Page 5 of 9

Re: Democracy

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 10:54am
by mercalia
Democracy US style: Sanctuary counties: Inside America's gun rights resistance

What on earth have we in common with these crazies?


Image

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51483541

Re: Democracy

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 1:15pm
by carpetcleaner
merseymouth wrote:Morning, I don't think anyone should hold the US of A up as a model of "Democracy"! A joke with 50 varieties.
The simple fact that the Popular Vote is not the determining factor rules that out, sad because it is a simple thing on the ballot paper, "Who do you want as President? But no, they employ a very weird method of finding the answer to that simple question.
In this country we may flag things up as being a choice between party leaders, the reality is of course quite different. So fact is very few people had an opportunity to vote for either Boris or Jezza, the rest of us merely voted in our own constituency member.
The results of a number of US Presidential election may well have had a different outcome if it had been on a Popular Vote basis? MM


The US presidential election is not unlike our elections to parliament. The votes cast by the people elect others to vote later on their behalf to decide what happens. Neither are decided on the popular vote.

After the February 1974 election Mr Wilson became PM replacing Mr Heath. Mr Wilson's Labour party got fewer votes than Mr Heath's Conservative party.

I don't remember anyone complaining about that at the time.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 1:50pm
by Vorpal
So, let's see...

In the USA, voters vote for a leader, but don't elect them.

In the UK, voters don't vote for a leader, but do elect them

Do I have that right? ;)

Re: Democracy

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 1:55pm
by carpetcleaner
Vorpal wrote:So, let's see...

In the USA, voters vote for a leader, but don't elect them.

In the UK, voters don't vote for a leader, but do elect them

Do I have that right? ;)


In both countries the people vote for other people who then choose the leader.

In the US they vote for an electoral college, in the UK they vote for their MPs.

In neither country is a straight popular vote used to choose the leader.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 2:15pm
by Oldjohnw
carpetcleaner wrote:
merseymouth wrote:Morning, I don't think anyone should hold the US of A up as a model of "Democracy"! A joke with 50 varieties.
The simple fact that the Popular Vote is not the determining factor rules that out, sad because it is a simple thing on the ballot paper, "Who do you want as President? But no, they employ a very weird method of finding the answer to that simple question.
In this country we may flag things up as being a choice between party leaders, the reality is of course quite different. So fact is very few people had an opportunity to vote for either Boris or Jezza, the rest of us merely voted in our own constituency member.
The results of a number of US Presidential election may well have had a different outcome if it had been on a Popular Vote basis? MM


The US presidential election is not unlike our elections to parliament. The votes cast by the people elect others to vote later on their behalf to decide what happens. Neither are decided on the popular vote.

After the February 1974 election Mr Wilson became PM replacing Mr Heath. Mr Wilson's Labour party got fewer votes than Mr Heath's Conservative party.

I don't remember anyone complaining about that at the time.


Nearly half a century ago. People are a little more aware now.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 2:29pm
by carpetcleaner
Oldjohnw wrote:
carpetcleaner wrote:
merseymouth wrote:Morning, I don't think anyone should hold the US of A up as a model of "Democracy"! A joke with 50 varieties.
The simple fact that the Popular Vote is not the determining factor rules that out, sad because it is a simple thing on the ballot paper, "Who do you want as President? But no, they employ a very weird method of finding the answer to that simple question.
In this country we may flag things up as being a choice between party leaders, the reality is of course quite different. So fact is very few people had an opportunity to vote for either Boris or Jezza, the rest of us merely voted in our own constituency member.
The results of a number of US Presidential election may well have had a different outcome if it had been on a Popular Vote basis? MM


The US presidential election is not unlike our elections to parliament. The votes cast by the people elect others to vote later on their behalf to decide what happens. Neither are decided on the popular vote.

After the February 1974 election Mr Wilson became PM replacing Mr Heath. Mr Wilson's Labour party got fewer votes than Mr Heath's Conservative party.

I don't remember anyone complaining about that at the time.


Nearly half a century ago. People are a little more aware now.


Oh, I see. That'll be it.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 2:39pm
by 661-Pete
carpetcleaner wrote:After the February 1974 election Mr Wilson became PM replacing Mr Heath. Mr Wilson's Labour party got fewer votes than Mr Heath's Conservative party.

I don't remember anyone complaining about that at the time.
Actually, there was quite a lot of 'complaining' about it. Edward Heath, the incumbent PM. recognising that his party had (just) gained the plurality (not 'majority') of votes cast, if not of seats won, was most unhappy about the situation. He did his level best to strike a deal with Jeremy Thorpe of the Liberal party, to form a sort of 'anti-Socialist alliance', as it was called. N.b. there was no talk of 'coalition' at that time - that didn't happen until 2010 :evil: ! Even with addition of the Liberals' quota of seats he would not have held a majority in the Commons. Anyway, Jeremy declined to come into any arrangement, so Heath had to give way to Wilson - who then successfully ran a minority government - without support from any other party - until October of that year.

Tory voters, clearly aggrieved at the state of affairs, were all clamouring for a recount - and when the second 1974 election was called, several told me they were confident of regaining a Tory majority.

They didn't. Wilson secured a small overall majority of seats - as well as the plurality of votes - that time around.

I remember all this from the time. Maybe my powers of recall are better than yours?

Re: Democracy

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 2:40pm
by 661-Pete
Oldjohnw wrote: Nearly half a century ago. People are a little more aware now.
With all respect, I was around and reasonably 'aware' back then. As, I'm sure, you were.

The politician who really threw the spanner in the works, back in 1974, was Enoch Powell - as I'm sure many people remember.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 3:16pm
by Vorpal
carpetcleaner wrote:
Vorpal wrote:So, let's see...

In the USA, voters vote for a leader, but don't elect them.

In the UK, voters don't vote for a leader, but do elect them

Do I have that right? ;)


In both countries the people vote for other people who then choose the leader.

In the US they vote for an electoral college, in the UK they vote for their MPs.

In neither country is a straight popular vote used to choose the leader.

My post was meant more in humour than anything else. But that said, when people in the USA go to vote, they tick a box to vote for a candidate who is running for President. The elector's name is not listed on the ballot in most states.

In the UK, on the other hand, people vote for their MPs, but many folks talk about elections as if the PM were directly elected. People will say that they voted for/against Boris Johnson, for example. Of course they don't, but they do seem to think of it that way.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 17 Feb 2020, 7:05am
by Ben@Forest
Oldjohnw wrote:No wish to revive the brexit thread but this came across my twitter feed today:

Colin Browning (@ColinBrowning14) tweeted at 10:46 am on Thu, Feb 13, 2020:
Absolutely disgusting service at Schiphol airport. 55 minutes we have been stood in the immigration queue. This isn’t the Brexit I voted for.


Colin is getting exactly what he voted for but which he dismissed as project fear.

However, the people spoke.


I'm not sure this has anything to do with Brexit, for a start this should not change during the transition period.

A few years ago when we were firmly in the EU l was in a huge crowd (600+) at Frankfurt Airport waiting to get through border control. Finally a few more BPOL officers looking as if they'd just been told to 'finish their lunch and get out there' (it really was lunchtime) arrived and people started to flow through.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 17 Feb 2020, 8:40am
by softlips
Ben@Forest wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:No wish to revive the brexit thread but this came across my twitter feed today:

Colin Browning (@ColinBrowning14) tweeted at 10:46 am on Thu, Feb 13, 2020:
Absolutely disgusting service at Schiphol airport. 55 minutes we have been stood in the immigration queue. This isn’t the Brexit I voted for.


Colin is getting exactly what he voted for but which he dismissed as project fear.

However, the people spoke.


I'm not sure this has anything to do with Brexit, for a start this should not change during the transition period.

A few years ago when we were firmly in the EU l was in a huge crowd (600+) at Frankfurt Airport waiting to get through border control. Finally a few more BPOL officers looking as if they'd just been told to 'finish their lunch and get out there' (it really was lunchtime) arrived and people started to flow through.


Schiphol airport has always taken an age to get through. And nothing has changed since Jan 31st apart from a Union Flag and UK sticker being added to the EU and Swiss lane.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 17 Feb 2020, 8:51am
by Oldjohnw
softlips wrote:
Ben@Forest wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:No wish to revive the brexit thread but this came across my twitter feed today:



Colin is getting exactly what he voted for but which he dismissed as project fear.

However, the people spoke.


I'm not sure this has anything to do with Brexit, for a start this should not change during the transition period.

A few years ago when we were firmly in the EU l was in a huge crowd (600+) at Frankfurt Airport waiting to get through border control. Finally a few more BPOL officers looking as if they'd just been told to 'finish their lunch and get out there' (it really was lunchtime) arrived and people started to flow through.


Schiphol airport has always taken an age to get through. And nothing has changed since Jan 31st apart from a Union Flag and UK sticker being added to the EU and Swiss lane.


Just to be clear, it was Colin the supporter of brexit who was making the point and blaming voting leave.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 17 Feb 2020, 6:35pm
by Ben@Forest
Oldjohnw wrote:Just to be clear, it was Colin the supporter of brexit who was making the point and blaming voting leave.
.

Studies have shown that people who believe conspiracy theorists are more likely to believe pseudoscience, the paranormal and have a susceptibility to unsubstantiated claims. I expect that's as true of Remainers as Brexiters.

Re: Democracy

Posted: 17 Feb 2020, 7:38pm
by pwa
One function of democracy must be to give us a means of making choices after which, for a while, we can walk away and get on with our lives. Whether or not we liked the choices made. Anyone here fancy doing that? For a while, maybe?

Re: Democracy

Posted: 18 Feb 2020, 1:00pm
by Stradageek
Interesting quotes from the latest book I'm reading called 'Rich Media Poor Democracy'

"Neoliberalism is a political theory, it posits that society works best when business runs things and there is as little possibility of government interference with business as possible. In short Neoliberal democracy is one where the political sector controls little and debates even less. In such a world political apathy and indifference are a quite rational choice for the bulk of the citizenry, especially for those who reside below the upper and middle classes"

and another:

"Very few people would argue that the US is remotely close to a democratic society (one in which the 'many' should and do make the core political decisions). Many key decisions are the province of the corporate sector and most decisions made by the government are influenced by powerful special interests with little public awareness or input.

I would add that the 'many' should be considered a minimum majority of 80% NOT 52%. I'm sure that obtaining an 80% majority on anything would freeze our parliament for many months until they realised that nothing will ever get done until a 'democratic' consensus i.e a VERY broad middle ground acceptable to most of the population is tabled.

Or am suggesting a PR driven utopia that we'll never achieve?