Now there's an image I could get used to... please log in to view this image ...also, 51.8% isn't "7 out of 10"
First because it is not on the agenda of any political party and secondly because you would still have the two party system and getting even more uninformed uninterested people to forcibly take part would, if anything, entrench the status quo. If you want to change things you have simply to bring in proportional representation which at a stroke means that those that do vote will have their vote taken into account. Forcing people to throw beans into a bottomless well would be what you would expect to find in cloud cuckoo land.
I would liked to have asked them "do you really know what you're voting for?" Or are we a nation of Lemmings? "Following the leader,the leader,the leader....!"
That it is not on the "agenda" of incumbent political parties is not an argument against. Possibly the opposite. "and secondly because you would still have the two party system and getting even more uninformed uninterested people to forcibly take part would, if anything, entrench the status quo." I am looking forward to seeing you presenting the stats that show how mandatory voting in the 20 odd nations that do so, have "entrenched the status quo" . "If you want to change things you have simply to bring in proportional representation which at a stroke means that those that do vote will have their vote taken into account." Why should a small proportion who turned up to vote have their opinions placed on higher merit than the usual overall majority of those who didn't ?? Who are you to say why people did not vote, or who they would have voted for ?? "Forcing people to throw beans into a bottomless well would be what you would expect to find in cloud cuckoo land." Not so, but the PR system you proposed can certainly can be found there.
You seem to have little understanding of Westminster and the history from Roman times in the UK. Comparing the UK to your 20 countries would tell us little about the UK except to highlight it's stability which is partly a product of the first past the post system. The democracy we have in the UK which is less than most developed countries enjoy has been wrenched from the elite. It is about staying in power and the large land owners still enjoy the power that many of them have had since Norman times. In Scotland where Land Reform is taking place this domination is changing and this has happened because of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament. "Who are you to say why people did not vote, or who they would have voted for ??" I am describing them. It seems fair to say that people who do not vote are not interested and not informed. They would have to vote for a party on the ballot paper or just spoil their ballot paper. On that basis it's perfectly reasonable to say what I said.
History is moot. Your claim is that mandatory voting, with or without a "none of the above" option, in a "first past the post" regime, will "entrench the status quo" . In the age of data science, you have 20 odd nations of raw data to derive your stats, and make your case. But doing that is a lot more precise (and for some, too difficult) than some sob story about serfs. "Who are you to say why people did not vote, or who they would have voted for ??" I am describing them. It seems fair to say that people who do not vote are not interested and not informed. They would have to vote for a party on the ballot paper or just spoil their ballot paper." Or vote "none of the above" (with the possible trigger that I suggested) .
In the age of data science, you have 20 odd nations of raw data to derive your stats, and make your case. But doing that is a lot more precise (and for some, too difficult) than some sob story about serfs. I'm sorry RDBD that's not possible. Political decisions are made by individuals they are not subject to analysis by stats. You can make a case for an action based on stats, a popular way to do things now because it relieves individuals of responsibility, but that often misses vital reasons for or against if you rely on them. To describe our political system and it's effects and consequences based on stats derived from other countries is impossible if you want a true understanding. You can look at it's outcomes for sure but that's not we need for this argument. You and I have little chance of resolving our differences I'm afraid.
Well I must indeed be "stupid" as you say, because I cannot understand your reply. But presumably this just reinforces your opinion that people who think differently from you must consequently be stupid. I on the other hand will defend anyone's right to have a different opinion to me, and not resort to name-calling should they disagree.
I always voted Labour. Why? Because I was a working man and always thought it would be in my interest to do so. I would admit that Labour have screwed up on occasion with some policies.....but they haven't been alone!
They are almost all a bunch of sh!tehouses looking after their own interests Smithy, independent of political allegiance. The good guys don't succeed.
Do I have to post a "sarcasm" sign every time ?? You are not "stupid" , but those who seek to rule over you certainly think so, Do you expect an explanation from them on your question ?? You won't get one, because there is none. You might get "it's too complicated to explain" though (if you are lucky) . As I have long stated, the "ruling classes" think they are still living in the 1800s. When those who worked in finance/law were an educated elite, and they "understand" things but the peasants do not. Those days have gone. They cannot deal with the increasing scrutiny stress that they are now put under, and you see the ever increasing pathetic attempts at "appeal to authority" as a result.
And some time ago, they were the party of the "working man" . Similarly for the Tories being the party of the "businessman" . They now rely on the electoral "brood mare" notion (I have always voted X. My dad voted X etc) . As an N18 denizen, one of my greatest sources of pride is 1983. When my brethren voted Tory to signal they would not be a Labour brood-mare constituency, and to see the defeated Labour MP inches from bursting into tears when interviewed on TV the day after.
I don't think threatening No Deal is any sort of negotiating position. It is blatantly obvious that No Deal is a disaster and threatening it just shows a lack of integrity. One of the first principles of negotiation is that you need to find common issues with the other side. Threats don't move anything forward. May's deal is much better than no deal but I would not vote for it as it doesn't deliver the promises made by Leave. That's because May's red lines ruled out being in the EEA which is the only way for the UK to remain in the Free Trade area. The whole shambles is a case study on why referendums are undemocratic.
May's position was utterly bizarre: first she was parroting the mantra "No Deal is better than a bad deal" to try and threaten the EU into giving everything she wanted, and then after David Davis scuppered that line of threats due to his own incompetence she then resorted to threatening to have the UK crash out without a deal to show the EU who was boss...somehow failing to understand that doing this would show the EU that the EU was boss The same can be said for the proven liar's stance: he's not even attempting to get a deal, somehow thinking the EU will cave at the last minute - which only goes to show that years of suggesting that he was a great political strategist is nothing but woefully misplaced optimism that nobody who sat through eight years of him being Mayor of London shared
Of course they are. The proportion of votes/seats that went to political parties before the voting regime change, and the proportion that has occurred since. If people are "entrenched" as you claim, then said proportions should be invariant apart from the odd "spike" (there will always be a seismic political event of a time - that will take the voting pattern away from observed norms) . Similarly as to the proportion of ballots that are spoiled (your suggestion is that will increase significantly as voters register their anger at being forced to visit a polling station against their will) . That is the basic info that stattery would give you. "You can make a case for an action based on stats, a popular way to do things now because it relieves individuals of responsibility, but that often misses vital reasons for or against if you rely on them." Stats are numbers. Humans are not relieved of the responsibility of seeking to understand the reasons why the numbers are so. To think otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding. Here is a simple example : 500 odd MPs voted to invoke "article 50" in 2017, way before details of any proposed UK-EU agreement terms were known. That vote has had serious consequences. The numbers tell me the WHAT, and nothing more. Now I wish to know the WHY. I do NOT leave things as : Computer says ... 500 odd. Do you ??
A case study on why MPs :cannot be trusted to be anything other than self-serving and incompetent on matters of this magnitude. The "whole shambles" , since the moment the referendum result was known, has been solely on the shoulders of PARLIAMENT, not the PEOPLE.
