UK General Election

[angrysoba]

Yeah because when my MP says 'we think leaving the EU is a good idea' that's 'representation' even though it's not my view and I 100% disagree with it. Right.

I look forward to the time when you are accused of a crime and your legal representation says 'yeah, he totally done it. He says he doesn't but he's lying' because that would be 'representation' in your book.

It sounds as though you would need to run for office yourself to feel enfranchised. But, of course, if the voters don't elect you, you can claim some form of persecution.

Seriously, how do you make sense of this position? If someone who you agreed with entirely won an election would you then claim that Brexiteers were disenfranchised?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You mean that you use the word incorrectly.

As it happens, I am literally disenfranchised. I used to have a vote in the UK, but I am no longer eligible to do so. That is what disenfranchised means.

No I mean when I use the word in something other than your very narrow meaning that excludes other perfectly good ones.

Now, you make even less sense. You are now complaining that hardly anyone disagrees with you whereas before you were complaining that the odds were stacked against you. Are you instead arguing that the problem is that too many people actually agree with you that their vote is worthless and are therefore proving it by not casting it?

Sorry it's you that is making no sense here.

If 30% of people vote one way then that is not 'the rest of the electorate' but under this system the 30% send 'their person' to Westminster and everyone else's views are ignored.

An MP is elected on as little as 25% of the vote in the UK. Governments have majorities based on a third of the vote.

Arguing that the up to 75% of people in a constituency who voted for policies other than those espoused by their MPs can be ignored and that's OK because 'the rest' voted for it is just nonsense.

Literally arguing for the lowest common denominator it seems.

 

[angrysoba]

No I mean when I use the word in something other than your very narrow meaning that excludes other perfectly good ones.

Your definition is not a "perfectly good one". It is a ridiculous, self-pitying and inaccurate one.

Sorry it's you that is making no sense here.

If 30% of people vote one way then that is not 'the rest of the electorate' but under this system the 30% send 'their person' to Westminster and everyone else's views are ignored.

It certainly is. If your candidate were popular enough, then your candidate would win. Your candidate didn't win because the rest of the electorate didn't vote for your candidate. If the winner had such a low vote then it shows how dismally your own candidate did.

An MP is elected on as little as 25% of the vote in the UK. Governments have majorities based on a third of the vote.

If the MP got 25% then what did your candidate get? Less than 25 obviously? But how much? 10%? Then why are you disenfranchised when 90% voted against you?

 

[Worm]

At the counts I've been to, the candidates and their agents were invited to inspect the spoiled ballots with the returning officer so they could object to any decision they felt was wrong.

I agree. That's been my experience from all the counts I have ben involved with.

For Scottish local elections the guidance is clear that this is a requirement, for the GE it seems less clearly stated, though seems to go along the same lines.

Basically the decision is down to the returning officer, but the candidates/agents are allowed sight of the process and to raise objections if they feel necessary. It can be incredibly tedious, but can also be fun.

 

[Rolfe]

For aficionados of "Chewin the Fat", there's a notorious instance of a voter writing his preference in the boxes as "wank" "wank" "good guy" "wank" and that being accepted as a vote for "good guy" because the voter had made his preference clear.

 

[Information Analyst]

Yeah because when my MP says 'we think leaving the EU is a good idea' that's 'representation' even though it's not my view and I 100% disagree with it. Right.

If you end up with such an MP, then presumably more people in your constituency voted for them than any other candidate. That's how these election things work. Some you win, some you lose. You might lose locally, but win nationally, and vice versa.

I look forward to the time when you are accused of a crime and your legal representation says 'yeah, he totally done it. He says he doesn't but he's lying' because that would be 'representation' in your book.

Totally not the same thing.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Your definition is not a "perfectly good one". It is a ridiculous, self-pitying and inaccurate one.

It certainly is. If your candidate were popular enough, then your candidate would win. Your candidate didn't win because the rest of the electorate didn't vote for your candidate. If the winner had such a low vote then it shows how dismally your own candidate did.

If the MP got 25% then what did your candidate get? Less than 25 obviously? But how much? 10%? Then why are you disenfranchised when 90% voted against you?

Some of the worst logic ever gracing this site and there's plenty of competition.

Minority opinions can be ignored in your world because the majority don't hold them. And in fact since the majority can't agree on any opinion we'll just take the biggest minority opinion and force that on everyone else for no apparent reason other than it would be ridiculous and self-pitying apparently to think of any other way of doing it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If you end up with such an MP, then presumably more people in your constituency voted for them than any other candidate. That's how these election things work. Some you win, some you lose. You might lose locally, but win nationally, and vice versa.

Totally not the same thing.

Yeah totally not the same thing, because 'reasons'.

Representation doesn't simply mean someone speaking on your behalf. There is also the part about what they are saying. You seem quite able to recognize that until it comes to politics and then your eyes shut.

And 'that's how these election things work' seems to suggest that there is only one way to run elections - patently not the case. That's how the system we have chosen works and, in case it's not clear, I think that system is crap.

 

[Aepervius]

If you end up with such an MP, then presumably more people in your constituency voted for them than any other candidate. That's how these election things work. Some you win, some you lose. You might lose locally, but win nationally, and vice versa.

Totally not the same thing.

In most proportional representative democracy, when the result is 50/50 or nearly, people take lessons and try to compromise. With a 50/50 They usually don't say "my way or no way" , and if they do, tehre is usually strong consequences at the next elections.

 

[MikeG]

In most proportional representative democracy, when the result is 50/50 or nearly, people take lessons and try to compromise. With a 50/50 They usually don't say "my way or no way" , and if they do, tehre is usually strong consequences at the next elections.

"Do you want the lights on, or off?"

"I'd like them on"

"Off please"

"OK then, we'll have them flashing on and off intermittently at 5 second intervals. Everyone happy?"

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Well that leaves us with the thrilling prospect of watching Farron taking on Nuttall. I'm busy that night, unfortunately.

Tbf, those two utter knobs are well worth a watch just for a bit of a laugh.

 

[The Don]

"Do you want the lights on, or off?"

"I'd like them on"

"Off please"

"OK then, we'll have them flashing on and off intermittently at 5 second intervals. Everyone happy?"

Well everyone will be equally (un)happy

 

[MikeG]

Well everyone will be equally (un)happy

Presactly.

 

[angrysoba]

Some of the worst logic ever gracing this site and there's plenty of competition.

Minority opinions can be ignored in your world because the majority don't hold them. And in fact since the majority can't agree on any opinion we'll just take the biggest minority opinion and force that on everyone else for no apparent reason other than it would be ridiculous and self-pitying apparently to think of any other way of doing it.

It's up to you to explain what's wrong with my logic.

You are calling yourself disenfranchised because a candidate you won't vote for will probably win. And you claim that candidate is unpopular. So how is it an even more unpopular candidate should win instead other than because you want them to?

You haven't even given any specific alternatives. Is there any reason why not? If you have an idea then spit it out, man!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's up to you to explain what's wrong with my logic.

You are calling yourself disenfranchised because a candidate you won't vote for will probably win. And you claim that candidate is unpopular. So how is it an even more unpopular candidate should win instead other than because you want them to?

You haven't even given any specific alternatives. Is there any reason why not? If you have an idea then spit it out, man!

I have never said the less popular candidate should win. That would be bad too.

Your assertion was that the rest of the electorate disagreed with me. But the rest of the electorate disagreed with almost every MP elected by the same token.

The problem is the FPTP system which renders up to 75% of votes cast in a constituency meaningless.

 

[angrysoba]

I have never said the less popular candidate should win. That would be bad too.

Your assertion was that the rest of the electorate disagreed with me. But the rest of the electorate disagreed with almost every MP elected by the same token.

The problem is the FPTP system which renders up to 75% of votes cast in a constituency meaningless.

The winner is the most popular candidate. It's just too bad if your candidate is not as popular.

But you seem to be hinting at PR even though you haven't come out and said it yet. Have you looked at what the previous election would have looked like with PR?

Either way, you are not disenfranchised.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The winner is the most popular candidate. It's just too bad if your candidate is not as popular.

But you seem to be hinting at PR even though you haven't come out and said it yet. Have you looked at what the previous election would have looked like with PR?

Either way, you are not disenfranchised.

Deary me. You can't see past win lose zero sum games.

And the rest of the world didn't vote for the most popular candidate either. So yeah your justification doesn't work.

And nobody has looked at how the previous election would have looked like under PR because there wasn't one. What you mean is how the votes cast in a FPTP system would have translated to a pr system. Obviously if we actually had pr people would be more likely to vote for minority candidates.

And regardless it would help solve the problem of voters feeling and being disenfranchised because unlike how you see the world it's not all about the result. It's about whether your vote matters.

My home town was landslide labour red for decades and I had the same complaint there. It's not about parties.

 

[angrysoba]

Deary me. You can't see past win lose zero sum games.

And the rest of the world didn't vote for the most popular candidate either. So yeah your justification doesn't work.

And nobody has looked at how the previous election would have looked like under PR because there wasn't one. What you mean is how the votes cast in a FPTP system would have translated to a pr system. Obviously if we actually had pr people would be more likely to vote for minority candidates.

And regardless it would help solve the problem of voters feeling and being disenfranchised because unlike how you see the world it's not all about the result. It's about whether your vote matters.

My home town was landslide labour red for decades and I had the same complaint there. It's not about parties.

If it is not about winning then why are you complaining that a Tory win would make you disenfranchised? Because it is all about winning for you.

Come back to me when you are no longer allowed to vote. Then I will agree you are disenfranchised. Not until then.

 

[Information Analyst]

That's how the system we have chosen works and, in case it's not clear, I think that system is crap.

But we already has a referendum on that fairly recently, so what are you going to do?

 

[Information Analyst]

"Do you want the lights on, or off?"

"I'd like them on"

"Off please"

"OK then, we'll have them flashing on and off intermittently at 5 second intervals. Everyone happy?"

How about on or off on alternative days?