Sweet Jesus, there is no one to vote for in this election :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Dunno, never really engaged with that issue. I remember from the referendum people saying it would make it easier for extremist parties to gain influence. Presumably if 2015 had been PR, then UKIP would have been much better placed to ensure we don't end up with a fake Brexit.

That would have been good. But then maybe it would allow ovarian cancer deserving c*nts like the women's equality party to gain influence. That would not be good.

---

The problem with PR is that it appeals to people's ill thought out ideas of who it might be nice to throw a vote to here and there and then we end up with the cünts in Parliament, fücking things up.
So, for instance, your mum (or similar) might vote for her first choice party based on some hard reasons and then chuck a sympathy vote at - for instance - the Greens on the grounds that she thinks it's probably nice to look after the planet and...y'know...recycling and trees and stuff.
Then, before you know it, we end up with these hemp-clad lunatics hanging around in Parliament wielding actual power with their absurd, luddite ideas. AND PEOPLE WILL END UP HAVING TO PANDER TO THEM IN ORDER TO GET ANYTHING DONE! :banghead:
Before you know it, meat-free Monday is a statutory requirement and Foie Gras is illegal. And all because some voters didn't really think about it that much.
No, I'll stick to FPTP, thanks. It concentrates the voter's mind and keeps utter spastics out of power where they belong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Dunno, never really engaged with that issue. I remember from the referendum people saying it would make it easier for extremist parties to gain influence. Presumably if 2015 had been PR, then UKIP would have been much better placed to ensure we don't end up with a fake Brexit.

That would have been good. But then maybe it would allow ovarian cancer deserving c*nts like the women's equality party to gain influence. That would not be good.

---

Extremist = Anyone outside of the establishment party bubble?

I thought you had got the argument that free speech includes free speech for people we disagree with. This principle extends to democracy. I don't know what the Women's Equality Party would like to do, but if I disagreed with them I wouldn't be afraid to debate their politics. And surely nor would you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The problem with PR is that it appeals to people's ill thought out ideas of who it might be nice to throw a vote to here and there and then we end up with the cünts in Parliament, fücking things up.
So, for instance, your mum (or similar) might vote for her first choice party based on some hard reasons and then chuck a sympathy vote at - for instance - the Greens on the grounds that she thinks it's probably nice to look after the planet and...y'know...recycling and trees and stuff.
Then, before you know it, we end up with these hemp-clad lunatics hanging around in Parliament wielding actual power with their absurd, luddite ideas. AND PEOPLE WILL END UP HAVING TO PANDER TO THEM IN ORDER TO GET ANYTHING DONE! :banghead:
Before you know it, meat-free Monday is a statutory requirement and Foie Gras is illegal. And all because some voters didn't really think about it that much.
No, I'll stick to FPTP, thanks. It concentrates the voter's mind and keeps utter spastics out of power where they belong.

---

I do appreciate the 'getting things done' argument in favour of FPTP but I do find the keenest supporters are those who FPTP benefits - basically the two biggest mainstream parties, who know that the pendulum usually swings back their way eventually. You focus on the negative, but there can be genuinely good ideas (according to taste, obv) that deserve a voice too. And perhaps a new kind of politics is overdue but the inertia of the old system with its established parties and cheerleaders of media support prevent this.

The other thing is that currently millions of voters are completely disenfranchised as their vote is totally meaningless when their preferred party is a distant third in their constituency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Extremist = Anyone outside of the establishment party bubble?

I thought you had got the argument that free speech includes free speech for people we disagree with. This principle extends to democracy. I don't know what the Women's Equality Party would like to do, but if I disagreed with them I wouldn't be afraid to debate their politics. And surely nor would you.

---

Don't worry, I get all of that. I was merely ruminating on the various permutations and how it would be useful right now for there to be 50+ UKIP MPs. On balance, however, I think I'm with Berni.

The Women's Equality Party would make you lick clean the menstrual emissions from their universal, state-provided, reusable sanitary towels as a reparation for your crimes as a member of the patriarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

I do appreciate the 'getting things done' argument in favour of FPTP but I do find the keenest supporters are those who FPTP benefits - basically the two biggest mainstream parties, who know that the pendulum usually swings back their way eventually. You focus on the negative, but there can be genuinely good ideas (according to taste, obv) that deserve a voice too. And perhaps a new kind of politics is overdue but the inertia of the old system with its established parties and cheerleaders of media support prevent this.

The other thing is that currently millions of voters are completely disenfranchised as their vote is totally meaningless when their preferred party is a distant third in their constituency.

---

We like it that way though, it suits our character. Millions of lefties are disenfranchised in Henley-on-Thames too, but surely that's their own fault; why would that sort want to live in such a place.

And it is a common mistake to imagine foreigners do it any better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ash

Extremist = Anyone outside of the establishment party bubble?

I thought you had got the argument that free speech includes free speech for people we disagree with. This principle extends to democracy. I don't know what the Women's Equality Party would like to do, but if I disagreed with them I wouldn't be afraid to debate their politics. And surely nor would you.

---

Nobody's got time for all that debating stuff because they have lives. That's what democracy is really about; taking responsibility for yourself and your family and dealing with the consequences of your decisions and actions. The only people who have the time and inclination to discuss anything with whichever random lunatic syndicate happens to hove into view is those that are unwilling or unable to accept this.

In any case, it would never be a case of me disagreeing with them; I don't need to, I already know what's right for me and my family and my community and my environment. And it's all non-negotiable in any case; I haven't got the time to negotiate it, I've got children to feed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Don't worry, I get all of that. I was merely ruminating on the various permutations and how it would be useful right now for there to be 50+ UKIP MPs. On balance, however, I think I'm with Berni.

The Women's Equality Party would make you lick clean the menstrual emissions from their universal, state-provided, reusable sanitary towels as a reparation for your crimes as a member of the patriarchy.

---

Well quite. PR it seems to me allows one to vote with one's superego AND one's id. That strikes me as a dangerous combination.

My heart says UKIP but my head says they're fcuked. As soon as one of the two major parties sees an opening towards the centre they abandon their traditional voters because they have nowhere else to go.

The statement in the Tory manifesto is not just anti-Tory, it is shocking. "Rights" by definition are things we are entitled to, it s not a "right" to smack someone in the face for fun. But responsibilty to others trumping these? Even if those others are completely irresponsible? Is our responsibility to Ian Brady greater than the rights of the kids he tortured and murdered? Shame on May and shame on the Tories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Well quite. PR it seems to me allows one to vote with one's superego AND one's id. That strikes me as a dangerous combination.

---

What are all you fools talking about?