Election 2010 - Anonymous Poll
- Thread starter BarneyRubble
- Start date
rosstheboss
Retrobike Rider
The election process is fundamentally flawed and a relic from another era....
From the BBC website:
1954: If you think David Cameron is frustrated at finding himself without a majority, spare a thought for poor Great Yarmouth council candidate Bob Peck. Tied on 1,034 votes with Labour opponent Charlie Marsden, he was offered a pack of cards by the returning officer and told the candidate who drew the highest number would win. Mr Peck picked a three while his rival drew a lucky seven to claim the seat. Barmy? Maybe, but it's all within the rules.
From the BBC website:
1954: If you think David Cameron is frustrated at finding himself without a majority, spare a thought for poor Great Yarmouth council candidate Bob Peck. Tied on 1,034 votes with Labour opponent Charlie Marsden, he was offered a pack of cards by the returning officer and told the candidate who drew the highest number would win. Mr Peck picked a three while his rival drew a lucky seven to claim the seat. Barmy? Maybe, but it's all within the rules.
Well labour did much than expected in the local election.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 663247.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 663247.stm
I am fed up with every reporter and left-wing politician looking at the election result and concluding that "the electorate are telling us that they want electoral reform".
Ummm, no.
For starters, "the electorate" doesn't exist other than as some abstract concept. An election result emerges from the individual actions of tens of millions of people. It isn't the planned outcome of a collective consciousness.
What we're seeing in this election outcome is the result of three parties with very similar messages. They all promised "economic stability", "fairness" and to protect public services. None of them would give details of the cuts that they were going to make, the tax rises that they were going to apply or the public sector reforms that they were going to implement. And none of them would discuss immigration.
Three parties all promising the same thing means no differentiation. We've got a hung parliament because all of the parties looked the same, not because "the electorate want electoral reform". :roll:
End of rant.
Ummm, no.
For starters, "the electorate" doesn't exist other than as some abstract concept. An election result emerges from the individual actions of tens of millions of people. It isn't the planned outcome of a collective consciousness.
What we're seeing in this election outcome is the result of three parties with very similar messages. They all promised "economic stability", "fairness" and to protect public services. None of them would give details of the cuts that they were going to make, the tax rises that they were going to apply or the public sector reforms that they were going to implement. And none of them would discuss immigration.
Three parties all promising the same thing means no differentiation. We've got a hung parliament because all of the parties looked the same, not because "the electorate want electoral reform". :roll:
End of rant.
Lysander":2r8j87om said:Fair do's to Gordon Brown for holding on, mind.
Even the Nazis had unconditionally surrendered by May 8th...............
Well he does have sort out a removal truck? And find some where else to live or it's a cardboard box :shock:
rosstheboss
Retrobike Rider
JohnH":2s9szr8f said:
I think most people are p1ssed off the party with the most votes doesn't automatically win - can't think of any other instance where this occurs - imagine it in football - if you don't win by three or more goals it's a draw!!! Also, although I'm not a lib dem supporter, how did they manage to get a quarter of the votes and nothing like a quarter of the seats?!? It's a silly antiquated system that is creaking and people are genuinely put out by it - the image of that ballot counting centre in Sunderland, with a group of people trying to count lots of little bits of paper as quickly as possible made me feel a little bit sick: is this the 21st century?!?
if we went down the PR route, then we would mostly get hung parliaments, and so there would be a lot of dealings, and weaker governement because of it. the system we have is all good, and the winning party support this until their not winning and then they want PR (ie labour - all the time their winning they dont want reform)
Perhaps we need it to be made compulsory to vote!
Perhaps we need it to be made compulsory to vote!
rosstheboss
Retrobike Rider
mattbrown":6picrefo said:
It is in Australia amongst a few other places - with a hefty fine if you don't.
Don't want to sound funny but how would a system where the one with the most votes wins create more hung parliaments? Surely that's exactly what you wouldn't get?
And Scotland's vote shouldn't count either, but that's a different can of worms
:shock: :?
