what, you mean you think it is fairer that if 55% of the voters want one party, the party that gets 35% of the votes should form the majority government
this is a whole country we're talking about, not a collection of local councils.
Is it a defining moment?
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
what, you mean you think it is fairer that if 55% of the voters want one party, the party that gets 35% of the votes should form the majority government
this is a whole country we're talking about, not a collection of local councils.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
It's funny how the most biased always think they are the least biased. You simply won't accept the truth and have invented an alternative reality. How very odd.
L
Lincsbodger
well you seem to live in a universe where the tories lost the election, and there all about to ditch cameron, which is about as far from whats actually going on as you can get.
If you hadnt noticed, Cameron has done better than any of his predecessors in 14 years, having won another 97 seats and 2 million votes and is on the edge of forming a new government.
If you hadnt noticed, Cameron has done better than any of his predecessors in 14 years, having won another 97 seats and 2 million votes and is on the edge of forming a new government.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
He couldn't even beat the hapless Brown in Bankrupt Britain - how could he NOT win?
As far as PR goes - even Tories support it:
"The first past the post system is now difficult to defend. Sooner or later it will be replaced. It would be better for the Conservatives to re-model it, rather than allow Labour at a future date to choose a system that brings it partisan advantage. Depending on what new system emerges, there may be political re-grouping. By then the Cameroons will have discovered that they can work with the Lib Dems, or at least some of them. The prospect of ditching the Tory party Right wing is hardly dismaying." - Michael Portillo in The Telegraph
As far as PR goes - even Tories support it:
"The first past the post system is now difficult to defend. Sooner or later it will be replaced. It would be better for the Conservatives to re-model it, rather than allow Labour at a future date to choose a system that brings it partisan advantage. Depending on what new system emerges, there may be political re-grouping. By then the Cameroons will have discovered that they can work with the Lib Dems, or at least some of them. The prospect of ditching the Tory party Right wing is hardly dismaying." - Michael Portillo in The Telegraph
Sponsored Links
L
Lincsbodger
he won 100 seats from Labour, how is that not 'beating brown'. You really are an idiot..........please stop posting, your fantasy world is getting embarrassing to witness.............
what, you mean you think it is fairer that if 55% of the voters want one party, the party that gets 35% of the votes should form the majority government
this is a whole country we're talking about, not a collection of local councils.
So you think it is fair that although 55% of all places in your example voted in one party, that just because the places that voted for 35% did it in bigger numbers they should get to rule over everywhere??
So
seat 1 - 5 people vote party A, 3 vote party B
seat 2 - 4 people vote party A, 1 vote party B
seat 3 - 5 people vote party A, 2 vote party B
seat 4 - 1 people vote party A, 10 vote party B
By your calculation, Party B is the fair choice to rule over seat 1,2,3 and 4, whereas by my calculation Party A is wanted by more seats so therefore should control them all.
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
He convinced less than 3 voters out of 100 to change their vote. All that press and all that money - and Brown is still in number 10. What a disaster. Ask Ashcroft.
"The Observer can reveal that Lord Ashcroft, who pumped £5m into marginal seats, is furious with the Tory leader for having agreed to take part in television debates that he believes undid much of his work for the party."
"The Observer can reveal that Lord Ashcroft, who pumped £5m into marginal seats, is furious with the Tory leader for having agreed to take part in television debates that he believes undid much of his work for the party."
Joe, your obsessed. I'll be ignoring you now. Goodbye.
skitzee2k, in your carefully-chosen unreal example*, you have chosen an almost 50-50 voter split.
however you are continuing your outlandish walk down the idea of "ruling seats" and trying not to think about ruling a country. In your example the country has 31 voters and you think that rather than being governed by the party that won 16 votes, they should be governed by the party that won 15 votes?
however you are continuing your outlandish walk down the idea of "ruling seats" and trying not to think about ruling a country. In your example the country has 31 voters
and you think that rather than being governed by the party that won 16 votes, they should be governed by the party that won 15 votes?
L
Lincsbodger
See, your using fiddled and defective maths to arrive at that number.
The fact is he persuaded 2 million people more to vote Tory, which gave them another 100 seats. The number of votes is irrelevant, because its not one election, its simultaneous 650 elections, and the number of votes is only relevant to each election., The only thing that matters is how many of the 650 elections you win, and cameron stole 100 of them from labour.
The only way you can arrive at 3% is by saying 2 million voters is 3% of the total population of 66 Million, which is utterly nonsense, since 18 million of them dont have the vote and 20 million didnt bother voting. Of the number of people who voted, 23 million, he persuaded 10 percent of them to change vote, to increse his vote by 20 percent on last time.
if you are going to try and win a debate using unchecked and defective maths, make sure you've got a back up argument, joe.
skitzee2k, in your carefully-chosen unreal example*, you have chosen an almost 50-50 voter split.
however you are continuing your outlandish walk down the idea of "ruling seats" and trying not to think about ruling a country. In your example the country has 31 voters
Yes, because it is a truer indication of what the entire country wants and it helps keep us away from hung parliments.
With PR you'd have to get rid of the local seats system, meaning that no mp is answerable to any one place and that also sucks.
Sponsored Links
