I do think the electoral college system is unfair, but I'm no fan of our electoral system either. It takes a ludicrously small number of voters to elect the government. I hear all the time about how we live in this democracy, but without a fair electoral system it just isn't democratic IMHO.
Then have mandatory voting, with a "none of the above" option on the ballot. With ostensibly uniform population per constituency, there are no arguments then.
Don't understand how that helps. 3 Candidates. 26% to A 25% to B 25% to C and 24% spoilt ballot paper. Candidate A gets in, even though loathed by 74% of voters.
Two candidates, 100 voters. 35 vote A, 25 vote B, 40 vote none of the above. A wins by democratic process. NEITHER can claim advocacy or endorsement by the 40, otherwise they would by definition have voted for A or B. BOTH are out-numbered by "none of the above" , and therefore by definition both parties need to get their fingers out and ENGAGE with the 40 to understand why they are not voting for either (there are ways that could be done at the ballot box) .
If there are only 2 candidates, then it is straightforward under the current system. It's the 3rd or more candidates that makes it possibly undemocratic.
I choose N=2 as the number, to present the simplest example of the scheme. Use "proof by induction" to increase N as you see fit.
Evolution is a theory and a fact. They'll refine it, but it's demonstrably true. Intelligent Design is a rebrand of creationism. It's not even an attempt at science. It was sneaky way of trying to get it into classrooms, as the Kitzmiller v Dover court case proved extremely well. They'd literally taken old religious books and changed a few words here and there to make it sound scientific.
Still no problem. Once it is presented as a scientific theory, it has at most a paragraph of text (due to no historical evidence, conflict with Earth fossil/geological records, no reproducible experiments, no predictive capability etc) .
I've often wondered about this.Who put the cockrell on their shirts first? Spurs or France? Mind you,ours is "the fighting cockrell".!!!!!!!!!!
The cockerel has been a symbol of France since at least the Renaissance, and was a popular motif during the French Revolution. In other words, we missed a trick by not sending the owner of Archway Sheet Metal to the guillotine...
So where's the backlash against The Sun and Mail for Photoshopping out the veterans they claim to support just so they can smear Corbyn yet again? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...membrance-service_uk_5828d511e4b0ec3145f8af9e
There won't be any backlash, as nobody that cares will have seen it in either paper. There won't be any punishment for them and their readership will brush it off, if they know about it at all.
I think it was France. Early games for both teams didn't feature the cockerel. The first time that we had it appears to be 1921 and the first time that I can find it for France is 1920.
I did actually calculate the number of votes that actually counted in the last election*, does anyone want to guess? * specifically the number of votes that elected the government, the number of votes that were effective in doing so
