Imagine getting the most votes and not ending up in power.
-
Imagine getting the most votes and not ending up in power. What a failure of democracy.
-
System shared this topic on
-
Imagine getting the most votes and not ending up in power. What a failure of democracy.
Well, no. 71.3% of people voted not to want this party in power. That's the power of coalitions.
-
Imagine getting the most votes and not ending up in power. What a failure of democracy.
They "won" with under 30% of votes ... Is argue it'd be a greater failure of democracy if that minority gets to to run the country for 5 years when no one wants to work with them.
-
Imagine getting the most votes and not ending up in power. What a failure of democracy.
Why should the party with a relative majority automatically get into power if an absolute majority of people voted against them?
-
Imagine getting the most votes and not ending up in power. What a failure of democracy.
This comment confuses me. So in your opinion, in a poroper good non-failing democracy should getting less than 29% of the votes mean you get to rule over everybody and make decisions without anybody interferring? So then in other words, <29% of the population should get to decide who rules alone over 100% of the population?
-
Well, no. 71.3% of people voted not to want this party in power. That's the power of coalitions.
This assumes the opposing party represents every other vote cast, as well that peoples votes are entirely exclusive.
Why stop a 73% and not have 100% of the electorate represented by slapping in one more party?
Why even have a vote?
-
They "won" with under 30% of votes ... Is argue it'd be a greater failure of democracy if that minority gets to to run the country for 5 years when no one wants to work with them.
Happy to rule over people you fundamentally “can’t work with”.
-
Happy to rule over people you fundamentally “can’t work with”.
if those people are fascists, then yes
-
This comment confuses me. So in your opinion, in a poroper good non-failing democracy should getting less than 29% of the votes mean you get to rule over everybody and make decisions without anybody interferring? So then in other words, <29% of the population should get to decide who rules alone over 100% of the population?
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.
-
This assumes the opposing party represents every other vote cast, as well that peoples votes are entirely exclusive.
Why stop a 73% and not have 100% of the electorate represented by slapping in one more party?
Why even have a vote?
This assumes the opposing party represents every other vote cast, as well that peoples votes are entirely exclusive.
Keep in mind that literally every other party announced beforehand that they would NOT enter into a coalition with this particular party under its leadership. That means any people who voted for another party must've accepted this.
-
This assumes the opposing party represents every other vote cast, as well that peoples votes are entirely exclusive.
Why stop a 73% and not have 100% of the electorate represented by slapping in one more party?
Why even have a vote?
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.
-
Happy to rule over people you fundamentally “can’t work with”.
Every government was gonna rule over unreasonable psychopaths, mindless rapists, ruthless murderers. Every government rules over people they fundamentally can't work with... That's not the weird part.
The options were either: the other parties align with them --- which wasn't going to happen, as nobody wants to work with them due to their extreme positions --- or the other parties create a majority coalition within themselves. What happened was that the majority of the votes are in leadership. That's democracy.
-
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.
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?
-
This assumes the opposing party represents every other vote cast, as well that peoples votes are entirely exclusive.
Why stop a 73% and not have 100% of the electorate represented by slapping in one more party?
Why even have a vote?
I assume you're not familiar with election systems outside the US? For most countries it goes like this:
There are dozens of parties you could vote for, but usually only a few end up getting enough votes to become part of the government.
Let's assume we've got 5 parties in, they've got 30%, 25%, 20%, 15% and 10% respectively. Now, they start building a coalition to achieve at least 50% overall. (There are exceptions.)
Being the biggest party doesn't have to mean anything. Since there are many parties, one could say 30% is the largest single party and therefore what the majority wants. However, it could be the only conservative party while 25%, 20% and 15% could be socialists with different hats. Meaning, the majority of all voters are actually socialists - why would the government include the conservative party?
-
Imagine getting the most votes and not ending up in power. What a failure of democracy.
Your posts in this thread show you have no understanding of the concept of democracy.
Have you considered sueing your school?
-
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....
