Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Lefties rioting in London because Tories

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:09:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
i can't get over that the lib dems have as many seats as the DUP now. Talk about a crushing defeat for them...it's funny that everyone was talking about how boring this election was before. I admit I don't know *too* much about UK politics, but I don't think a shock victory by the incumbent, a complete realignment of one of the countries (Scotland) and the annihilation of the third largest party to having an equal number of seats as an Evangelical right wing regional party is something normal

re: the OP, people are just weird. I don't really get riots, tbh. you've really gotta wonder if stuff like this helps swing voters into the conservative fold
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:34:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:09:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
i can't get over that the lib dems have as many seats as the DUP now. Talk about a crushing defeat for them...

The Lib. Dem news is really bad for them, but they were expected to be demolished... their base is left of center and they joined a center-right coalition. It was basically suicide. The economic liberals (basically the UK equivalent of libertarians, except not as fiscally conservative as the Tories) that ran the party thoroughly miscalculated in doing that.

It's funny that everyone was talking about how boring this election was before. I admit I don't know *too* much about UK politics, but I don't think a shock victory by the incumbent, a complete realignment of one of the countries (Scotland) and the annihilation of the third largest party to having an equal number of seats as an Evangelical right wing regional party is something normal

The biggest shock might be than that the Tories managed to completely fend off a right-wing rival (UKIP) and increase their vote share, and that the Tories overcame systematic gerrymandering from Labour (in 2010 it was estimated they would have had to beat Labour by ten percentage points just to break even with them). Now that Labour has abandoned "New Labour" of Tony Blair, Britain may well be defaulting back to being a right-of-center country.

re: the OP, people are just weird. I don't really get riots, tbh. you've really gotta wonder if stuff like this helps swing voters into the conservative fold

It's exactly what the Conservatives ran on - they hammered over and over that Ed Miliband was a socialist (they called him 'Red Ed'), and that he would ally with the even more radical SNP. They were correct on both fronts, and now that Labour lost, I guess the radicals have just gotten more and more angry. This looks really bad for Labour IMO.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:41:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:34:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:09:02 PM, thett3 wrote:
i can't get over that the lib dems have as many seats as the DUP now. Talk about a crushing defeat for them...

The Lib. Dem news is really bad for them, but they were expected to be demolished... their base is left of center and they joined a center-right coalition. It was basically suicide. The economic liberals (basically the UK equivalent of libertarians, except not as fiscally conservative as the Tories) that ran the party thoroughly miscalculated in doing that.

It's funny that everyone was talking about how boring this election was before. I admit I don't know *too* much about UK politics, but I don't think a shock victory by the incumbent, a complete realignment of one of the countries (Scotland) and the annihilation of the third largest party to having an equal number of seats as an Evangelical right wing regional party is something normal

The biggest shock might be than that the Tories managed to completely fend off a right-wing rival (UKIP) and increase their vote share, and that the Tories overcame systematic gerrymandering from Labour (in 2010 it was estimated they would have had to beat Labour by ten percentage points just to break even with them). Now that Labour has abandoned "New Labour" of Tony Blair, Britain may well be defaulting back to being a right-of-center country.

Yeah, when the center right party increases it's vote share by about a percent, and the far right party almost 10 percent (!), it's a good night and a good sign for the right. I didn't expect this to happen, but I did expect Cameron to do better than the polls suggested because I expected the undecideds to break strongly for the conservatives because even as an American the thought of Miliband as a leader is just gag worthy


re: the OP, people are just weird. I don't really get riots, tbh. you've really gotta wonder if stuff like this helps swing voters into the conservative fold

It's exactly what the Conservatives ran on - they hammered over and over that Ed Miliband was a socialist (they called him 'Red Ed'), and that he would ally with the even more radical SNP. They were correct on both fronts, and now that Labour lost, I guess the radicals have just gotten more and more angry. This looks really bad for Labour IMO.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:44:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

UKIP received 3.5 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received 1.5 million votes, got 56 seats. Seems fair to me.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:46:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:44:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

UKIP received 3.5 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received 1.5 million votes, got 56 seats. Seems fair to me.

In their minds it's fair cuz UKIP

I can see why people dislike UKIP. I really can. But I followed this election pretty closely and the media treatment of UKIP in general and Farage in particular was just grossly unfair
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:51:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:44:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

UKIP received 3.5 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received 1.5 million votes, got 56 seats. Seems fair to me.

That's kind of deceiving IMO. UKIP ran in 624 seats and averaged a little over 6,200 votes per seat. SNP ran in 59 seats and averaged around 24,650 votes per seat. It's kind of like Ross Perot in 1992 - he got a good chunk of the vote, but his tally was spread so evenly he didn't win a single state.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:55:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:51:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:44:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

UKIP received 3.5 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received 1.5 million votes, got 56 seats. Seems fair to me.

That's kind of deceiving IMO. UKIP ran in 624 seats and averaged a little over 6,200 votes per seat. SNP ran in 59 seats and averaged around 24,650 votes per seat. It's kind of like Ross Perot in 1992 - he got a good chunk of the vote, but his tally was spread so evenly he didn't win a single state.

That's true. If I were living in the UK, though, I would support electoral reform. I may even support it here, but it isn't as big of an issue because the democrats and republicans are much more dominant here than conservative/labour are in England. The Green party also got around 4% of the vote and only one seat...just doesn't seem right imo.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:59:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:51:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:44:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

UKIP received 3.5 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received 1.5 million votes, got 56 seats. Seems fair to me.

That's kind of deceiving IMO. UKIP ran in 624 seats and averaged a little over 6,200 votes per seat. SNP ran in 59 seats and averaged around 24,650 votes per seat. It's kind of like Ross Perot in 1992 - he got a good chunk of the vote, but his tally was spread so evenly he didn't win a single state.

How is it deceiving? It shows how the winner-take-all approach to politics ends up creating situations in which the voices of millions go unheard simply because of where they happen to congregate (or not). It's a stupid system. STV voting would be much better.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 7:04:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 6:59:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:51:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:44:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

UKIP received 3.5 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received 1.5 million votes, got 56 seats. Seems fair to me.

That's kind of deceiving IMO. UKIP ran in 624 seats and averaged a little over 6,200 votes per seat. SNP ran in 59 seats and averaged around 24,650 votes per seat. It's kind of like Ross Perot in 1992 - he got a good chunk of the vote, but his tally was spread so evenly he didn't win a single state.

How is it deceiving? It shows how the winner-take-all approach to politics ends up creating situations in which the voices of millions go unheard simply because of where they happen to congregate (or not). It's a stupid system. STV voting would be much better.

I love the idea of an STV vote system, actually - it seems to work really well in Australia.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 7:07:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 7:04:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:59:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:51:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:44:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

UKIP received 3.5 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received 1.5 million votes, got 56 seats. Seems fair to me.

That's kind of deceiving IMO. UKIP ran in 624 seats and averaged a little over 6,200 votes per seat. SNP ran in 59 seats and averaged around 24,650 votes per seat. It's kind of like Ross Perot in 1992 - he got a good chunk of the vote, but his tally was spread so evenly he didn't win a single state.

How is it deceiving? It shows how the winner-take-all approach to politics ends up creating situations in which the voices of millions go unheard simply because of where they happen to congregate (or not). It's a stupid system. STV voting would be much better.

I love the idea of an STV vote system, actually - it seems to work really well in Australia.

Misunderstood what that meant. I prefer the alternative vote system myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 7:30:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 7:07:35 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 7:04:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:59:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:51:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:44:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

UKIP received 3.5 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received 1.5 million votes, got 56 seats. Seems fair to me.

That's kind of deceiving IMO. UKIP ran in 624 seats and averaged a little over 6,200 votes per seat. SNP ran in 59 seats and averaged around 24,650 votes per seat. It's kind of like Ross Perot in 1992 - he got a good chunk of the vote, but his tally was spread so evenly he didn't win a single state.

How is it deceiving? It shows how the winner-take-all approach to politics ends up creating situations in which the voices of millions go unheard simply because of where they happen to congregate (or not). It's a stupid system. STV voting would be much better.

I love the idea of an STV vote system, actually - it seems to work really well in Australia.

Misunderstood what that meant. I prefer the alternative vote system myself.

Alternative vote is better than first-past-the-post, but it still has its problems. For instance, it leaves open the possibility that 49 percent of the population will have no representation. With STV, this wouldn't happen.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 7:41:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 7:30:47 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 7:07:35 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 7:04:53 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:59:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:51:06 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/9/2015 6:44:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

UKIP received 3.5 million votes, and got 1 seat. SNP received 1.5 million votes, got 56 seats. Seems fair to me.

That's kind of deceiving IMO. UKIP ran in 624 seats and averaged a little over 6,200 votes per seat. SNP ran in 59 seats and averaged around 24,650 votes per seat. It's kind of like Ross Perot in 1992 - he got a good chunk of the vote, but his tally was spread so evenly he didn't win a single state.

How is it deceiving? It shows how the winner-take-all approach to politics ends up creating situations in which the voices of millions go unheard simply because of where they happen to congregate (or not). It's a stupid system. STV voting would be much better.

I love the idea of an STV vote system, actually - it seems to work really well in Australia.

Misunderstood what that meant. I prefer the alternative vote system myself.

Alternative vote is better than first-past-the-post, but it still has its problems. For instance, it leaves open the possibility that 49 percent of the population will have no representation. With STV, this wouldn't happen.

I personally value smaller, single voting districts over exact representation... I'm not a huge fan of multi-member districts.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2015 6:19:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/9/2015 5:30:38 PM, TN05 wrote:
This really baffles me. I understand the complaint about 37% of the vote winning 50% of seats, but no Labour advocates were complaining when Labour won, nor are any complaining that 50% of the vote won 95% of the seats in Scotland. Further right-wing (Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + UUP) parties actually won a majority of the vote while left-wing ones only won 40%, so even under proportional representation the Tories would still be in charge.

Left-wingers are more and more particularist these days. They pick and choose the contexts that they want to apply principles to instead of universally applying principles.

Basically, they've become exactly what they hated. The only reason the police doesn't harshly crack down on them is because there's another debate going on that left-wingers don't know about. Left-wingers believe the right is scared stiff in its boots, but it's really not. What's going on is a division among right-wingers. Those right-wingers who are also particularist know that they're insulated from any outbursts the left might have, so they don't care to discipline it. It's the universalists who are exposed.

Left-wingers think they're making progress through these riots, but they're not. They're only hurting those who aren't prejudiced in the first place.