building more transparent, or that coallitions must identify themselves before an election, or anything of the sort.

    Likewise, do you thinmk it's right or wrong that we should be forced to vote for all but one candidate?

    And finally, on your point of "rational self-interest" - well the 8 million Labour voters voted to defend public services, welfare and their jobs from the massive attacks promised by the Tories - this seems like a defence of self-interest to me. I'm not sure what your point Re the Alliance Party is.
    1.) Take the Republican party*, for example; its widely recognized as a broad-based political coalition that, in the aggregate, advocates economic, foreign policy, social, and constitutional "conservatism"-Republican voters do not necessarily support all of the party platform, but they deem the policy trade-offs to be worth it, if they can advance priorities that opposing coalitions (namely the Democratic party) explicitly oppose. The key is that voters know going into the voting booth which combination of policies the Republican coalition advocates. Under PR systems, with a larger number of parties comprised of a narrower political base, the voters would not know which policies will be sidelined when the party of their choice forms a governing coalition with one or more rival parties, and after the vote they would have no input regarding the make-up of the governing coalition.

    2.) In the event that there are only three candidates, and the candidate of one's choice is unpopular in one's district, then I think voting for the lesser of two evils as a second choice through the AV system is preferable to the electoral alternatives.

    3.) I was talking about individual voters; the Labour vote counts for a lot in the aggregate, but the vote of any individual labour supporter counts for very, very little**, particularly in light of the inconvenience involved with voting and (for people who are uninterested in politics for its own sake) educating themselves about the issues and candidates. If individual voters based their participation in the electoral process on their rational self-interests rather than an ideological commitment to the process and the faith/hope that their political compatriots share that ideological commitment, then most people would "defect" and stay home. Choosing who to support is a rational act (hopefully), but participating in the electoral process is not.

    *I know, I know...you would rather not.

    **excepting the aforementioned district in Northern Ireland that was decided by four votes.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 05-11-2010 at 06:15 PM. Reason: more to add

Similar Threads

  1. Taliban Attack Afghan Parliament Building in Kabul
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-22-2015, 05:24 AM
  2. Violent Attack on Canadian Parliament
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2014, 08:07 AM
  3. Darth Vader is Running for Parliament in the Ukraine
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-25-2014, 05:20 PM
  4. Parliament and Congress
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-30-2012, 10:01 AM
  5. European Parliament election -2009-
    By Blackmail! in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 08:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO