So another Tory Govt...

Absolutely fucking fantastic.

Great m8 have fun m8 no h8!

Написао Skanderbeg, 08.05.2015 at 16:01

Is that bad?

Nope

Написао Skanderbeg, 08.05.2015 at 16:01

Is that bad?

not bad but awful m8

Vote Nick Clegg!

Oh, wait, it's a little too late...

Написао Skanderbeg, 09.05.2015 at 15:39

Написао Trooper21, 09.05.2015 at 15:23

not bad but awful m8

I know in details US political history 1775-2015 and Russian/Soviet 1700-2015, but if you torture me i wont be able to say whats going on in UK.

Did you had parliamentary elections? Rigged or brits voted wrong? It sound like that by your comments.

There was nothing like that at all, the Tories won it fair and square however I do feel that the voting system here needs to change. UKIP had won 4 million votes and yet only got one seat in parliament whereas the SNP (scottish national party) got around 1.4 million and yet now have 56 seats in Parliament. Go figure.

Написао Trooper21, 16.05.2015 at 14:19

Написао Skanderbeg, 09.05.2015 at 15:39

Написао Trooper21, 09.05.2015 at 15:23

There was nothing like that at all, the Tories won it fair and square however I do feel that the voting system here needs to change. UKIP had won 4 million votes and yet only got one seat in parliament whereas the SNP (scottish national party) got around 1.4 million and yet now have 56 seats in Parliament. Go figure.

Fair and square under our fucking awful voting system yes, they got around ~39% of total votes yet over ~50% of seats because muh constituencies and bollox as such, it really does not to be changed to AV/PR

I fucking hate george osborne lol

Цитирај:

Ah i see, Tik-Tok complained to me about that long ago. Scotland have its own parliament and seats in British house of commons while England doesnt have its own parliament but only seats in the British house of commons. So Scotland have more political rights.

US also have flawed system, where electoral college vote for president while people's vote doesnt matter.

Thats why i support Swiss system, they use referendum which is all-national election for every matter. One man - one vote. +1 vote win.

Do you know how the electoral college system works? Because candidates only get electoral college votes if the people of that state want the candidate to get them so I don't see why you are so against it.

Написао Dereny, 17.05.2015 at 13:17

Do you know how the electoral college system works? Because candidates only get electoral college votes if the people of that state want the candidate to get them so I don't see why you are so against it.

I'm against USA voting system cause even if the majority of people vote a person, that person might not win the elections, it all depends on who wins in a minimum number of states... That's a major flaw.

Написао RaulPB, 17.05.2015 at 13:40

Написао Dereny, 17.05.2015 at 13:17

Do you know how the electoral college system works? Because candidates only get electoral college votes if the people of that state want the candidate to get them so I don't see why you are so against it.

I'm against USA voting system cause even if the majority of people vote a person, that person might not win the elections, it all depends on who wins in a minimum number of states... That's a major flaw.

Yes that can happen, however in the over 200 years of the usage of this system, that has only happened twice

Написао Dereny, 17.05.2015 at 13:43

Yes that can happen, however in the over 200 years of the usage of this system, that has only happened twice

But is happens, that's all you need to know. If you're gonna use that excuse to accept it then you don't realize it's true importance. The current voting system is not accurate and doesn't reflex the real population vote.

Написао RaulPB, 17.05.2015 at 15:10

Написао Dereny, 17.05.2015 at 13:43

Yes that can happen, however in the over 200 years of the usage of this system, that has only happened twice

But is happens, that's all you need to know. If you're gonna use that excuse to accept it then you don't realize it's true importance. The current voting system is not accurate and doesn't reflex the real population vote.

I personally think all democratic government elections are rigged, democracies create barriers that make it difficult for 'working class' people to have their own true voice. Anyway have you seen my tin-foil hat?

Well if anybody thinks that any government regardless of policies, left/right etc are anything more than a smokescreen to act as a go between for civilians and corporations is sadly deluded.

Написао RaulPB, 17.05.2015 at 15:10

Написао Dereny, 17.05.2015 at 13:43

Yes that can happen, however in the over 200 years of the usage of this system, that has only happened twice

But is happens, that's all you need to know. If you're gonna use that excuse to accept it then you don't realize it's true importance. The current voting system is not accurate and doesn't reflex the real population vote.

It does reflect the real population vote. I don't know if you just don't know how the system works or if you just don't understand how it is calculated. Every state gets a certain amount of electoral college votes. The more people in the state, the more votes the state gets. Every 10 years when we do a census, those numbers can fluctuate depending on the new populations. So when everyone goes out to vote, they tally up who voted for who. The candidate who received the most popular votes in the state receives all of the state's electoral college votes. The candidate then that gets more than half of the electoral college votes (I forget the specific number required) wins. Now you can say that a direct democracy would work better because it can sometimes gain a more accurate result, but a direct democracy in the US would be more complicated than with other nations because we have such a large population. We have roughly 320 million people and I think are 3rd in the world's most populous nations behind China and India. Obviously in other nations with a smaller populous could be better off with a direct democracy, but because of our larger population, it would make the process more difficult. The current system works perfectly fine and has worked for over 2 centuries.

Написао SQUARED, 17.05.2015 at 18:55

The leftist butthurt this week has been fantastic. So glad I voted Conservative.

Go conservatives! Even though I have no idea about the politics in the UK ^_^

One time is enough to prove it is bad because US chose democracy not stateocracy. Electoral college system is from every US state and they pick the president, sometimes as you said against population's will. While democracy is greek word for Demos - people and Kratos - states, demokratia-democracy. So state where people decide, not the state itself.

Написао Sun Tsu, 17.05.2015 at 16:05

Before I go any further into discussion I just want to ask you, do you know how the system works and how the candidates earn electoral college votes? If you do, then you already know that for a candidate to receive the electoral votes of a state, he or she needs to win the popular vote of the state. Therefore, the people are still deciding on what candidate to pick. Im not saying it's perfect. but it works and still reflects the opinions american citizens.

Proportional representation is really the way to go.

If 1% of the population believes in some principle A, then so should 1% of the Parliament. The current US and UK electoral systems are too far biased towards major parties.

Написао Dereny, 17.05.2015 at 21:32

It does reflect the real population vote. I don't know if you just don't know how the system works or if you just don't understand how it is calculated. Every state gets a certain amount of electoral college votes. The more people in the state, the more votes the state gets. Every 10 years when we do a census, those numbers can fluctuate depending on the new populations. So when everyone goes out to vote, they tally up who voted for who. The candidate who received the most popular votes in the state receives all of the state's electoral college votes. The candidate then that gets more than half of the electoral college votes (I forget the specific number required) wins. Now you can say that a direct democracy would work better because it can sometimes gain a more accurate result, but a direct democracy in the US would be more complicated than with other nations because we have such a large population. We have roughly 320 million people and I think are 3rd in the world's most populous nations behind China and India. Obviously in other nations with a smaller populous could be better off with a direct democracy, but because of our larger population, it would make the process more difficult. The current system works perfectly fine and has worked for over 2 centuries.

Think of this situation:
A political party wins with 100% votes in California. But he loses in every other single state by 49'9%. Even if the majority of the population has voted for that party, he still loses.

I know well enough how it works and it's very flawed. Those electoral votes are bullshit.

Написао Sun Tsu, 17.05.2015 at 16:05

I personally think all democratic government elections are rigged, democracies create barriers that make it difficult for 'working class' people to have their own true voice. Anyway have you seen my tin-foil hat?

Well... that's another topic... I woulnd't like to get too into it... too many stuff going around the political world... and nothing good.
What hat are you talking about?

Написао Earthbound, 18.05.2015 at 08:02

Написао Dereny, 17.05.2015 at 21:35

Go conservatives! Even though I have no idea about the politics in the UK ^_^

Being a conservative in the UK and the US is completely different. In the eyes of most Americans, David Cameron would basically be a communist compared to Obama lol.

Lol see I have no idea about the politics of the UK

Цитирај:

Think of this situation:
A political party wins with 100% votes in California. But he loses in every other single state by 49'9%. Even if the majority of the population has voted for that party, he still loses.

I know well enough how it works and it's very flawed. Those electoral votes are bullshit.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but if the candidate wins 100% in California and loses in every other state than the candidate should lose since he lost in every other state.

Написао Dereny, 18.05.2015 at 10:07

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but if the candidate wins 100% in California and loses in every other state than the candidate should lose since he lost in every other state.

Pls, read again ("lose by 49.9%") and think of your words again. Do you really call that a loss?? That voting would be unfair: most of the population would have voted him and still have lost.

I'm not sure you really understand your own voting system... it doesn't reflect the actual population vote.

Написао RaulPB, 18.05.2015 at 10:38

Написао Dereny, 18.05.2015 at 10:07

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but if the candidate wins 100% in California and loses in every other state than the candidate should lose since he lost in every other state.

Pls, read again ("lose by 49.9%") and think of your words again. Do you really call that a loss?? That voting would be unfair: most of the population would have voted him and still have lost.

I'm not sure you really understand your own voting system... it doesn't reflect the actual population vote.

Do you mean the candidate received 49.9% or 50.1%?

Написао RaulPB, 18.05.2015 at 08:00

Написао Sun Tsu, 17.05.2015 at 16:05

I personally think all democratic government elections are rigged, democracies create barriers that make it difficult for 'working class' people to have their own true voice. Anyway have you seen my tin-foil hat?

Well... that's another topic... I woulnd't like to get too into it... too many stuff going around the political world... and nothing good.
What hat are you talking about?

It derives from a saying that people who challenge the mainstream consensus wear tin foil hats.

Написао Sun Tsu, 18.05.2015 at 12:41

It derives from a saying that people who challenge the mainstream consensus wear tin foil hats.

Oh now I get it... damn sorry!

And no, you're not paranoid XD the political world is so fucking corrupt that it's impossible to trust anything that has to be with them, including voting.

Написао Dereny, 18.05.2015 at 11:20

Do you mean the candidate received 49.9% or 50.1%?

If I said that he lost with 49.9% of the votes..... what the fuck do you think I mean...????

Цитирај:

If I said that he lost with 49.9% of the votes..... what the fuck do you think I mean...????

Okay so he wins in ONLY one state then. Why should he be elected president when he lost in the other 49 states? The president is suppose to represent all people of the US. If the candidate loses in 49 states than 49 states of people voted for the other guy to represent and lead them. Plus what you came up with is such an extreme case. No candidate wins all votes in a single state. Votes are always split between multiple candidates.

Цитирај:

Написао Dereny, 18.05.2015 at 17:45

If I said that he lost with 49.9% of the votes..... what the fuck do you think I mean...????

Okay so he wins in ONLY one state then. Why should he be elected president when he lost in the other 49 states? The president is suppose to represent all people of the US. If the candidate loses in 49 states than 49 states of people voted for the other guy to represent and lead them. Plus what you came up with is such an extreme case. No candidate wins all votes in a single state. Votes are always split between multiple candidates.

There has been four cases already of a candidate being elected President of the United States without winning the popular vote. 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. If you keep this electoral college system around, there will surely be more in the future.

1824 election
J. Q. Adams: 113,122 votes (won election)
Andrew Jackson: 151,271 votes (lost election)

1876 election
Rutherford Hayes, 4,034,311 votes (won election)
Samuel Tilden, 4,288,546 votes (lost election)

1888 election
Benjamin Harrison, 5,443,892 votes (won election)
Grover Cleveland, 5,534,488 votes (lost election)

2000 election
George Bush, 50,456,002 votes (won election)
Al Gore, 50,999,897 votes (lost election)

I'm sorry, but doesn't those four cases run just a little bit contrary to the spirit of democratic elections?

Why is the distinction of "state" even important? If a candidate has bigger popular support, nationally, behind him than his opponents, he should be elected President, no?