|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 10:33:37 GMT
This thread has come a hell of a long way since its inception hasn't it? Only a triggered Oggy could go on a mad, angry, unhinged rant about Trump being evil and Keir Starmer being amazing and then accuse someone of being Mad Martha out of baby reindeer. It's actually one of the great oatcake meltdowns 😂😂 I rather fear that the only thing melting down here is the ice in your glass (or two) of whisky.... |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 8, 2024 10:34:24 GMT
I have categorically NEVER asked you anything about your wank bank or about your childhood or your past therapy. Let's just hope the things never cross. This thread has come a hell of a long way since its inception hasn't it? I've lost count of how many times I've written Trump off. its a great read back |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 8, 2024 10:37:58 GMT
Ultimately though it's the system rather than your beliefs which dictate which way in which you vote because you believe that in a FPTP system the best method is voting for what you call "the best option available (out of those who may stand a chance)". Under a different system such as PR I think you would vote differently, and so it can be argued that you're voting pattern is very much influenced by the electoral system at play and that electoral system isn't going to change if we as a population keep doing what it's setup to do - electing two parties who benefit from it. In the most recent UK election, I feel that in comparison to americans, we actually have broken the mould a bit in the most recent election. As a result of that I think more people will now vote for who they want rather than "next best". When "next best" hasn't been delivering for the majority then people will continue to look and vote elsewhere. It very much depends who you're speaking to. Working class people expect to be represented and their quality of life to improve under what our media call "the left". In America we have had 12 out of 16 years of Democrat governance, similar to what we have had tory governance over the same period of time. If Democrats haven't improved the lives of working people in that time and they feel their quality of life has got worse then insanity is very much the defininition of repeating the same thing expecting different results. Just like many people have turned their back on the tories too by attributing their worsening quality of life with the party who has been in power. So when people are already on their knees and struggling and the party who is meant to be on their side hasn't made their lives better, don't be surprised when they're no longer qeueuing to vote for "the next best thing" when it's been tried and tested and not improved their lives. The world is incredibly old and that's why we shouldn't presume this "golden age" we have lived in is the norm when it's very much an anomaly in history. The norm is the direction I feel we're heading towards rather than what we're heading from. Of course the "rot" may not be as much but I still ultimately believe both options are heading in the same direction just at different paces with different diversions along the way. Everyone has their boiling point where they're no longer desensitised to their lives getting worse and I think for those in working class estates that time is coming much sooner than for those living in London estates. That's not a personal jibe or attack at you but I imagine perceptions of day to day life in affluent and wealthy London are much different to those in working class estates. I say this as someone whos best friend lives in London and at times seems to be in a bit of a bubble with their world view. The last paragraph I think is a fascinating topic to discuss and I swear there was a book or novel which was quite popular a few decades ago which sort of explores this type of dystopian future. I may be wrong though but I just have something in the corner of my brain which makes me think there was a popular book which would commonly be referenced when discussing this. Completely agree with that. There is no correlation between the voting intentions of people in First Past The Post elections and those held under PR. It is precisely why those who say Corbyn would have won the 2017 election if it were held under PR are plain wrong because voting intention changes dependent upon the voting system you use. I'm not sure I've heard that argument on Corbyn. I do think though had Reform/UKIP contested 650 seats like they did in 2024 which split the tory vote - then I think Corbyn would have won. He didn't because Farage and co. obviously feared it hench standing down most candidates off the back of their must successful election in history. If they feared a Starmer premiership I imagine they'd have done the same. But between Sunak with his announcement in the dark and in the rain for an election, then the trip to the titanic, the announcement of national service for teenagers out of the blue. And then Reform deciding they wanted to split the tory vote on as many seats as possible... You can see why someone like me feels it's a bit of a passing of the baton as I don't think there's much more the torys and reform could do between them to ensure a labour victory. Even Ed Davey was too busy making a montage from his summer scheme activities to put any real pressure on labour too. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 10:38:46 GMT
Trump’s victory reveals secret Republicans: Gen Z menDespite a conservative presidential platform of issuing mass-deportations, clamping down on women’s reproductive rights, and repealing protections for LGBTQ+ people, Trump made surprising gains within a generation known for its progressivism. It turns out, Gen Z, or at least some swaths of the generation, showed up for Trump on Election Day, helping cement his strong win over Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. Last election, President Joe Biden beat Trump by 11% among men aged under 30. This time around, Trump edged out Harris by 2 points, per NBC News exit polling. Trump also carries more favor when it comes to young women, as Biden’s 35-point lead shifted to only 24 points for Harris. Gen Z leaning Trump wasn’t anticipated, despite young men’s turn to conservatism being well-documented. Young registered voters reported to favor Harris (53%) over Trump (33%) respectively, according to a poll from Harvard Kennedy School of more than 2,000 undergraduate students. Her lead diminished to 9 points in key swing states. On Election Day, a different reality for young voters emerged.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 8, 2024 10:44:10 GMT
Only a triggered Oggy could go on a mad, angry, unhinged rant about Trump being evil and Keir Starmer being amazing and then accuse someone of being Mad Martha out of baby reindeer. It's actually one of the great oatcake meltdowns 😂😂 I rather fear that the only thing melting down here is the ice in your glass (or two) of whisky.... Oggy meltdowns vs Ariel Manto's double standards - People try and make comparisons, just enjoy 'em man. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 8, 2024 10:46:11 GMT
This thread has come a hell of a long way since its inception hasn't it? Only a triggered Oggy could go on a mad, angry, unhinged rant about Trump being evil and Keir Starmer being amazing and then accuse someone of being Mad Martha out of baby reindeer. It's actually one of the great oatcake meltdowns 😂😂 I don't want to play cod psychologist here and, even though I like a good heated debate and argument and probably go over the top sometimes, I genuinely don't dislike anyone based on a few messages on a virtual forum, but you do realise you have been melting down over Starmer for four months now right? |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 10:48:37 GMT
Completely agree with that. There is no correlation between the voting intentions of people in First Past The Post elections and those held under PR. It is precisely why those who say Corbyn would have won the 2017 election if it were held under PR are plain wrong because voting intention changes dependent upon the voting system you use. I'm not sure I've heard that argument on Corbyn. I do think though had Reform/UKIP contested 650 seats like they did in 2024 which split the tory vote - then I think Corbyn would have won. He didn't because Farage and co. obviously feared it hench standing down most candidates off the back of their must successful election in history. Oh I've read and heard plenty of debates about the correlation between voting intention and electoral system and you're absolutely spot on with your analysis of how voter intention works. If the 2017 election were held under PR, there's as much chance that traditional Labour voters in Liverpool and Manchester (by way of example) would have switched their vote to Liberal Democrat or Green to stop a Corbyn government as there is to say they would have voted for him precisely because of the reasons you gave - that it's the system rather than your beliefs which dictate the way in which you vote because you believe that in a FPTP system the best method is voting for what you call "the best option available". In a constituency where the FPTP choice of best option is predominantly binary (i.e. Labour to Tory, apart from very, very few constituencies) Labour voters vote Labour, Conservatives vote Conservative. Under PR, Labour voters can reasonably also vote Green, Liberal Democrat, Socialist Workers Party, SNP, etc. Similarly, Conservative voters can reasonably also vote for Reform, UKIP, etc. Of course, it's all very much dependent upon the PR system you implement. But nonetheless, as there is no measurable correlation between the voting intentions of people in First Past The Post elections to those held under PR, it is precisely why those who say Corbyn would have won the 2017 election if it were held under PR are plain wrong because voting intention demonstrably changes dependent upon the voting system you use. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 8, 2024 10:49:11 GMT
Socrates never wrote anything as he believed it was an ineffective means of communication so anything attributed to him was scribed by primarily Plato in his Dialogues but also Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Xenophon. If you compare their writings you will find contradictions of what they say he said. All very esoteric. Of course you have core beliefs and of course you believe them to be correct, anything else would be bizarre, that's hardly unique, so too do I have core beliefs as does everyone else, it doesn't make them more valid, just different based on our respective experience and opinions. You dismiss the concept of "the lesser of two evils" I prefer to use "the best option available" in the absence of a more suitable candidate. OK we disagree. An earlier post by Paul Spencer sums that up as far as I'm concerned when he highlighted the "missing" 15M Democratic Voters who disagreed with many of the Democrats policies who abstained but by default a person Trump whose policies they even more fundamentally disagree with is elected. That to me is perverse and to use another cliche "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" The World is about 4.5M years old my point was essentially it moves forward, I could debate your point that it has stalled in the last 10/30 years but even if I agree it is a very short period in the cycle. When you talk about "Rot" you concede with the better Candidate the "Rot" would be less, is your proposition therefore we should Elect the worst Candidates to accelerate the "Rot" to force change? With respect your final paragraph is talking about the existential existence of Humankind that is so far detached from the original discussion of whether to vote for a less ideal candidate is more favourable or not I'm not going to address it but if you wish start a thread and I will Ultimately though it's the system rather than your beliefs which dictate which way in which you vote because you believe that in a FPTP system the best method is voting for what you call "the best option available (out of those who may stand a chance)". Under a different system such as PR I think you would vote differently, and so it can be argued that you're voting pattern is very much influenced by the electoral system at play and that electoral system isn't going to change if we as a population keep doing what it's setup to do - electing two parties who benefit from it. In the most recent UK election, I feel that in comparison to americans, we actually have broken the mould a bit in the most recent election. As a result of that I think more people will now vote for who they want rather than "next best". When "next best" hasn't been delivering for the majority then people will continue to look and vote elsewhere. It very much depends who you're speaking to. Working class people expect to be represented and their quality of life to improve under what our media call "the left". In America we have had 12 out of 16 years of Democrat governance, similar to what we have had tory governance over the same period of time. If Democrats haven't improved the lives of working people in that time and they feel their quality of life has got worse then insanity is very much the defininition of repeating the same thing expecting different results. Just like many people have turned their back on the tories too by attributing their worsening quality of life with the party who has been in power. So when people are already on their knees and struggling and the party who is meant to be on their side hasn't made their lives better, don't be surprised when they're no longer qeueuing to vote for "the next best thing" when it's been tried and tested and not improved their lives. The world is incredibly old and that's why we shouldn't presume this "golden age" we have lived in is the norm when it's very much an anomaly in history. The norm is the direction I feel we're heading towards rather than what we're heading from. Of course the "rot" may not be as much but I still ultimately believe both options are heading in the same direction just at different paces with different diversions along the way. Everyone has their boiling point where they're no longer desensitised to their lives getting worse and I think for those in working class estates that time is coming much sooner than for those living in London estates. That's not a personal jibe or attack at you but I imagine perceptions of day to day life in affluent and wealthy London are much different to those in working class estates. I say this as someone whos best friend lives in London and at times seems to be in a bit of a bubble with their world view.* The last paragraph I think is a fascinating topic to discuss and I swear there was a book or novel which was quite popular a few decades ago which sort of explores this type of dystopian future. I may be wrong though but I just have something in the corner of my brain which makes me think there was a popular book which would commonly be referenced when discussing this. *That doesn't mean that I may not be living in a bubble with a detatched world view either. I just want to highlight this isn't me being personal in any way. I'm simply trying to highlight that depending on where you live your perceptions are going to be different and that goes for me too. And so those in London which is a very advanced city with loads on its door step and much better functioning public services than the rest of the uk - I imagine their perceptions are probably going to be better of the uk at the minute - than those living in a working class estate in Burnley. The underlined is arrogant and incorrect. The Candidates remain the same, the result may differ. The remainder is your opinion which I disagree with, but so what. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 8, 2024 10:50:54 GMT
Trump’s victory reveals secret Republicans: Gen Z menDespite a conservative presidential platform of issuing mass-deportations, clamping down on women’s reproductive rights, and repealing protections for LGBTQ+ people, Trump made surprising gains within a generation known for its progressivism. It turns out, Gen Z, or at least some swaths of the generation, showed up for Trump on Election Day, helping cement his strong win over Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. Last election, President Joe Biden beat Trump by 11% among men aged under 30. This time around, Trump edged out Harris by 2 points, per NBC News exit polling. Trump also carries more favor when it comes to young women, as Biden’s 35-point lead shifted to only 24 points for Harris. Gen Z leaning Trump wasn’t anticipated, despite young men’s turn to conservatism being well-documented. Young registered voters reported to favor Harris (53%) over Trump (33%) respectively, according to a poll from Harvard Kennedy School of more than 2,000 undergraduate students. Her lead diminished to 9 points in key swing states. On Election Day, a different reality for young voters emerged. its not really left v right though the republicans mantra is less laws and regulations by the federal goverment v democrats who like more federal governance its like abortion - Trumps personal opinion on abortion is sketchy at best but contradictive - however he believes its the individual states decision not federal government - thats very hard for the rest of the world to understand |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 10:58:20 GMT
Ultimately though it's the system rather than your beliefs which dictate which way in which you vote because you believe that in a FPTP system the best method is voting for what you call "the best option available (out of those who may stand a chance)". Under a different system such as PR I think you would vote differently, and so it can be argued that you're voting pattern is very much influenced by the electoral system at play and that electoral system isn't going to change if we as a population keep doing what it's setup to do - electing two parties who benefit from it. In the most recent UK election, I feel that in comparison to americans, we actually have broken the mould a bit in the most recent election. As a result of that I think more people will now vote for who they want rather than "next best". When "next best" hasn't been delivering for the majority then people will continue to look and vote elsewhere. It very much depends who you're speaking to. Working class people expect to be represented and their quality of life to improve under what our media call "the left". In America we have had 12 out of 16 years of Democrat governance, similar to what we have had tory governance over the same period of time. If Democrats haven't improved the lives of working people in that time and they feel their quality of life has got worse then insanity is very much the defininition of repeating the same thing expecting different results. Just like many people have turned their back on the tories too by attributing their worsening quality of life with the party who has been in power. So when people are already on their knees and struggling and the party who is meant to be on their side hasn't made their lives better, don't be surprised when they're no longer qeueuing to vote for "the next best thing" when it's been tried and tested and not improved their lives. The world is incredibly old and that's why we shouldn't presume this "golden age" we have lived in is the norm when it's very much an anomaly in history. The norm is the direction I feel we're heading towards rather than what we're heading from. Of course the "rot" may not be as much but I still ultimately believe both options are heading in the same direction just at different paces with different diversions along the way. Everyone has their boiling point where they're no longer desensitised to their lives getting worse and I think for those in working class estates that time is coming much sooner than for those living in London estates. That's not a personal jibe or attack at you but I imagine perceptions of day to day life in affluent and wealthy London are much different to those in working class estates. I say this as someone whos best friend lives in London and at times seems to be in a bit of a bubble with their world view.* The last paragraph I think is a fascinating topic to discuss and I swear there was a book or novel which was quite popular a few decades ago which sort of explores this type of dystopian future. I may be wrong though but I just have something in the corner of my brain which makes me think there was a popular book which would commonly be referenced when discussing this. *That doesn't mean that I may not be living in a bubble with a detatched world view either. I just want to highlight this isn't me being personal in any way. I'm simply trying to highlight that depending on where you live your perceptions are going to be different and that goes for me too. And so those in London which is a very advanced city with loads on its door step and much better functioning public services than the rest of the uk - I imagine their perceptions are probably going to be better of the uk at the minute - than those living in a working class estate in Burnley. The underlined is arrogant and incorrect. The Candidates remain the same, the result may differ. The remainder is your opinion which I disagree with, but so what. The point is that the electoral system changes how you vote. Under various PR systems the candidates don't remain the same. Under FPTP, the traditional Labour voter usually only gets a binary choice between Labour and another party. They aren't going to vote anything other than Labour Party because it may put the other party candidate in. You could be a traditional Labour voter now voting for a constituency party list system under PR, in which some Labour candidates (by way of example) are abhorrent to you for things they've done/not done locally. Suddenly, a traditional Labour voter can now reasonably vote Green, Liberal Democrat or whatever knowing that their vote gets counted and it is still a vote against the party they really dislike. Voting systems do change voting behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 8, 2024 10:58:32 GMT
Ultimately though it's the system rather than your beliefs which dictate which way in which you vote because you believe that in a FPTP system the best method is voting for what you call "the best option available (out of those who may stand a chance)". Under a different system such as PR I think you would vote differently, and so it can be argued that you're voting pattern is very much influenced by the electoral system at play and that electoral system isn't going to change if we as a population keep doing what it's setup to do - electing two parties who benefit from it. In the most recent UK election, I feel that in comparison to americans, we actually have broken the mould a bit in the most recent election. As a result of that I think more people will now vote for who they want rather than "next best". When "next best" hasn't been delivering for the majority then people will continue to look and vote elsewhere. It very much depends who you're speaking to. Working class people expect to be represented and their quality of life to improve under what our media call "the left". In America we have had 12 out of 16 years of Democrat governance, similar to what we have had tory governance over the same period of time. If Democrats haven't improved the lives of working people in that time and they feel their quality of life has got worse then insanity is very much the defininition of repeating the same thing expecting different results. Just like many people have turned their back on the tories too by attributing their worsening quality of life with the party who has been in power. So when people are already on their knees and struggling and the party who is meant to be on their side hasn't made their lives better, don't be surprised when they're no longer qeueuing to vote for "the next best thing" when it's been tried and tested and not improved their lives. The world is incredibly old and that's why we shouldn't presume this "golden age" we have lived in is the norm when it's very much an anomaly in history. The norm is the direction I feel we're heading towards rather than what we're heading from. Of course the "rot" may not be as much but I still ultimately believe both options are heading in the same direction just at different paces with different diversions along the way. Everyone has their boiling point where they're no longer desensitised to their lives getting worse and I think for those in working class estates that time is coming much sooner than for those living in London estates. That's not a personal jibe or attack at you but I imagine perceptions of day to day life in affluent and wealthy London are much different to those in working class estates. I say this as someone whos best friend lives in London and at times seems to be in a bit of a bubble with their world view.* The last paragraph I think is a fascinating topic to discuss and I swear there was a book or novel which was quite popular a few decades ago which sort of explores this type of dystopian future. I may be wrong though but I just have something in the corner of my brain which makes me think there was a popular book which would commonly be referenced when discussing this. *That doesn't mean that I may not be living in a bubble with a detatched world view either. I just want to highlight this isn't me being personal in any way. I'm simply trying to highlight that depending on where you live your perceptions are going to be different and that goes for me too. And so those in London which is a very advanced city with loads on its door step and much better functioning public services than the rest of the uk - I imagine their perceptions are probably going to be better of the uk at the minute - than those living in a working class estate in Burnley. The underlined is arrogant and incorrect. The Candidates remain the same, the result may differ. The remainder is your opinion which I disagree with, but so what. You literally said this a few posts back: "It's not unusual throughout life that most people are presented with two or more poor choices, the pragmatist chooses the least bad option" Why would a pragmatist vote the least bad option in STV for example over the best option? The electoral system very much influences how people vote and you've even argued this yourself in the below post. It isn't arrogant or incorrect to point out that the system at play influences how people vote. I've highlighted in bold where you have suggested voting patterns and results would change with a different electoral system. The way I see it is if 20 of us can't find common ground on things here then what chance do we have of the country agreeing. We need to try and find ways to agree or agree to disagree. I think it's unlikely anyone is going to change my opinion on Corbyn here. And similarly I don't think I'm gonna change others opinions on him either. The same goes for most topics. So the best we can hope for as humans is to find a compromise or at least agree to disagree. I agree with alot of your political views as you know but unfortunately half the country have opposite views :/ The best discussions we have on here is where we debate policies rather than people I think. And when we get into the nitty gritty sometimes some of us find compromise. And we get a bit of progression. I'm all about that common ground  I am a cunt though so please don't see me as some beacon of compromise because actions speak louder than words and I'm as guilty as anyone of being a prick. I'll jump in before Oggy gets here to address his favourite subject At the last Election The Conservatives received 43.6% of the Popular Vote and received a Landslide Victory. As a percentage of all Eligible Voters the figure is 29.3% It may be Democracy but is a strange form of it. Proportional Representation would tend to have Representation around the centre, but Minority Views having a voice.The usual argument against PR is that it brings about unstable Governments and usually Coalitions Can anyone seriously say we've had stable Government for the last 13 years or that many of the policies are favoured by a majority of the people? |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 11:03:24 GMT
Trump’s victory reveals secret Republicans: Gen Z menDespite a conservative presidential platform of issuing mass-deportations, clamping down on women’s reproductive rights, and repealing protections for LGBTQ+ people, Trump made surprising gains within a generation known for its progressivism. It turns out, Gen Z, or at least some swaths of the generation, showed up for Trump on Election Day, helping cement his strong win over Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. Last election, President Joe Biden beat Trump by 11% among men aged under 30. This time around, Trump edged out Harris by 2 points, per NBC News exit polling. Trump also carries more favor when it comes to young women, as Biden’s 35-point lead shifted to only 24 points for Harris. Gen Z leaning Trump wasn’t anticipated, despite young men’s turn to conservatism being well-documented. Young registered voters reported to favor Harris (53%) over Trump (33%) respectively, according to a poll from Harvard Kennedy School of more than 2,000 undergraduate students. Her lead diminished to 9 points in key swing states. On Election Day, a different reality for young voters emerged. its not really left v right though the republicans mantra is less laws and regulations by the federal goverment v democrats who like more federal governance its like abortion - Trumps personal opinion on abortion is sketchy at best but contradictive - however he believes its the individual states decision not federal government - thats very hard for the rest of the world to understand I don't personally think it is a left v right issue, but there is evidence to suggest that Gen Z males are usually more socially accepting and less socially conservative than their inter-generational electoral counterparts. I personally think the issue is less to do with that, and more to do with the fact that Harris didn't stand for anything at all in terms of a policy platform. When faced with two candidates, if one says absolutely nothing on policy and the other says too much but also has two ideas which really resonate (i.e. the economy and putting America first) it takes away difficult thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 8, 2024 11:10:04 GMT
its not really left v right though the republicans mantra is less laws and regulations by the federal goverment v democrats who like more federal governance its like abortion - Trumps personal opinion on abortion is sketchy at best but contradictive - however he believes its the individual states decision not federal government - thats very hard for the rest of the world to understand I don't personally think it is a left v right issue, but there is evidence to suggest that Gen Z males are usually more socially accepting and less socially conservative than their inter-generational electoral counterparts. I personally think the issue is less to do with that, and more to do with the fact that Harris didn't stand for anything at all in terms of a policy platform. When faced with two candidates, if one says absolutely nothing on policy and the other says too much but also has two ideas which really resonate (i.e. the economy and putting America first) it takes away difficult thinking. There's been research coming out for a few years that young people are continually being drawn to authoritarian leaders over more democratic processes - the article you posted seems in keeping with that trend. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 8, 2024 11:14:49 GMT
I have categorically NEVER asked you anything about your wank bank or about your childhood or your past therapy. Let's just hope the things never cross. You haven't. My point was around your criticism of my comment but you were happy to give Oggy a free pass on his comments around my "childhood" and "therapy". Would you agree you perhaps applied double standards there? 😊 As it happens I wasn't offended, but I just found your unashamedly biased post quite amusing. Besides, I'm used to Oggy's meltdowns and bizarre references when he gets triggered. I mean... He's still as bitter as he was 8 years ago over Brexit so I don't expect his emotional state to improve over Kamala's crushing defeat anytime soon. You tell him, Martha! |
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 8, 2024 11:16:42 GMT
I don't personally think it is a left v right issue, but there is evidence to suggest that Gen Z males are usually more socially accepting and less socially conservative than their inter-generational electoral counterparts. I personally think the issue is less to do with that, and more to do with the fact that Harris didn't stand for anything at all in terms of a policy platform. When faced with two candidates, if one says absolutely nothing on policy and the other says too much but also has two ideas which really resonate (i.e. the economy and putting America first) it takes away difficult thinking. There's been research coming out for a few years that young people are continually being drawn to authoritarian leaders over more democratic processes - the article you posted seems in keeping with that trend. Yes, true. There's also an increasing trend on "the left" at the moment to say as little as possible on policy in the hope that those on the right will say something stupid in the vacuum. It worked for Starmer to some extent, but Harris is the glaring example of what can go wrong - politics abhors a vacuum. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 8, 2024 11:17:18 GMT
The underlined is arrogant and incorrect. The Candidates remain the same, the result may differ. The remainder is your opinion which I disagree with, but so what. You literally said this a few posts back: "It's not unusual throughout life that most people are presented with two or more poor choices, the pragmatist chooses the least bad option" Why would a pragmatist vote the least bad option in STV for example over the best option? The electoral system very much influences how people vote and you've even argued this yourself in the below post. It isn't arrogant or incorrect to point out that the system at play influences how people vote. I've highlighted in bold where you have suggested voting patterns and results would change with a different electoral system. I'll jump in before Oggy gets here to address his favourite subject At the last Election The Conservatives received 43.6% of the Popular Vote and received a Landslide Victory. As a percentage of all Eligible Voters the figure is 29.3% It may be Democracy but is a strange form of it. Proportional Representation would tend to have Representation around the centre, but Minority Views having a voice.The usual argument against PR is that it brings about unstable Governments and usually Coalitions Can anyone seriously say we've had stable Government for the last 13 years or that many of the policies are favoured by a majority of the people? Surely it's not difficult to understand that if you have 5 Candidates none of which you find particularly appealing but you wish to register a vote you pick the least unappealing and Vote No 1 Under STV there is no requirement to then select your 2nd to 5th choices although you may. I'm not against a form of PR I was pointing out the flaw in your logic. In the above scenario my voting pattern hasn't changed as you said it would because there is no logic that it would. If other voters decide to fill their Bingo Card they don't change their first preference but may indicate their 2nd to 5th choices which may alter the result as I said. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 8, 2024 11:18:19 GMT
This thread has come a hell of a long way since its inception hasn't it? Only a triggered Oggy could go on a mad, angry, unhinged rant about Trump being evil and Keir Starmer being amazing and then accuse someone of being Mad Martha out of baby reindeer. It's actually one of the great oatcake meltdowns 😂😂 I haven’t done either of those things, but keep bringing up Starmer on unrelated topics and proving my point, Martha. |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 8, 2024 11:28:46 GMT
The underlined is arrogant and incorrect. The Candidates remain the same, the result may differ. The remainder is your opinion which I disagree with, but so what. The point is that the electoral system changes how you vote. Under various PR systems the candidates don't remain the same. Under FPTP, the traditional Labour voter usually only gets a binary choice between Labour and another party. They aren't going to vote anything other than Labour Party because it may put the other party candidate in. You could be a traditional Labour voter now voting for a constituency party list system under PR, in which some Labour candidates (by way of example) are abhorrent to you for things they've done/not done locally. Suddenly, a traditional Labour voter can now reasonably vote Green, Liberal Democrat or whatever knowing that their vote gets counted and it is still a vote against the party they really dislike. Voting systems do change voting behaviour. Under STV (which Gawa referenced in a previous post) which is used in Northern Ireland to elect MLAs voting patterns don't change but the result may Under the List System which was formerly used to Elect MEPs you Vote for a Party not a Candidate. I consider this system even less democratic than FPTP |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 8, 2024 11:30:35 GMT
Only a triggered Oggy could go on a mad, angry, unhinged rant about Trump being evil and Keir Starmer being amazing and then accuse someone of being Mad Martha out of baby reindeer. It's actually one of the great oatcake meltdowns 😂😂 I haven’t done either of those things, but keep bringing up Starmer on unrelated topics and proving my point, Martha. Martha needs to stay away from you I think! Oggy's wank bank doesn't sound too healthy. 🤢 |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 8, 2024 11:36:31 GMT
I haven’t done either of those things, but keep bringing up Starmer on unrelated topics and proving my point, Martha. Martha needs to stay away from you I think! Oggy's wank bank doesn't sound too healthy. 🤢 Have you guys considered getting a room? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 8, 2024 11:37:11 GMT
Martha needs to stay away from you I think! Oggy's wank bank doesn't sound too healthy. 🤢 Have you guys considered getting a room? He is the one who keeps bringing up wanking, not me! |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 8, 2024 11:40:53 GMT
Martha needs to stay away from you I think! Oggy's wank bank doesn't sound too healthy. 🤢 Have you guys considered getting a room? Oggy doesn't do rooms, he normally just sleeps outside parliament draped in his EU flag 😏 |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 8, 2024 11:41:10 GMT
Have you guys considered getting a room? He is the one who keeps bringing up wanking, not me! |
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Nov 8, 2024 11:45:55 GMT
Anybody see the 'family photo' of Trump? Musk was on it but no Melania. I always watch her body language when she's with 'hubby' and often it's not so subtle that she doesn't like him. When he pops his clogs, I can see hell up when they're squabbling over who inherits his assets. And I reckon at the next election we will see the beginning of a dynasty when his eldest son takes the reigns. I've little doubt Donald will already be setting things in motion. Not a pleasant thought.
OS.
|
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 8, 2024 11:49:59 GMT
Woke liberals Wednesday morning when Sky News reluctantly projects a Trump victory...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 8, 2024 12:50:18 GMT
Anybody see the 'family photo' of Trump? Musk was on it but no Melania. I always watch her body language when she's with 'hubby' and often it's not so subtle that she doesn't like him. When he pops his clogs, I can see hell up when they're squabbling over who inherits his assets. And I reckon at the next election we will see the beginning of a dynasty when his eldest son takes the reigns. I've little doubt Donald will already be setting things in motion. Not a pleasant thought. OS. Whenever I see them together I can't help thinking what kind of woman (presumably voluntarily) chooses to be with him and have his kids. Of course, it's possible, if highly unlikely, that Donald is entirely different outside public life. Reports would, of course, suggest that that isn't in fact the case and he's just as much of the arsehole everyone thinks he is even when 'off-duty'. Says a lot about Melania herself, I think, not much of it good. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 8, 2024 12:51:31 GMT
Anybody see the 'family photo' of Trump? Musk was on it but no Melania. I always watch her body language when she's with 'hubby' and often it's not so subtle that she doesn't like him. When he pops his clogs, I can see hell up when they're squabbling over who inherits his assets. And I reckon at the next election we will see the beginning of a dynasty when his eldest son takes the reigns. I've little doubt Donald will already be setting things in motion. Not a pleasant thought. OS. nothing the bushes, and kennedy's didnt do beforehand back on this forum in 2016 i suggested the dems needed to prepare for 8 years of trump and spend this time to get at least two credible candidates ready for 2024 (although they won unexpectedley in 2020 and now this loss) they still need to find these credible candidates these candidates need policies and a vision simply being "not trump" has proved it does not work |
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 8, 2024 12:53:31 GMT
Woke liberals Wednesday morning when Sky News reluctantly projects a Trump victory... Peace-loving, law-abiding, salt-of-the-earth, men-of-the-people Republicans some two months after all news media report a Biden victory...  |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Nov 8, 2024 12:59:31 GMT
The point is that the electoral system changes how you vote. Under various PR systems the candidates don't remain the same. Under FPTP, the traditional Labour voter usually only gets a binary choice between Labour and another party. They aren't going to vote anything other than Labour Party because it may put the other party candidate in. You could be a traditional Labour voter now voting for a constituency party list system under PR, in which some Labour candidates (by way of example) are abhorrent to you for things they've done/not done locally. Suddenly, a traditional Labour voter can now reasonably vote Green, Liberal Democrat or whatever knowing that their vote gets counted and it is still a vote against the party they really dislike. Voting systems do change voting behaviour. Under STV (which Gawa referenced in a previous post) which is used in Northern Ireland to elect MLAs voting patterns don't change but the result may Under the List System which was formerly used to Elect MEPs you Vote for a Party not a Candidate. I consider this system even less democratic than FPTP STV was introduced in Scotland in 2004. Here is the trend in Scottish elections since that introduction: 1999
Labour - 38.8% (Const vote) 33.6% (reg vote) (56 seats)
SNP - 28.7% (const vote) 27.3% (reg vote) (35 seats)
Tory - 15.6% (const vote) 15.4% (reg vote) (18 seats)
2003
Labour - 34.6% (const vote) 29.3% (reg vote) (50 seats)
SNP - 23.8% (const vote) 20.9% (reg vote) (27 seats)
Tory - 16.6% (const vote) 15.6% (reg vote) (18 seats)
STV introduced in Scottish Parliament for Elections
2007
SNP - 32.9% (const vote) 31.0% (reg vote)(47 seats)
Labour - 32.1% (cost vote) 29.2% (reg vote) (46 seats)
Tory - 16.6% (cost vote) 13.9% (reg vote) (17 seats)
2011
SNP - 45.4% (const vote) 44% (reg vote) (69 seats)
Labour - 31.7% (const vote) 26.3% (reg vote) (37 seats)
Tory - 13.9% (const vote) 12.4% (reg vote) (15 seats)
2016
SNP - 46.5% (const vote) 41.7% (reg vote) (63 seats)
Labour - 22.6% (const vote) 19.1% (reg vote) (24 seats)
Tory - 22% (const vote) 22.9% (reg vote) (31 seats)
2021
SNP - 47.7% (const vote) 40.3% (reg vote) (64 seats)
Labour - 21.6% (const vote) 17.9% (reg vote) (22 seats)
Tory - 21.9% (const vote) 23.5% (reg vote) (31 seats)
Pre STV average:
Labour - 36.7% (const vote) 31.5% (reg vote)
SNP - 26.3% (const vote) 24.1% (reg vote)
Tory - 16.1% (const vote) 15.5% (reg vote)
Post STV average:
Labour - 26.8% (const vote) 23.1% (reg vote)
SNP - 43.1% (const vote) 39.3% (reg vote)
Tory - 18.6% (const vote) 18.2% (reg vote) One massive noticeable difference after the change was the difference between the local gov STV elections and the national FPTP elections. In 2005 with FPTP only 17.7% voting SNP but with STV in 2007 32.9% (const) voted SNP. In 2010 with FPTP only 19.9% voted SNP but with STV in 2011 47.7% (const) voted SNP. Then it was at this point that the Scottish electorate realised that the only thing which was keeping them voting for Labour in national elections was the FPTP system created to keep people in this binary "next best thing" mindset. Once the people realised this, the trends which seen more people vote SNP in STV because it wasn't "wasted" were then replicated into national elections. And that's when the government realised that they need to up their ante on their smear campaigns and the SNP Alex Salmond received the same fate as what was to meet Jeremy Corbyn a few years later with the assistance of course from a very complicit media too who are well documented with their bias against the SNP*. I have no doubt that those in Scotland will continue along the same trajectory they have done since STV was introduced in 2004 which is rejecting this two party system of voting for different clowns from the same circus, and instead voting for parties who represent their values and beliefs. *Also just like the labour party it's worth highlighting an Alex Salmond led SNP is different from a Swinney/Sturgeon one. Just like a Starmer Labour compared to a Corbyn Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 8, 2024 13:05:12 GMT
Anybody see the 'family photo' of Trump? Musk was on it but no Melania. I always watch her body language when she's with 'hubby' and often it's not so subtle that she doesn't like him. When he pops his clogs, I can see hell up when they're squabbling over who inherits his assets. And I reckon at the next election we will see the beginning of a dynasty when his eldest son takes the reigns. I've little doubt Donald will already be setting things in motion. Not a pleasant thought. OS. Whenever I see them together I can't help thinking what kind of woman (presumably voluntarily) chooses to be with him and have his kids. Of course, it's possible, if highly unlikely, that Donald is entirely different outside public life. Reports would, of course, suggest that that isn't in fact the case and he's just as much of the arsehole everyone thinks he is even when 'off-duty'. Says a lot about Melania herself, I think, not much of it good. Money smooths a lot of these things over. She probably barely sees him. |
|
