Tweet
It's because of the "winner-takes-all" system... two opposition parties in mall-sized districts = governing party can get > (1/2) seats with less than 40% of the total vote. Shame, shame. Luckily we don't have systems like that in Finland.
-
-
When we have a leader who got fewer votes than his opposition, I'll admit our system sucks. Until then, at least it's better than the US.Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"But... but... Blair's party only gets 37% of the vote! These elections are rigged, I tell you! Rigged! "
That is kind of a problem that nearly 2/3 of the country doesn't want him to be PM, but he is PM with a very good sized majority anyway.Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - KuciwalkerComment
-
His opposition is technically every other party, not just 'The Opposition'. So the system already sucks like a professional porn star.Desperados of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your dignity.......
07849275180Comment
-
Or rather, when we have a leader who's party did not get the most votes in an election. 37% may not be a majority, but it's more than anyone else got.Smile
For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next
But he would think of something
"Hm. I suppose I should get my waffle a santa hat." - KuciwalkerComment
-
And immoral, I saw the Daily Mail on Tuesday, with it's 'How to vote tactically' guide. Scumbags!Originally posted by Verres
Tactical voting is bollocks.Comment
-
Why on Earth is it immoral?Comment
-
Your morals tell you to vote for a party because you agree with them.
The Mail tells you to go against that and vote for one more likely to win.
Going against morals=immoral.Desperados of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your dignity.......
07849275180Comment
-
He's a strong leader. Miles ahead of anything the Tories have, I'm sad to say.see what I mean? Who likes Tony blah? US Bu****es.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
That utter bollocks.Your morals tell you to vote for a party because you agree with them.
The Mail tells you to go against that and vote for one more likely to win.
Going against morals=immoral.
If I stood in your constituency and agreed to do EXACTLY what you wanted me to do in EVERY situation or vote, would that mean that you were morally obliged to vote for me? What if you knew that your vote would ultimately swing your contituency from a lunatic fascist to a some moderate.
Wouldn't your morals compell you to vote to elect the moderate, rather than the fascist?
Presuming that you would vote for the moderate - from there on, it's just a matter of degreesComment
-
You mean as opposed to the US system where well below than 50% usually vote and the Pres gets elected to the most pwoerful office in the world on something less than 25% of the vote?Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
That is kind of a problem that nearly 2/3 of the country doesn't want him to be PM, but he is PM with a very good sized majority anyway.Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..
Look, I just don't anymore, okay?Comment
-
No. I'd vote for the party who I believed in. Period.Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Wouldn't your morals compell you to vote to elect the moderate, rather than the fascist?
EDIT: misread your post!Comment
-
Well, I'm stunned at that. Personally I would alway take a broader view and consider the big picture. However it is your perogative to vote for whoever you like.Originally posted by reds4ever
No. I'd vote for the party who I believed in. Period.
EDIT: misread your post!
I certainly don't think that gives you the right to declare it "immoral" to disagree with you though.Comment
-
"naughty" then?Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
I certainly don't think that gives you the right to declare it "immoral" to disagree with you though.
Comment
-
lolOriginally posted by reds4ever
"naughty" then?
Comment
-
Things are starting to get wrapped up now... only few seats, and labour has an absolute majority.
They've lost about 20 seats, probably lose ~30 total. Cons gain ~20 and LD's gain ~10.Comment
Comment