Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Hankenhunter

Biden picks Kamala Harris

450 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener
Just now, Setton said:

Only if no other party is more popular.

Just for the hypothesis: assume there are several parties in an election. 

Party A  gets 35% of the popular vote in each constituency . Party B gets 40% of the vote... again, in each and every constituency. The remaining parties divvy up the remaining 25%. 

As a consequence, party A gets ZERO seats in Parliament. So do all of the minority parties. 

Party B gets ALL of the seats in parliament.

Almost two thirds of the population did NOT vote for party B. But it ends up with a total majority in parliament. 

This is not theory. It has happened. The UK has had governments whereby their opposition actually won more votes !!

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/on-the-anniversary-of-a-stolen-election-let-1951s-wrong-winner-vote-be-a-lesson-to-us-all/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Setton
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Just for the hypothesis: assume there are several parties in an election. 

Party A  gets 35% of the popular vote in each constituency . Party B gets 40% of the vote... again, in each and every constituency. The remaining parties divvy up the remaining 25%. 

As a consequence, party A gets ZERO seats in Parliament. So do all of the minority parties. 

Party B gets ALL of the seats in parliament.

Almost two thirds of the population did NOT vote for party B. But it ends up with a total majority in parliament. 

This is not theory. It has happened. The UK has had governments whereby their opposition actually won more votes !!

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/on-the-anniversary-of-a-stolen-election-let-1951s-wrong-winner-vote-be-a-lesson-to-us-all/

Yep, not disputing our system has issues. That's why I voted for AV. Did you?

But the government and PM will be from the most popular party. Unlike under the US system and unlike your initial statement.

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
15 hours ago, Hugh Mungus said:

I was talking about the presidential race. If the EC was removed then why would presidential candidates care about 40 odd states with low populations, and conversely, why would anyone in a low population state care about the president when their vote would not matter one bit? The EC seems to be the fairest way for all states to get representation of their political choice of president. 

I think people in low population states DO CARE.  I CARE and it irks me that the primaries are not on the same day in every state, which means what you said, our vote doesn't count, BUT it should and not because of the EC.  The democrat and republican parties run the EC and that is a big problem, so either we need to remove their illegal control of voting or take away the electoral college.  Find the video from the 1973 democratic convention and you will see what else is wrong because of the democrat and republican parties.

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, Setton said:

Yep, not disputing our system has issues. That's why I voted for AV. Did you?

But the government and PM will be from the most popular party. Unlike under the US system and unlike your initial statement.

Sadly, the only party supporting Proportional Representation where the LlibDems, and I strongly object to all the REST of their policies :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
8 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Sadly, the only party supporting Proportional Representation where the LlibDems, and I strongly object to all the REST of their policies :( 

You didn't have to vote them in to support it. We had a referendum.

Did you vote for or against AV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
9 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

What’s going to keep those same states in the Union when your president gets elected by pandering only to California and New York?

Good question.  Is it pandering to listen to the largest part of the population and coincidentally the largest drivers of our economy?  Nasdaq, the Dow, and Wall Street those indicators the President seems to think are all important are not located  in rural America.  Better for us if we realized our economy is bound to all of our prosperity and acted accordingly, meaning rural, urban, agricultural, manufacturing, service and finance get voices without one dominating all the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Setton said:

You didn't have to vote them in to support it. We had a referendum.

Did you vote for or against AV?

EGADS... I'd forgotten all about that. We're talking.. what.. 2010 ? 2011 ? 

I voted FOR it. But it was rejected by about 2/3rds of the population. I was very sad about that :(

It wasn't proper proportional representation, but it was a step towards it. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
58 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Good question.  Is it pandering to listen to the largest part of the population

That is typically the biggest reason for the Electoral College.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
40 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

EGADS... I'd forgotten all about that. We're talking.. what.. 2010 ? 2011 ? 

I voted FOR it. But it was rejected by about 2/3rds of the population. I was very sad about that :(

It wasn't proper proportional representation, but it was a step towards it. 

Second vote I ever cast after 2010 election.

Likewise, I voted for but it was never going to get past when we had the Tories actively lying about it from the position of government. Never voted for them since.

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
3 minutes ago, Setton said:

Second vote I ever cast after 2010 election.

Likewise, I voted for but it was never going to get past when we had the Tories actively lying about it from the position of government. Never voted for them since.

I've voted Tory for the last few times, but ONLY to get Brexit ! 

Oh.. and to get Boris Johnson into No. 10, just for the giggles ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Sadly, the only party supporting Proportional Representation where the LlibDems, and I strongly object to all the REST of their policies :( 

Do you have "liberal democrats" in the UK?  I thought it was the upper class was one party and the working class was the other (Torrys and Labour) or has that changed?

P.S.  Thanks for bringing up your politics.  It really fits with this thread.  :rolleyes:  However it is rare for you all to admit you have politics in your country, instead making comments about ours based on what your media tells you and what you think you see from your foggy glasses.

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Good question.  Is it pandering to listen to the largest part of the population and coincidentally the largest drivers of our economy?  Nasdaq, the Dow, and Wall Street those indicators the President seems to think are all important are not located  in rural America.  Better for us if we realized our economy is bound to all of our prosperity and acted accordingly, meaning rural, urban, agricultural, manufacturing, service and finance get voices without one dominating all the others.

It is pandering if the governing is only done to favour that part of the country because once elected they’ll want to be re-elected. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Tatetopa
14 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

It is pandering if the governing is only done to favour that part of the country because once elected they’ll want to be re-elected. 

Yes indeed my friend.  One can pander to favor any part of the country powerful enough to get them reelected.   Doesn't matter whether that us yuppie urban professionals or  good ole boys with pickup trucks if they can get you reelected.  Is pandering all we have left?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eisenhower-political-party-moral/

President Eisenhower said that a political party must be dedicated to the advancement of a moral cause, otherwise it is just a conspiracy to seize power.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

Do you have "liberal democrats" in the UK?  I thought it was the upper class was one party and the working class was the other (Torrys and Labour) or has that changed?

The lib Dems were the minority party in the 2010 coalition government so not exactly new...

Quote

P.S.  Thanks for bringing up your politics.  It really fits with this thread.  :rolleyes: 

Our politics are entirely relevant here. You could learn from them if you can get over the whole 'american exceptionalism' fetish.

Quote

However it is rare for you all to admit you have politics in your country, instead making comments about ours based on what your media tells you and what you think you see from your foggy glasses.

You clearly need to spend more time on the UK and Europe boards.

This is a genteel exchange for me and @RoofGardener

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
6 hours ago, Setton said:

But the government and PM will be from the most popular party. Unlike under the US system and unlike your initial statement.

Let's assume you meant majority government. There's been two times in Australia where the majority government wasn't the most popular. How is Britain proofed against this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
17 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Let's assume you meant majority government. There's been two times in Australia where the majority government wasn't the most popular. How is Britain proofed against this?

How does that happen?

As I said, in the UK, we elect an MP for each equal-sized constituency. The party with more than half the MPs forms the government. As the constituencies are equal in size, to have more than half the MPs, you must have the most votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
37 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

How is Britain proofed against this?

it is not. 

in both 1951 and Feb 1974 the government was formed by a party that won the most seats but did not receive the most votes. 

just a hypothetical example - there are 650 seats and say just two parties stand for simplicity - party A just needs 1 more vote than B in 326 seats - it could loose the remaining 324 seats by thousands, or in fact not even stand a candidate in those seats, but would win the election and lose the popular vote.  

Edited by RAyMO
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
26 minutes ago, Setton said:

How does that happen?

As I said, in the UK, we elect an MP for each equal-sized constituency. The party with more than half the MPs forms the government. As the constituencies are equal in size, to have more than half the MPs, you must have the most votes.

That's how we do it in Australia too.  The idea in electioneering is not to waste time in safe opposition seats and concentrate on the marginals.

Take a simple example of five seats.  Two go to the losers at 77 per cent; and three go to the government at 51 per cent.  The government wasn't most popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
37 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

it is not. 

in both 1951 and Feb 1974 the government was formed by a party that won the most seats but did not receive the most votes. 

just a hypothetical example - there are 650 seats and say just two parties stand for simplicity - party A just needs 1 more vote than B in 326 seats - it could loose the remaining 324 seats by thousands, or in fact not even stand a candidate in those seats, but would win the election and lose the popular vote.  

Thanks, I could check for myself; but, I'm sitting on a train. 

Where those goverments majority governments? 

PS. I just checked 1951.  321 to (295 + 6 + 3).

Edited by Golden Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
22 hours ago, Hugh Mungus said:

True democracy for California and New York. Anywhere in between better get used to democrats in power for ever no matter who they vote for at a federal level.

 

i thought so too until very recently,  now reading how SF has 2x as many houses on the market compared to last year,it says a lot, there is a mass exodus from the state,  same in nyc even more so since i have direct knowledge how businesses close and move out of nyc, and all of it direct result of dems\progs doing.  soon enough LA and NYC will not decide the state vote, it may even turn republican, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
11 hours ago, Setton said:

This is a genteel exchange for me and @RoofGardener

 

We don't spend ALL of our time insulting one another :) 

Bignose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
25 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

We don't spend ALL of our time insulting one another :) 

Bignose

Of course not!

Smelly face

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
odas
On 8/17/2020 at 7:41 PM, Hugh Mungus said:

True democracy for California and New York. Anywhere in between better get used to democrats in power for ever no matter who they vote for at a federal level.

Would it be true democracy if the presidential candidates only represented the views of a handful of states where the majority of the population live? Seems like tyranny for the rest of the people to me

Nonsens. True democracy is when you vote for the best at the given time, regardless of party afilliation. Here in Ontario, Canada, Libs won last time with 60% of the vote only to be outdone by the Conservatives two years ago with 70% I believe. We don't vote for a party or for the person, we vote who can do the job best. I am voting conservatives this time because Ford proved to be a true Leader.

In the US it is only Dems or Reps. You don't vote for America, you vote for the party. Big difference to other truly democratic nations.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
5 minutes ago, odas said:

Nonsens. True democracy is when you vote for the best at the given time, regardless of party afilliation. Here in Ontario, Canada, Libs won last time with 60% of the vote only to be outdone by the Conservatives two years ago with 70% I believe. We don't vote for a party or for the person, we vote who can do the job best. I am voting conservatives this time because Ford proved to be a true Leader.

In the US it is only Dems or Reps. You don't vote for America, you vote for the party. Big difference to other truly democratic nations.

Oh yes, Captain Canuck! Your strength is that of ten men, because your heart is p-u-r-e!:nw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
odas
On 8/19/2020 at 12:37 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Oh yes, Captain Canuck! Your strength is that of ten men, because your heart is p-u-r-e!:nw:

Thaaaaaaank you very much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.