Imagine getting the most votes and not ending up in power.
-
The first past the post system is flawed but collations that ignore the first choice are not legitimate. First should work with second or third but second and third is a weaker proposal.
They had an opportunity to form a government, they failed. What should have happened in your opinion?
-
The first past the post system is flawed but collations that ignore the first choice are not legitimate. First should work with second or third but second and third is a weaker proposal.
Leaving aside the argument about "legitimacy", how the fuck would that even work when they're unable to form a coalition with other parties? Should other parties somehow be forced to work with them and adopt their positions? Hardly democratic. Should they form a government alone? They'd never be functional as they couldn't pass any laws.
-
Becauwe modern governments are built on compromise and finding a solution that covers different viewpoints. The idea is to raise the everyone, not just some.
The world is too complex for easy solutions, whoever sells you a "just do x" will probably scam you.
its probably no use to talk with you
I think this thought is a dangerous one. It's a sort of trap that people fall into. It's very alluring and easy to say that. Yet I suggest people stay vigilant and brave and avoid it. Keep in mind it's difficult for people to let go of their opinions, don't resent them for it and try to understand their point of view, maybe there's something in it for you to learn.
-
collations that ignore the first choice are not legitimate
Why so? Why do you assume that one party should arbitrarily be given more rights/power than others? Where does this idea come from?
Imagine an even more extreme example. Assume the winning party had 5% of the votes and most other parties had around 4-5% of the votes. Then assume that the winning party is unable to convince any other parties to enter into a coalition with them. Should all other parties not be allowed to make a coalition to represent 95% of the voters? Should the "winning" party be allowed to block this? Why should such deadlocks be allowed? What is the argument behind this?
Also, consider the hypotherical case where the Kill All Kittens party wins the most votes, but at 30%, thankfully, it doesn't have a majority. Understandably, none of the other parties want to form a coalition with this party. Should they be forced to? Should we start killing kittens, even though a majority didn't vote for that?
-
Leaving aside the argument about "legitimacy", how the fuck would that even work when they're unable to form a coalition with other parties? Should other parties somehow be forced to work with them and adopt their positions? Hardly democratic. Should they form a government alone? They'd never be functional as they couldn't pass any laws.
And that worked out really well....
-
its probably no use to talk with you
I think this thought is a dangerous one. It's a sort of trap that people fall into. It's very alluring and easy to say that. Yet I suggest people stay vigilant and brave and avoid it. Keep in mind it's difficult for people to let go of their opinions, don't resent them for it and try to understand their point of view, maybe there's something in it for you to learn.
I would agree, but I have little to no tolerance to trolls. We used to slap them, block them and not feed them. I'm happy to explain and discuss honestly, but I have no need for people arguing for teh lulz.
-
Imagine getting the most votes and not ending up in power. What a failure of democracy.
The party shouldn't be allowed to exist in a democracy. That's the only failure here.
-
I would agree, but I have little to no tolerance to trolls. We used to slap them, block them and not feed them. I'm happy to explain and discuss honestly, but I have no need for people arguing for teh lulz.
It doesn't seem like trolling to me. Posts do not seem offensive and don't seem to break any of the rules. It seems to be a strong opinion, perhaps misinformed or naive or confusing. But not flat out trolling.
-
It doesn't seem like trolling to me. Posts do not seem offensive and don't seem to break any of the rules. It seems to be a strong opinion, perhaps misinformed or naive or confusing. But not flat out trolling.
That's why I gave an honest answer.
-
It doesn't seem like trolling to me. Posts do not seem offensive and don't seem to break any of the rules. It seems to be a strong opinion, perhaps misinformed or naive or confusing. But not flat out trolling.
Imo, the posts were clearly in bad faith. "We need to allow the fascists to govern because they got 29% of the votes" is a shit argument, not just because 29% is not a majority but also because allowing fascists to govern is a very good way to join the club of authoritarian governments.
-
Why should the party with a relative majority automatically get into power if an absolute majority of people voted against them?
thread starter is intentionally not understanding parliamentary voting systems because they are far right and will say anything at all that lends credence to their ideology. it's quite simple really: the right does not discuss politics in good faith
-
System shared this topic on
