Conquer Club

Results from today's British elections.

Percentage share of the vote:

Conservatives: 37%
Labour: 31%
UKIP: 13%
Liberal Democrats: 8%
SNP: 5%
Green Party: 4%
Plaid Cymru: 1%
Other: 1%

Percentage share of seats in Parliament:

Conservatives: 50.9%
Labour: 35.6%
SNP: 8.6%
Liberal Democrats: 1.2%
Plaid Cymru: 0.4%
UKIP: 0.1%
Green Party: 0.1%
Other: 2.9%

Western democracies - truly governments by the people, for the people!

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32633099

mrswdk wrote:Results from today's British elections.

Percentage share of the vote:

Conservatives: 37%
Labour: 31%
UKIP: 13%
Liberal Democrats: 8%
SNP: 5%
Green Party: 4%
Plaid Cymru: 1%
Other: 1%

Percentage share of seats in Parliament:

Conservatives: 50.9%
Labour: 35.6%
SNP: 8.6%
Liberal Democrats: 1.2%
Plaid Cymru: 0.4%
UKIP: 0.1%
Green Party: 0.1%
Other: 2.9%

Western democracies - truly governments by the people, for the people!

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32633099

Don't generalize. That's just the anglo-saxon system. Not all western democracies have the same type of democracy.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Results from today's British elections.

Percentage share of the vote:

Conservatives: 37%
Labour: 31%
UKIP: 13%
Liberal Democrats: 8%
SNP: 5%
Green Party: 4%
Plaid Cymru: 1%
Other: 1%

Percentage share of seats in Parliament:

Conservatives: 50.9%
Labour: 35.6%
SNP: 8.6%
Liberal Democrats: 1.2%
Plaid Cymru: 0.4%
UKIP: 0.1%
Green Party: 0.1%
Other: 2.9%

Western democracies - truly governments by the people, for the people!

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32633099

Don't generalize. That's just the anglo-saxon system. Not all western democracies have the same type of democracy.

All have the same system...

As long as you dont consider nonvoters as valid "none of the proposed" votes you will have the numbers mrswdk presented. Only that is democracy.

It's the nature of the first-past-the-post system. Alberta just had a provincial election with similar results:

Percentage of General Vote:

NDP: 40.6%
Wildrose: 24.2%
PC: 27.8%
Liberal: 4.2%
Alberta Party: 2.3%
Other: 0.9%

Percentage of Seats in the Legislative Assembly:

NDP: 86.6%
Wildrose: 24.1%
PC: 11.5%
Liberal: 1.1%
Alberta Party: 1.1%
Other: 0%

[note: there is one seat that has yet to be determined because it resulted in a tie in the initial count]

As with yours, it goes to show that having two parties split the vote gives the top party a significant boost.

mrswdk wrote:Results from today's British elections.

Percentage share of the vote:

Conservatives: 37%
Labour: 31%
UKIP: 13%
Liberal Democrats: 8%
SNP: 5%
Green Party: 4%
Plaid Cymru: 1%
Other: 1%

Percentage share of seats in Parliament:

Conservatives: 50.9%
Labour: 35.6%
SNP: 8.6%
Liberal Democrats: 1.2%
Plaid Cymru: 0.4%
UKIP: 0.1%
Green Party: 0.1%
Other: 2.9%

Western democracies - truly governments by the people, for the people!

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32633099

If it were proportional representation, there'd be a Conservative-UKIP-DUP coalition and Britain would not only be about to quit the EU, but maybe also lob a few cruise missiles at Lille on its way out. The EU should be shitting itself right now about giving the UK the sweetest possible deal to keep the referendum from passing; fortunately for whomever replaces Farage, Juncker isn't smart enough to come up with one.

First-past-the-post has always been a dumb system.

We don't worry about it because elections are irrelevant in any case.

The ruling party, no matter who they are, will steal as much money as they can. The amount is limited by a natural function with the strangely-appropriate name of "Laffer Curve" and has little to do with elections.

Having stolen the money, they will spend it on whichever pork barrel scheme will give them the best bang for their buck. If they're right wingers, they'll feed it to their friends who sell military hardware, bomb third-world countries, and hire more thugs to "fight crime" by beating up kids for smoking some ganja on the beach. If they're left-wingers, they'll build big projects, allegedly for the homeless, and then rent out low-rent apartments to people who handed out pamphlets during the campaign, while the real homeless remain homeless. If they're greens, they'll hand out big contracts to their mafia friends to haul cardboard from one place to another in the name of recycling, while there is no net benefit for the environment, but plenty of photo ops for politicians standing beside nice new garbage trucks.

In the end, we don't worry about the fact that the political system is stupid because the political system really makes little difference. Meaningful progress is achieved by private entities. My quality of life is impacted far more by my choice for grocer than my choice for prime minister.

GoranZ wrote:

waauw wrote:Don't generalize. That's just the anglo-saxon system. Not all western democracies have the same type of democracy.

All have the same system...

As long as you dont consider nonvoters as valid "none of the proposed" votes you will have the numbers mrswdk presented. Only that is democracy.

Don't act purposely ignorant. Once you go into the details, democratic systems can vary widely.
example: the british have a winner takes all system, my country doesn't
example: the british are a constitutional monarchy, the french are a republic
example: in most of europe ministries are subject to parliamentary confidence, in the US the secretaries of state are not
etc.

Dukasaur wrote:First-past-the-post has always been a dumb system.

The ruling party, no matter who they are, will steal as much money as they can. The amount is limited by a natural function with the strangely-appropriate name of "Laffer Curve" and has little to do with elections.

Having stolen the money, they will spend it on whichever pork barrel scheme will give them the best bang for their buck. If they're right wingers, they'll feed it to their friends who sell military hardware, bomb third-world countries, and hire more thugs to "fight crime" by beating up kids for smoking some ganja on the beach. If they're left-wingers, they'll build big projects, allegedly for the homeless, and then rent out low-rent apartments to people who handed out pamphlets during the campaign, while the real homeless remain homeless. If they're greens, they'll hand out big contracts to their mafia friends to haul cardboard from one place to another in the name of recycling, while there is no net benefit for the environment, but plenty of photo ops for politicians standing beside nice new garbage trucks.

In the end, we don't worry about the fact that the political system is stupid because the political system really makes little difference. Meaningful progress is achieved by private entities. My quality of life is impacted far more by my choice for grocer than my choice for prime minister.

lol sad but true

The bigger facade has nothing to do with the proportional representation. The bigger facade is how voters routinely answer in polls that they don't like negative campaigns, yet in this election and in others negative campaigns are effective. Therefore, voters are shown to lie in polls and therefore the polls can't be trusted.

Another facade is how you are technically voting for a candidate but everybody votes for parties, including getting a 20 year old student elected for the SNP. The riding system is so bad in so many ways. Voters are irresponsible people.

What is democracy really?
How should democracy distribute among a population of non uniform density?
How should democracy distribute among a population divided into non uniform civil entities?

There is an assumption here that the micro populations should be proportionally represented in the macro populations. Depending on the system used this is not often the case. This does not mean that democracy has failed because democracy means the rule by the majority and when there is no one with anything close to a clear majority the definitions are hard to maintain in the absolute.

No system really gives "better" results. You just have to make the rules and then follow them no matter what the results are.

saxitoxin wrote:If it were proportional representation, there'd be a Conservative-UKIP-DUP coalition and Britain would not only be about to quit the EU, but maybe also lob a few cruise missiles at Lille on its way out. The EU should be shitting itself right now about giving the UK the sweetest possible deal to keep the referendum from passing; fortunately for whomever replaces Farage, Juncker isn't smart enough to come up with one.

There is a reason why in europe people talk about the French-German power axis and not the French-German-British axis. That's because the british have very different opinions from continental europe. And they are portrayed as such. Constantly in the media they are described as 'the ones who are sabotaging everything' by contradicting the others. Believe me when I say the british would not be missed and they will not receive their 'privileged treatment' as they demand it. It would be very hard to sell to the rest of europe and the politicians are informed enough to know who stands stronger in the negotiating seat.

tzor wrote:This does not mean that democracy has failed because democracy means the rule by the majority and when there is no one with anything close to a clear majority the definitions are hard to maintain in the absolute.

The definition is not hard to maintain at all. If the system allows it, you just join hands with other parties to form a government.

waauw wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:If it were proportional representation, there'd be a Conservative-UKIP-DUP coalition and Britain would not only be about to quit the EU, but maybe also lob a few cruise missiles at Lille on its way out. The EU should be shitting itself right now about giving the UK the sweetest possible deal to keep the referendum from passing; fortunately for whomever replaces Farage, Juncker isn't smart enough to come up with one.

There is a reason why in europe people talk about the French-German power axis and not the French-German-British axis. That's because the british have very different opinions from continental europe. And they are portrayed as such. Constantly in the media they are described as 'the ones who are sabotaging everything' by contradicting the others. Believe me when I say the british would not be missed and they will not receive their 'privileged treatment' as they demand it. It would be very hard to sell to the rest of europe and the politicians are informed enough to know who stands stronger in the negotiating seat.

I give the EU five years of life if the UK exits. Then it falls apart and Europeans go back to bombing the shit out of each other.

But the U.S. will never let the UK leave the EU, even if it has to wiretap the phone of every single anti-EU campaigner in the country. The Americans have invested too much on their British Trojan Horse to get it stuck outside the wall by something silly like an election.

saxitoxin wrote:

waauw wrote:I give the EU five years of life if the UK exits. Then it falls apart and Europeans go back to bombing the shit out of each other.

But the U.S. will never let the UK leave the EU, even if it has to wiretap the phone of every single anti-EU campaigner in the country. The Americans have invested too much on their British Trojan Horse to get it stuck outside the wall by something silly like an election.

I disagree, I don't think the UK is the right country to make everything fall apart. The UK leaving isn't surprising enough imo.
Even Spain or Italy leaving would have a profoundly stronger impact on european politics than the UK. Because then the media would portray it as the people rising up against the EU.
With the UK it's just "Oooh it's the british acting all haughty again".

waauw wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

waauw wrote:I give the EU five years of life if the UK exits. Then it falls apart and Europeans go back to bombing the shit out of each other.

But the U.S. will never let the UK leave the EU, even if it has to wiretap the phone of every single anti-EU campaigner in the country. The Americans have invested too much on their British Trojan Horse to get it stuck outside the wall by something silly like an election.

I disagree, I don't think the UK is the right country to make everything fall apart. The UK leaving isn't surprising enough imo.
Even Spain or Italy leaving would have a profoundly stronger impact on european politics than the UK. Because then the media would portray it as the people rising up against the EU.
With the UK it's just "Oooh it's the british acting all haughty again".

You might be right. I see a British exit as being a huge boon for Alternative for Germany by showing that departure is more than a theoretical possibility. And the next Bundestag elections should come right after the UK referendum.

Also, why do all Belgians speak such good English? I have never heard betiko use a word like haughty. I've never even heard AoG say haughty.

saxitoxin wrote:You might be right. I see a British exit as being a huge boon for Alternative for Germany by showing that departure is more than a theoretical possibility. And the next Bundestag elections should come right after the UK referendum.

Also, why do all Belgians speak such good English? I have never heard betiko use a word like haughty. I've never even heard AoG say haughty.

It would indeed strengthen the France-Germany axis even more, whom will have to deal with even less opposition.

As for my english, not al belgians speak english as well as me. The southern part of the country, Wallony, where people speak french is notoriously bad at it. The advantage of growing up speaking a minor language like dutch is that it's too small to be significant. Big languages are self-sufficient. You can manage well on the internet speaking only french or german. Both languages have a strong literary history(mostly France). Both dub american movies into their own languages. But in Flanders and the Netherlands all movies are merely subbed and we still hear everything in english. The internet is extremely limited when you can only research in dutch. And if you like reading fantasy/science-fiction novels, well... there are no great dutch fantasy/science-fiction novels. Believe me when I tell you, you can walk in any city in Flanders or the Netherlands and ask a question in english and most people will gladly respond to you in english. I presume the same is true for countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.

waauw wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:You might be right. I see a British exit as being a huge boon for Alternative for Germany by showing that departure is more than a theoretical possibility. And the next Bundestag elections should come right after the UK referendum.

Also, why do all Belgians speak such good English? I have never heard betiko use a word like haughty. I've never even heard AoG say haughty.

It would indeed strengthen the France-Germany axis even more, whom will have to deal with even less opposition.

No, I mean the anti-EU German political party, Alternative for Germany. I once went to their website and saw "Shop!" and thought, great I can get an Alternative for Germany t-shirt or something. That would be fun. But all they sell in their online shop are light bulbs. How strange is that? I understand the point - they're light bulbs that have been banned by Brussels, but still, wouldn't they make more money selling t-shirt or maybe a nice fleece pull-over?

waauw wrote:As for my english, not al belgians speak english as well as me. The southern part of the country, Wallony, where people speak french is notoriously bad at it. The advantage of growing up speaking a minor language like dutch is that it's too small to be significant. Big languages are self-sufficient. You can manage well on the internet speaking only french or german. Both languages have a strong literary history(mostly France). Both dub american movies into their own languages. But in Flanders and the Netherlands all movies are merely subbed and we still hear everything in english. The internet is extremely limited when you can only research in dutch. And if you like reading fantasy/science-fiction novels, well... there are no great dutch fantasy/science-fiction novels. Believe me when I tell you, you can walk in any city in Flanders or the Netherlands and ask a question in english and most people will gladly respond to you in english. I presume the same is true for countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.

That's interesting. I know a French-speaking Belgian girl who tells me that all the Flemish are extremely rude to Franophones and she has to speak English if she's in the north to be treated well. Is that true or just French whining?

She's very hot, by the way - blonde and leggy - but she has a swarthy Arab boyfriend. She speaks English with a slight Belgian accent ... people always ask her if she's from Florida.

saxitoxin wrote:No, I mean the anti-EU German political party, Alternative for Germany. I once went to their website and saw "Shop!" and thought, great I can get an Alternative for Germany t-shirt or something. That would be fun. But all they sell in their online shop are light bulbs. How strange is that? Who would go to a political party's website to buy light bulbs?

loooool, have not heard about that. It is funny indeed however.

saxitoxin wrote:That's interesting. I know a French-speaking Belgian girl who tells me that all the Flemish are extremely rude to Frenophones and she has to speak English if she's in the north to be treated well. Is that true or just French whining?

I guess that depends on who you talk to. Personally I have no trouble talking french with people. The problem is however that most flemish people speak english better than they speak french. After all the english language is ubiquitous and the french language is restricted by law. It's mostly the far-right that hates walloons. Most far right-voters think we'd be better off without the walloons. Flanders is amongst the wealthiest regions in europe, while Wallony is no richer than poland.

short history lesson:
The strife between walloons and the flemish goes back at least 200 years. French was the language of the Bourgeoisie, the wealthy. Even in Flanders the bourgeois spoke french and as always the wealthy tried to push the poor into submission. So from the flemish point of view back then the french speakers pushed the flemish speakers into submission. After WWI the flemish raised a monument called the 'ijzertoren'(=iron tower) in symbolism for the fallen flemish soldiers whom were given insufficient credit as all officers were french speakers. Only they were wealthy enough to send their kids to military academy. The first thing some pompous bourgeois did was blow it to smithereens with a cannon. In the course of decades flemish nationalism started to radicalize even to the point of collaborating with the nazi's. After WWII there was strong oppression towards any type of nationalism, however even that does not wipe out a historically rooted sentiment. So naturally nationalism rose up again. More and more language barriers started to be constructed into the law, further entrenching linguistic hatred. And by now the positions have turned and it's now Wallony that is poor and Flanders that is rich, something flemish people dont hesitate to tell walloons unfortunately.

waauw wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

waauw wrote:Don't generalize. That's just the anglo-saxon system. Not all western democracies have the same type of democracy.

All have the same system...

As long as you dont consider nonvoters as valid "none of the proposed" votes you will have the numbers mrswdk presented. Only that is democracy.

Don't act purposely ignorant. Once you go into the details, democratic systems can vary widely.
example: the british have a winner takes all system, my country doesn't
example: the british are a constitutional monarchy, the french are a republic
example: in most of europe ministries are subject to parliamentary confidence, in the US the secretaries of state are not
etc.

The outcome is the same... Some votes, including those that didn't voted are discarded. That is not Democracy, that is Capitalism and fake propaganda of Democracy.

waauw wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:You might be right. I see a British exit as being a huge boon for Alternative for Germany by showing that departure is more than a theoretical possibility. And the next Bundestag elections should come right after the UK referendum.

Also, why do all Belgians speak such good English? I have never heard betiko use a word like haughty. I've never even heard AoG say haughty.

It would indeed strengthen the France-Germany axis even more, whom will have to deal with even less opposition.

As for my english, not al belgians speak english as well as me. The southern part of the country, Wallony, where people speak french is notoriously bad at it. The advantage of growing up speaking a minor language like dutch is that it's too small to be significant. Big languages are self-sufficient. You can manage well on the internet speaking only french or german. Both languages have a strong literary history(mostly France). Both dub american movies into their own languages. But in Flanders and the Netherlands all movies are merely subbed and we still hear everything in english. The internet is extremely limited when you can only research in dutch. And if you like reading fantasy/science-fiction novels, well... there are no great dutch fantasy/science-fiction novels. Believe me when I tell you, you can walk in any city in Flanders or the Netherlands and ask a question in english and most people will gladly respond to you in english. I presume the same is true for countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.

Even Maurice Maeterlinck wrote in French.

tzor wrote:democracy means the rule by the majority and when there is no one with anything close to a clear majority the definitions are hard to maintain in the absolute.

Wrong and wrong.

Democracy means that everyone in that society gets a say in the decisions about how their country is run.

Germany has not once had a majority government since the fall of Hitler. I'm not sure about how long it's been for the Netherlands but coalition governments seem to be the norm there as well. A clear majority is not at all necessary.

waauw wrote:The definition is not hard to maintain at all. If the system allows it, you just join hands with other parties to form a government.

But once again, the purpose of a democracy is government by the "people." When leaders start horse trading to see which collective of minority parties is in charge it starts to become less of the government of the "people" and more of the government of the "horse traders." Let's look at the basic definitions of democracy from Wikipedia ...

Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) " a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

Now does such horse trading result in true democracy, the "rule of the majority" (majority of what ... the majority of the people or the delegates)? Sometimes this is not the case, politicians will sacrifice the will of the people who voted for them in order to get a seat as a minor minister. Note I'm not saying outright that it is no longer a democracy but that it can easily slip from its purest form.

mrswdk wrote:

tzor wrote:democracy means the rule by the majority and when there is no one with anything close to a clear majority the definitions are hard to maintain in the absolute.

Wrong and wrong.

In my previous post I cited Wikipedia which cited Democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Webster says I am right. Webster is always right.

tzor wrote:

waauw wrote:The definition is not hard to maintain at all. If the system allows it, you just join hands with other parties to form a government.

But once again, the purpose of a democracy is government by the "people." When leaders start horse trading to see which collective of minority parties is in charge it starts to become less of the government of the "people" and more of the government of the "horse traders." Let's look at the basic definitions of democracy from Wikipedia ...

Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) " a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

Now does such horse trading result in true democracy, the "rule of the majority" (majority of what ... the majority of the people or the delegates)? Sometimes this is not the case, politicians will sacrifice the will of the people who voted for them in order to get a seat as a minor minister. Note I'm not saying outright that it is no longer a democracy but that it can easily slip from its purest form.

in a democratic system where votes are counted proportionally and governments formed in coalition, the country is ruled by 'the majority'. It's not because a minority doesn't receive every single thing listed on its party program that the country isn't ruled by a majority.