[Closed] Democracy ?

Because you don't vote for deputy pm's, ministers etc (or even the prime minister, in reality). They're appointed at the discretion of the pm.
All you vote for is your local mp.

Cameron and Clegg in unelected leader shock!

(yep, like you say same as every other PM and deputy PM)

It's called proportional representation isn't it?

how is it that more than 75% of voters didnt vote lib dem

64% of people didn't vote Tory, but Cameron is PM. What's your point?

lib dem MP's make up 39% of the coalition

we the people voted for the MP's who made the laws which allow this

DemoCrazy isn't it?

roblerner - Member
how is it that more than 75% of voters didnt vote lib dem
64% of people didn't vote Tory, but Cameron is PM. What's your point?

It's actually more like 70 odd % didn't vote tory because not everyone voted.

lol @ statistics being quoted

It's actually more like 70 odd % didn't vote tory because not everyone voted.

The opinion of those that didn't vote is irrelevant. By not casting their vote, they removed themselves from the democratic process and thereby cancelled all right to comment on the proceedings.

[i]By not casting their vote, they removed themselves from the democratic process and thereby cancelled all right to comment on the proceedings. [/i]

I'm interested, where are all these non-voters commenting on things?

The reasons why have been explained in various media over the last week or so...

Personally, I am bitterly opposed to the ridiculous political system in this country. It is steeped in out dated principles and symbolism and gravitates against progress. In particular I utterly reject and despise the class system as personified by the aristocracy and Royal Family........

However, I am prepared to hold fire on the revolution and give the current situation a chance. It is just possible that we might be seeing the beginning of something new, although I would be much more likely to believe it were the vested interests that are so obvious on the PM’s side of the fence not so entrenched in that aristocratic background of his.

Jury out, sitting on fence commenced

Berm Bandit - what would you propose as an alternative to the existing political system?

It's not the govt that I wanted but it's the only time that I've ever known a govt where the majority of the public have at least a representation of the party that they voted for.

I hope that this is how it will be from now on.

The Constitutional Unambiguosness National Taskforce is hopelessly over-stretched. My men have been working around the clock for weeks trying to de-mystify something that really isn't very complicated at all. They desperately need more and better leaflets, and possibly some more helicopters.

I think that the Directorate Institute of Constitutional unKonfusioningness might need to get together with the Constitutional Unambiguosness National Taskforce to give birth to better public understanding.

64% of people didn't vote Tory, but Cameron is PM.

Or by CaptJon's preferred method of counting, 78% of the electorate didn't vote Labour.

It's actually more like 70 odd % didn't vote tory because not everyone voted.

Should be 70 odd % of those that voted in this election.

I'm guessing everybody missed the fact that in 2005 65% didn't vote Labour, yet Blair ended up as PM without having anybody holding his hand.

Or by CaptJon's preferred method of counting, 78% of the electorate didn't vote Labour.

Correct, shows you how p*ss poor the system is.

Berm Bandit - what would you propose as an alternative to the existing political system?

Well, PR. Obviously. 🙄

Under the current system, the following could happen:

Party A win 326 seats, by just one vote in each constituency, with a very small turnout.
Party B win 324 seats by a landslide, with 100% turnout in every constituency.
Party A form a government, with a much smaller share of the vote than Party B.

(Equally, the Queen might decide Party B can form a government.)

PR- the system which will result in none of the voters ever getting what they voted for?

I've been having a good laugh at the LibDem voters coming on the radio complaining that they didn't vote for a Tory government. What exactly did they think they were voting for? Did they not listen to what their leader said during the election campaign? Do they not understand what their party's principle policy will lead to?

(Equally, the Queen might decide Party B can form a government.)

Surely people actually understand this stuff by now?

geetee1972 - Member
Berm Bandit - what would you propose as an alternative to the existing political system?

A modern democracy, preferably with an elected Head of State, no hereditary peers and a limitation on how long any one person can be an MP.

Pretty much seeking to bring the best brains in the country into the government.

Oh yeah and PR obviously.

"The opinion of those that didn't vote is irrelevant. By not casting their vote, they removed themselves from the democratic process and thereby cancelled all right to comment on the proceedings."

With a 10,000 con majority for umpteen years you can kinda see why some people might not bother.

Actually, no she can't. She doesn't have that sort of decision making power. Party A would win a Queen's speech vote, Party B would lose one, hence Party A's leader is the only plausible choice.

Surely people actually understand this stuff by now

i'm 99% bored of it all 😉

t'is all very daft tho

equally 56.8% of people didn't vote for Labour in 1997 but they got a landslide 418 seats (out of 659), but this time around 59.1% of voters did vote for one of the parties in government who amassed a total of only 363 seats (out of 649, with 1 seat vacant), which is not excessively past the winning post.
OK I know that 59% didn't vote for a ConLib coalition, but it's interesting and rare that a majority of voters have their choice in power (sort of).

Berm Bandit - Member
Personally, I am bitter

Fixed that for you.

As to the system - it's not that complicated. Not enough people voted tory, so they have to get other people on their side. Simples. 59% voted for lib dem or tory, so that's what we got.

Fail to see the problem here. Re-hashing the stats and reprhasing sentences doesn't make any difference. In any case, you all knew the rules so either STFU or all vote lib dem next time to back PR.

Its also why a "none of the above" box on the ballot paper would be a very meaningful addition. Personally I live in a tory very safe seat, and generally spoil my ballot paper, because I want to register an interest in the process, but cannot bring myself to vote for any of the candidates. Frequently my preferred option do not even waste money on putting up a candidate.

I've been having a good laugh at the LibDem voters coming on the radio complaining that they didn't vote for a Tory government.

It's great, equal to having a laugh at how compromised the Tories are having to rely on the Libdems for a majority.

I actually find the regional variation of voting patterns really quite disturbing.

Torys virtually all representation in the shire counties in england. One MP from Scotland and under 20% of the vote.

labour - almost all urban areas especially in the north of england

Lib dems - peripheral rural areas

This is a country divided.

[img] [/img]

molgrips - Member

Berm Bandit - Member
Personally, I am bitter

More sad that folk such as yourself cannot see through the con that has been perpetuated in this country for generation upon generation rather than bitter. Curiously I really hope that Clegg and Cameron deliver, but I am sorry to say that is hope rather than expectation.

What would be particularly interesting is if you could overlay a map of the UK similarly coded for tax revenues, i.e. net tax contributions per head of population, using the constituency boundries as a guide.
You could probably also do the same thing for employees in the public sector and get a similar picture.

Well clearly not you.

More sad that folk such as yourself cannot see

Take off your forum prejudice glasses for a minute mate.. I was making a joke there.

I am absolutely in favour of PR or even RON, I do not believe the current system is anything like as representative as it should be. I agree with you mostly except.. well... the strident even vitriolic tone of many of your and others posts is wearing thin.. sorry..

Can we not have relaxed sensible debate instead of all this hot air? Not meaning to be insulting or offensive.. just a constructive suggestion?

OK, so explain to me what's wrong with my analysis, Junkyard.

Isn't this precisely why we need a clear written constitution??

Incidentally anyone know any good reason not to have one?

So TJ, along with an independent Scotland, you'd also suggest a Rural Parliament and an Urban Assembly?

Is the distribution of seats really a big shock? Why are voters in Scotland any more disenfranchised than Labour voters in rural England? Or indeed BNP voters?

Isn't this precisely why we need a clear written constitution??

aracer - Member

So TJ, along with an independent Scotland, you'd also suggest a Rural Parliament and an Urban Assembly?

Is the distribution of seats really a big shock? Why are voters in Scotland any more disenfranchised than Labour voters in rural England? Or indeed BNP voters?

I really have no answer to this - but I think that map shows clearly a divided country and my impression is this is more polarised than it was a generation ago.

it cannot be good for the UK to have this massive divide

geetee1972 - Member
The opinion of those that didn't vote is irrelevant. By not casting their vote, they removed themselves from the democratic process and thereby cancelled all right to comment on the proceedings.

That is a ludicrous argument and i still can't believe there was an advert which tried to disseminate that point of view.

For many people not voting is part of the political process and an expression of their opinion. Moreover, none voters still pay tax and still receive public services in return. Just because they didn't vote doesn't mean they can't comment on thing they paid for and use.

The problem lies with those idle people who didn't vote, those who voted, for whatever party, had a fair idea that a hung parliament would result, so in effect the voting population got the govt we deserved.

how is it that more than 75% of voters didnt vote lib dem,
more than 90% of mp's ar'nt lib dem,and yet good ole Nicky boy can end up deputy head.
im neither here nor there about the situation,its probably a good thing,
i just find it ironic that a Democrat holds a very promonent position,when nobody really wants him.

The other 60 million of us got together and decided to fix it this way just to annoy you.

When you say "nobody really wants him"... well I do. Personally I think the current solution is the best we could have hoped for given the outcome.

I have to say that I also find the "I didn't vote Lib Dem to get Tory" bleating a bit pathetic.

Look at it the other way. If you hadn't voted Lib Dem, you'd probably still have got Tory, but Tory in with the right wing of their party wielding a lot more power.

Grown ups get by by making compromises.

Doesn't matter who you voted for, Murdoch and his mates are the real government....

Which would simply write down the way it currently works.

Given that it is so obvious and clear, could you please explain to me in detail how the system works then or even how I am supposed to find out? And how are the electorate supposed to know in advance of an election, when even the commentators and politicians aren't clear on it?

Any chance that might impact on how people chose to vote?

You think a constitution would explain all that? See if you can find the bit about hanging chads in the US constitution.

right place.
im not annoyed mate,i just find it intriguing that the lib dems got to affect the government,when, by their own admission had a disappointing initial election result.
im hoping to be pleasently suprised with what they can come up with,
if its 'responsibility and radicalism' then im all for that,but then not too happy if the middle earners are gonna get smacked for more tax.
it looks like NI contributions are going to rise,even though David said they would'nt increase them.
im happy we now have two intelligent individuals, in Clegg and Cable, in the mix, they appear honest and will answer questions,,it will be interesting to see if that last's.