|
Café Pedro 2: Revenge of the Portuguese
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:18
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I probably will vote conservative, both my home and uni are run by Lib Dems who are rubbish and the conservatives look good in one, while in the other they all look shocking.
Essentially though, it annoys me that people vote based on the leader rather than the local MP's.
 [url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:22
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
Lest we forget.
Although Thatcher wasn't actually that bad...
Best one on that site is this one:
 |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:28
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
uni are run by Lib Dems
To put it simply - that can, in no way, shape, or form be true 
Essentially though, it annoys me that people vote based on the leader rather than the local MP's.
It's a deeply flawed system. We have a choice between voting how our control is run (i.e. vote for a party's leader and cabinet), or vote for the local MP who will represent our constituency, not guaranteeing how the country is run as a whole
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 07:08
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:29
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
Best one on that site is this one:
Even better is this graffiti in Hereford
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:32
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
Essentially though, it annoys me that people vote based on the leader rather than the local MP's.
It's a deeply flawed system. We have a choice between voting how our control is run (i.e. vote for a party's leader and cabinet), or vote for the local MP who will represent our constituency, not guaranteeing how the country is run as a whole
That is the major thing the US political system has over parliamentary ones. Although the President normally has a majority in the Senate and House, he doesn't always, and you can always vote for the Republican president and Democratic local politicians or vice versa.
Edited by Deadpool on 22-04-2010 00:32
|
| |
|
|
| SportingNonsense |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:32
|
Team Manager
Posts: 33046
Joined: 08-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
https://www.labservative.com/shop/
3D Glasses
Watch the General Election in 3D. Gasp in horror as red and blue merge into one. Experience total disappointment as nothing changes.
Sorry, currently out of stock
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:34
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
That can make you so democratic you're too democratic when you have a President with a House or Senate (or even both) which no longer have majorities = stalemate, as you obviously know.
As Churchill once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:41
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
That can make you so democratic you're too democratic when you have a President with a House or Senate (or even both) which no longer have majorities = stalemate, as you obviously know.
As Churchill once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Yes, but although the filibuster rules in the senate need to be changed slightly (I can link to a wonderful article in the Washington Post a day or two ago giving details on how), the ability of the House and Senate to block things from happening is one of the most important checks in the American governmental system.
A majority in the House is a majority. In the Senate you need 60/100 to invoke cloture, or you can logroll to get support. As for the veto, the Senate and House can override any veto (see: Andrew Jackson). |
| |
|
|
| Ildabaoth |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:45
|
Domestique
Posts: 695
Joined: 22-03-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Not the right forum, but anyways. In Colombia, democracy works like this: the President intends to promote a new law (normally, a law to reduce benefits to poor people or to lower taxes to business and rich people). The congressmen, even if they are from the same political party, only vote if the president gives an ambassy to their sons or any other high post to their relatives. Actually, more than half of colombian ambassadors are sons, brothers or cousins of congressmen. That is democracy, my folks.
Disclaimer: The above post reflects just the personal opinion of the author and not a fact. But if you read it, you must accept it as the ultimate truth.
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:46
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
...
....
Thanks, didn't know that
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 22-04-2010 00:51
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ildabaoth wrote:
Not the right forum, but anyways. In Colombia, democracy works like this: the President intends to promote a new law (normally, a law to reduce benefits to poor people or to lower taxes to business and rich people). The congressmen, even if they are from the same political party, only vote if the president gives an ambassy to their sons or any other high post to their relatives. Actually, more than half of colombian ambassadors are sons, brothers or cousins of congressmen. That is democracy, my folks.
In the US, a law will come into being in either the House or the Senate, usually pushed by the President (for a well known one), but he cannot introduce it. In the House, anyone can talk, but they have time limits and eventually the House has to vote, so although there is logrolling, usually in the form of kickbacks to the district of whoever's vote you want to buy, the bill will usually get voted on actual ideological grounds. In the Senate, anyone can talk, for however long as well, leading to filibusters, where people just talk continuously to block a vote. You need sixty of the 100 senators to vote for cloture to stop a filibuster, which is really rare, and usually even then one or two senators will hold out to get kickbacks as well. Then, if the bills get passed in the Senate and the House, they usually have to be combined as they are normally not verbatim the same, and then the new one has to be approved, and then it goes to the President, who can sign the law or veto it, which can be overridden by a 2/3rds vote from the Senate and the House.
Trust me, it isn't much better, it is just less overt.
Edited by Deadpool on 22-04-2010 01:39
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 22-04-2010 07:53
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
You guys do realize that we have a thread for political talk, right?
And for you Brits - as long as you don't vote for BNP (and if you're really nice, not the Conservatives either), I'm happy  |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 22-04-2010 23:19
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Best poster by far
|
| |
|
|
| t-baum |
Posted on 23-04-2010 17:46
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2153
Joined: 07-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Why is my country ran by idiots?
Macquet wrote:
"We all know that wasn't the real footage of the Worlds anyway. That was just the staged footage to perpetuate the coverup that it was actually Vinokourov that won the race." |
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 23-04-2010 18:14
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
t-baum wrote:
Why is my country ran by idiots?
Probably because they don't teach grammar in schools.
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
|
| doddy13 |
Posted on 23-04-2010 18:15
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7891
Joined: 04-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
Best poster by far
Really, I quite liked the following
There's no point slapping a schleck - Sean Kelly on "Who needs a slap"
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 23-04-2010 21:39
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
t-baum wrote:
Why is my country ran by idiots?
Heck, you can't have anyone as bad as this guy:
He's a genuine Sith Lord, the Dark Lord Peter Mandelsen
|
| |
|
|
| lagetcher |
Posted on 23-04-2010 22:21
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1513
Joined: 13-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
I've kind of joined this discussion a bit late, but I'd just like to say, I totally agree with this:
Crommy wrote:
I live in one of the most safe Conservative seats in the country - that's why we need Proportional Representation rather than first past the post - something the Conservatives and Lib Dems are pushing through.
Have a go on the BBC thing which predicts how many seats each party gets depending on votes they get (you can set the votes). Labour can hold the most seats despite having the least votes.
I love democracy 
Proportional Representation is essential for a fair voting system. I've been looking at that seat predictor too, and it just shows you how wrong the system is.
Like Crommy, my constituency is one of the most conservative areas in the country. It just happens that our Tory MP is absolutely horrendously awful, yet still he'll almost certainly get in again, despite being very unpopular even amongst many Conservative party members (He was almost voted out).
I would have voted for the Lib Dems, but I miss out by 4 days with my 18th birthday on the 10th. 4 DAYS AFTER 5 YEARS! WHY!?
Anyway, I still can't wait till the election. Not sure why, but it just feels extremely exciting. Hopefully our Liberal Democrat sign won't be stolen like last time...
Edited by lagetcher on 23-04-2010 22:22
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 23-04-2010 22:26
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
lagetcher wrote:
...
Don't worry, the signs all point to a hung parliament.
Although in fact, this is highly unlikely.
The reason for a huge Lib Dem increase in surveys is that it takes into a large proportion of people who don't normally have a good voter turnout (young people basically).
The elderly always have a stupidly strong turnout, and they always vote the same way. Brown and Cameron could declare a policy of using all taxes to buy a giant turnip, and they'd still vote Labour/Conservative. The elderly always have a large turnout, and they only ever vote the same party they've voted all their life (my grandparents as an anecdotal example, would never, ever consider voting any way apart from Labour, and would never, ever consider not voting (given their working class background and the Tories history of anti-unionism (which, in case you're wondering, was a good thing - not popular, but very necessary - the anti-unionism that is)) - they refuse to change their allegiance,
Which means the Lib Dems need a good turnout from younger people. Which, unfortunately, never happens
Edited by Crommy on 23-04-2010 22:28
|
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 23-04-2010 23:11
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Proportional representation is bad for a couple of reasons.
a) it would give the BNP about 10 seats in parliament
b) it would mean Plaid Cymru and the SNP lost alot of seats, reducing the diversity of parliament
There are much fairer voting systems, such as the one where you rate every candidate out of ten and they pick the candidate with the highest average.
Unfortunately they don't use that because it is apparently to complicated for the average person, although in my opinion, if you can't write the numbers between 1 and 10 you can't be informed enough to vote properly anyway.
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
