User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 153

  1. #11
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Maybe if there were any obvious differences between the parties, a hung parliament would be less likely.

    The manifestos of the various parties look as if they've been concocted by focus groups to appeal to voters in marginal constituencies.:rolli:

  2. #12
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    That's not entirely true...

    There have been 5 presidents in total that did not receive a second term. 4 of which were not voted in as president, but were vice presidents that were promoted due to deaths/assassinations.

    As such there has been only *ONE* president that didn't receive a second term who was VOTED in as president in the first place.

    The other 4 were all handed presidency without being voted for, so I don't honestly think they count in this matter, since we're specifically considering presidents that win TWO elections, and they didn't.

    Specifically, Franklin Pierce, 14th president of the usa, did so poorly that his party didn't even allow him to run for president on his second term, because he lost the vote to even run for presidency.

    I suppose, technically, that means noone has ever really lost their second vote in office, because noone who was elected for their first term, ever lost the second election. The one president elected in first term that didn't make their second wasn't even eligible for reelection, and the 4 others who didn't win the second election were never voted for in the first place.

    As such, there has *NEVER* been a president in the USA who was eligible to be voted for by the people in both first and second terms who succeeded on the first and failed on the second. EVER.

    So yes, I was wrong. There wasn't 1. There was 0.

    George H.W. Bush was elected in 1988 and lost to Bill Clinton in 1992. John Adams was elected in 1796 and lost to Thomas Jefferson in 1800. Grover Cleveland was elected in 1884, lost to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 (although he won the popular vote), and then avenged the loss in 1892, becoming the only U.S. President to be elected in non-consecutive terms. Where on Earth are you getting your information?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #13
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Wikianswers XD

    It's actually pretty hard to find information on such outside of a textbook which I don't have access to. Not sure why, maybe I'm just looking for the wrong stuff.

    I really need to stop relying on such stuff though for information, I doublechecked after yeu mentioned bush sr, and yep 1988-1992 only, so I stand totally corrected =3

    Though... I'm not sure if grover cleveland counts since he did in fact, as yeu say, won the election back in 1892, and he did win the popular vote 3 years in a row which's weird O.o

    Things're more colourful than I'd originally been told however. I'd been under the impression for ages only a single president had failed to get reelected on second term, though maybe that was only in the last 100 years that was being counted. I dunno!

  4. #14
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Wikianswers XD

    It's actually pretty hard to find information on such outside of a textbook which I don't have access to. Not sure why, maybe I'm just looking for the wrong stuff.

    I really need to stop relying on such stuff though for information, I doublechecked after yeu mentioned bush sr, and yep 1988-1992 only, so I stand totally corrected =3

    Though... I'm not sure if grover cleveland counts since he did in fact, as yeu say, won the election back in 1892, and he did win the popular vote 3 years in a row which's weird O.o

    Things're more colourful than I'd originally been told however. I'd been under the impression for ages only a single president had failed to get reelected on second term, though maybe that was only in the last 100 years that was being counted. I dunno!
    Well, considering how recent the last guy who didn't get re-elected was, he should probably be weighted more heavily than the last two. There are lots of theories as to why Bush Jr. got elected again, but it's certainly not because it's "impossible" to not re-elect someone. In American politics, usually the choice is between the lesser of two evils, so I guess a lot of people just really hated Kerry.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  5. #15
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Well, considering how recent the last guy who didn't get re-elected was, he should probably be weighted more heavily than the last two. There are lots of theories as to why Bush Jr. got elected again, but it's certainly not because it's "impossible" to not re-elect someone. In American politics, usually the choice is between the lesser of two evils, so I guess a lot of people just really hated Kerry.
    Well Kerry was an astoundingly weak candidate too...

    The question then becomes, why did EVERYONE fight to get a right to be elected in the 2008 election, but bush had virtually no competition in 2004?

    It's not impossible to overthrow him, but it wasn't realistic enough, yeu'd have to be near perfect in every way, even against a very weakly viewed opposition, if yeu wanted to pull the reigns away from him. Bush jr could've lost the election to a stronger candidate probably, but it would've still been pretty risky, it's alot harder to pull power away from someone who has it and has the option to maintain it, than it is to get it when it's up for grabs from anyone. I don't think anyone's really willing to put the money and effort into a truly strong candidate on a second term election, they'd rather wait for the forced switch to take it when it's better odds.

  6. #16
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Well Kerry was an astoundingly weak candidate too...

    The question then becomes, why did EVERYONE fight to get a right to be elected in the 2008 election, but bush had virtually no competition in 2004?

    It's not impossible to overthrow him, but it wasn't realistic enough, yeu'd have to be near perfect in every way, even against a very weakly viewed opposition, if yeu wanted to pull the reigns away from him. Bush jr could've lost the election to a stronger candidate probably, but it would've still been pretty risky, it's alot harder to pull power away from someone who has it and has the option to maintain it, than it is to get it when it's up for grabs from anyone. I don't think anyone's really willing to put the money and effort into a truly strong candidate on a second term election, they'd rather wait for the forced switch to take it when it's better odds.
    You said it yourself, Kerry was an astoundingly weak candidate. Quite simply, we hadn't been given enough time to stew in our anger yet.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  7. #17
    Senior Member tinkerbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    The manifestos of the various parties look as if they've been concocted by focus groups to appeal to voters in marginal constituencies.:rolli:
    Hey Ban, isn't that the whole point? esspecally in this type of political climate. Personally speaking form what I've read of the major parties manefesto's they are all majorily over claiming while simulatenously stating widely they intend to loose 1/3 of the staff delivering pubic services.... Impressive if they can pull both sides of that little equations off.

    I wonder what scull duggary will happen if we get either a coalision or a hung parlment, it is certainyl a more interesting election than it has been for a very long time.

  8. #18
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    Maybe if there were any obvious differences between the parties, a hung parliament would be less likely.

    The manifestos of the various parties look as if they've been concocted by focus groups to appeal to voters in marginal constituencies.:rolli:
    This is the essential problem with the British system at present. A tiny proportion of voters in a few marginal constituencies have a quite disproportionate effect on the overall result, and a sucessful campaign targeting them almost inevitably results in a decisive political victory. It essentially turns the country into an oligarchy at the mercy of a few vacillating, politically obtuse, entirely self-serving white collar types scattered around the country's leafy suburbs. Bread and circuses, equating to the promise (not necessarily the realisation) of improved education, healthcare, financial subsidies, and development, but only in the areas where votes are being actively courted and for the people whose votes are needed. The rest of the country can go hang, vaguely encouraging election time rhetoric aside.

    Somewhere like where I live (where the voting patterns of most of the population are consistent and predictable, based on social class, history and ingrained habit) regularly returns a Labour member with a huge majority, and its needs are thus completely ignored alike by the policy makers in the Labour party and Government, who complacently treat it as a "safe seat", and the other parties, who feel they have no chance of getting in anyway and do not expend resources on a serious campaign. Social conditions, corruption, and development continue to be unnacceptable, but it is not in anyone's political interests to spend time and resources targeting them while the present situation continues; they are all many miles away, chasing the swing votes as usual.

    I think a hung parliament is probably the best chance we have at present of getting a governement that truly represents the wishes of a majority of the people. It may be less effective at passing legislation and governing in line with specific party policies, but then the majority of those policies can hardly be said to be in most people's best interests anyway, so I don't think many of us will be shedding tears over it. Continental governments seem to manage well enough with their proportional systems, despite the fact that they almost inevitably result in some kind of coalition governments.

    Almost inevitably the Liberal Democrats are going to have a strong influence in whatever governement is now formed - I don't agree with all their policies, but they are the only party which is firm in its support for a proportional system. I'm hoping that their power as a junior coalition partner (junior partners are always more powerful in coalition, because they have less to lose by walking away) will give them the opportunity to push something through that will allow a more truly representative system to be put in place. It would be to their own advantage to do so, as they are heavily underrepresented under our current system in terms of seats/votes - but it would also indirectly benefit many of the people of the country by making their votes count again. The politicians would have to take note and stop their incessant minority issue-chasing in favour of more important general policy considerations, and we would once again start to see real differences between the parties.

    We wouldn't be in this situation to start with if the politicians had displayed real guts and firmness of principle, but they've abandoned such things in recent years in favour of playing on the weaknesses in the electoral system. People are so sick and disillusioned with the results of this now that I think we really are, finally, due for a change...
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  9. #19
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    A surprisingly large number of marginals are in Wales.

    Check out the post-code lottery that passes for democracy here: Discover how much power you have as a UK voter in your constituency

  10. #20
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    A surprisingly large number of marginals are in Wales.

    Check out the post-code lottery that passes for democracy here: Discover how much power you have as a UK voter in your constituency
    Thanks, BT, I didn't know the site, it looks like a good one though. My instinctive response to your comment was "That may be so, but round b'here it's still the same old story." Now, let's see what the site's number crunching routine thinks of the local situation:

    The average UK voter only has the power of 0.253 votes. This is because most of us live in safe seats, where the outcome is pretty much certain regardless of how we vote.

    Neath ranks #572 out of 650 constituencies in the Voter Power Index.


    In Neath, one person does not really have one vote, they have the equivalent of 0.026 votes.


    The power of voters in this constituency is based on the probability of the seat changing hands and its size.

    While you might think that every vote counts equally, where you live in the UK has a huge effect on your power to influence the election.


    How does Neath compare?
    The average UK voter has 10x more voting power than voters in Neath.

    *Their calculation further suggests that since the average voter only has 1/4 of a whole vote, I am personally in posession of 1/40 of a whole vote. Nice to see it in such stark terms.*

    Constituency size
    -16.30%


    This constituency is smaller than average, which means a voter here is more likely to affect the national result.

    *Which is kind of irrelevant given the fact that you are quite unable to affect your own local result in any meaningful way*

    Also from the site:

    If the UK had a proportional voting system:

    We would no longer have safe seats
    The power of votes would be much more equal
    All areas of the UK would have equal power to decide the outcome of the election
    Politicians would not be able to win an election by tailoring all their policies to a narrow section of the population


    I've already made these points of course, but it's nice to have it confirmed by the number-crunchers nevertheless.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

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