Election dodgers, not impossible voters (they can do what I described to hbic) . "Also how does one enforce it? Fine or imprison people like the Poll Tax? Dissenfranchise offenders? Nah, you can't do that. Give people a 2% rebate in their income tax if they vote. Might work but the socialists would accuse the government of picking on the old and infirm and people who can't afford to run a car in order to get to the polling station." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Enforced How the world at large is attempting to enforce it.
There are quite a few countries who have abandoned it on that list and many that do not enforce it. Not surprisingly North Korea appears on that list. For those who do enforce it, disenfranchisement/small fine appears to the penalty. I find disenfranchement abhorent and having to pay a small fine before one can vote again is just not right. Voting is a human right, one should not have to pay to vote.
Who? He's not in politics any more, is he? Haven't seen him in ages. I can't think why he's not at the forefront of Tory campaigning in this election, given his popularity. please log in to view this image
Says it all, doesn't it. And I thought no UK general election campaign could get close to being as God-forsaken than Trump-ton 2016.
The Tories have been using Trump's election as a template, pushing this as May v Corbyn, rather than Tory v Labour. They don't seem to have understood what happened there at all, though. I hate Trump, but he claimed to be about change and making things better, while Clinton's message was more the strong and stable stuff. Trying to fight a battle based on personalities is hard when you don't have one.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying here (I could easily be missing the point!) But the electorate is not equally distributed - the Isle of Wight has nearly 109,000 electors, the Western Isles has nearly 22,000. There is nowhere near a 100% turnout, and even if there was there could only be a guaranteed winner with over 50% if there were only two parties taking part. As it was, at the last election the winner got over 50% in 313 of the 650 constituencies. There are many other discrepancies, like number of votes per MP etc.
What I am saying is fix the basics, and move on up. If you have a near total turnout, then the winner in each constituency is definite (assuming everyone votes for "one of the above" ) . If the electoral distribution across particular constituencies is too skewed, then change the boundaries to be as equitable as possible. When you have pushed any voting system to its limits in terms of adjustments, and tis still not equitable enough, then use another.
You're the one failing to understand: when three quarters of the Lib Dem voters don't turn up, that tells the Lib Dems that they ****ed up and ****ed up BAD. And, I will say it again, the fact this happened on a national scale - case in point, in my neck of the woods they lost 5000 of their 6500 votes in Croydon Central, 6500 of their 7200 votes in Croydon North and 9000 of their 12,000 votes in Croydon South - that is electorate saying quite clearly what they think of Nick Clegg and his gang of enablers. Quite simply, the Lib Dems were given a message so clear to that most people use their middle finger to give that same message.
A quick refresher about the Tory campaign for last year's London mayoral campaign. * Claim that Sadiq Khan was "unelectible" * Claim that Sadiq Khan "legitimised those with extremist views" * Claim that Sadiq Khan "pandered to extremists" * Claim that Sadiq Khan played the race card when these questions were put to him * Claim that Sadiq Khan was against the Indian Prime Minister in leaflets distributed in Indian communities Even though this tactic clearly failed, was condemned by all sides (incvluding members of the Tory party) and left such a nasty taste in the mouth it played a large part in Goldsmith getting utterly trounced in the Richmond Park by-election, it's the exact campaign that Lynton Crosby has signed off on for this election. On the subject of Khan, it's genuinely embarassing to see Donald Trump Jr wading in to fight his father's battles for him.
Choosing the first one offhand : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croydon_Central_(UK_Parliament_constituency) And what do we see in reality for those 5000 ?? 1. Anyone but the Tories. 2. A measly 20% of the electoral total that did NOT vote.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-attacks-terrorism-us-president-a7776721.html Absolutely shameful - but what should we expect? Edit..... better link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-...to-london-keep-calm-and-actually-do-something What a ****ing prick!!
All I see is that you continue to ignore the fact that, in two of those three Plymouth constituencies - the two which happen to be marginals - the turnout increased between 2010 and 2015 in spite of the collapse of the Lib Dem vote. INCREASED. How comitted are you to missing this quite clear and concise point?
Today is the day, thank Christ for that. I've had enough of all of this electioneering. They are all full of sh!te. And let's hope the ISIS dudes stay away and let our election take place peacefully.
And ... we're off !!! So what constitutes failure for the various parties ?? My broad-brush musings are : Tories : not taking at least an extra 30 seats Labour : losing at least 30 seats SNP : losing at least 25% of their seats Fair comment ?? What about the Liberals/UKIP etc ??
Tories I'd say need to win at least another 20 seats otherwise all of this has been a waste of time and money. Fortunately, a lot of the wasted money will be that belonging to Murdoch and his friends, so I shall not be shedding any tears. Labour were written off at the start so anything less than a 50 seat loss will be a success for Corbyn, although a loss of 50 seats will be a disaster for Labour. Labour can afford to lose only about 20 seats otherwise it will be a very bad night for them. The SNP, they are the sort of UKIP of Scotland, albeit coming from the left rather than the right. However, the main purpose for their existence is to acheive independence for Scotland. Any loss of seats will be a bad night for them. As for UKIP, they are a bit like an old girlfriend, they've had their use but no longer needed. If half a dozen of their candidates manage to cling on to their deposits they will have done better than expected. The Dim Libs are the interesting ones, they need to gain about 20 seats or they could be near political oblivion, particularly if Labour take a hammering, Corbyn resigns and the Labour party moves to the centre under a new leader..
According to the Dire Leader herself, losing six seats means she will lose the election. Projections say she's on course to lose four to five times that...other than the poll taken by Lord Ashcroft, who says she'd have a majority of 64 (presumably because Ashcroft asked 64 of his friends who they would vote for and insists that's a credible opinion poll...) ...and by complete coincidence, that six seats figure quoted is another example of the Tories flubbing their sums and not getting called out on it by the media, given it would be a loss of nine seats that wipes out her majority.
So a Tory majority of 1 is a mandate from the electorate that Citizen May is believed to be best placed to provide "strong and stable" government ??
