# British election shows stupidity of their voting system. Tories get 37% end up running the country



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

What an idiotic result......

Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country. 

Not a single solitary policy they pass will have true legitimacy. 

Just as nothing the US Senate passes does.


----------



## hipeter924 (May 8, 2015)

Not entirely. It was an awesome result to get rid of Galloway, Farange, and most of UKIP.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Not entirely. It was an awesome result to get rid of Galloway, Farange, and most of UKIP.



those are genuine voices, out of the box thinkers, it is a tragedy to see them go.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

one good thing about it tho is that with Cameron running the UK....the Scottish nationalists very well might call for another referendum on independence.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (May 8, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Not entirely. It was an awesome result to get rid of Galloway, Farange, and most of UKIP.


Farage was the best hope for England to prevent a Muslim take over stopping mass immigration from 3rd world countries..


----------



## bodecea (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...


So?  They have a multiple party system, you know.


----------



## hipeter924 (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Not entirely. It was an awesome result to get rid of Galloway, Farange, and most of UKIP.
> ...


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...



In other words, you don't like the results, hence the system is stupid.


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...


The Conservatives got 51% of the vote, not 37%.

Labor got 36%.


----------



## hipeter924 (May 8, 2015)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Not entirely. It was an awesome result to get rid of Galloway, Farange, and most of UKIP.
> ...


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...



Yes the Conservatives won big in spite of their news media saying it would be a close vote.
Looks like the world is fed up with the socialists for right now.
Conservatives won big in Australia, Israel and now the U.K.
I bet that Obama is not happy at all that Netanyahu and Cameron are still in power.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Despite the fail attempt of far left posters to misrepresent the facts as they always do.

After the elections the Conservatives control 51% of parliament. The Labour party (Tony Blair's old party) controls 36% of parliament.

However some need to understand that the Conservatives in Britain are more like the almost extinct Blue Dog Democrats here in the US or social conservatives like the log cabin republicans.


----------



## hipeter924 (May 8, 2015)

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


 More than that.

I have noticed that a lot of 'left wing' voters stayed home and didn't bother to vote, in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK.

My tactical votes were wasted last time (when I gritted by teeth and voted Mana-Internet), as they simply gave up and didn't bother to vote.

So, I don't vote along party lines anymore.

Instead by what a candidate can realistically offer, their level of corruption, their chance of electability, and how bad their opponents are.


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

Oh, I see what dcraelin was talking about now.

While the Conservative Party won 51% of the _seats_, they did indeed only win 36.9% of the popular vote.

But this is to be expected in countries that have more than two major parties.  I explain this to dunderheads who want the US to have more than two major parties all the time.


----------



## hipeter924 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...


The Conservatives are a centralist party, so they aren't extreme one way or the other.


----------



## deltex1 (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...


Best not to point fingers.  Look at who we ended up with for 8 years of feckin malaise...


----------



## paulitician (May 8, 2015)

Great Britain's glory days are long long gone. It's a mere shell of its former self. Without the U.S. standing behind it, it would fall to just about any Nation that has a beef with it. It's just a small insignificant island nation at this point. The collapse is complete. Who's in charge of the mess, is of no importance. Doesn't matter.


----------



## hipeter924 (May 8, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...


The UK is way less messed up politically than the US, and they are doing a lot better job of paying down debt and cutting deficits: Budget 2015 some of the things we ve announced - News stories - GOV.UK


> *2. Debt will be falling as a share of GDP in 2015-16*
> Debt will be falling as a share of GDP from 2015-16. This is a year earlier than forecast at Autumn Statement.
> 
> By 2014-15, the deficit is forecast to have fallen by half, from 10.2% at its peak in 2009-10, to 5% in 2014-15.
> ...


----------



## Bootneck (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...



Clearly, you know nothing about the British political system. I suggest you do some research before posting on a subject foreign to your knowledge bank. That way you'll avoid making yourself look foolish.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



That is what I posted..


----------



## martybegan (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Oh, I see what dcraelin was talking about now.
> 
> While the Conservative Party won 51% of the _seats_, they did indeed only win 36.9% of the popular vote.
> 
> But this is to be expected in countries that have more than two major parties.  I explain this to dunderheads who want the US to have more than two major parties all the time.



Yep, first past the post voting + more than 2 non-insignificant parties usually equals more people voting against the winner than for them.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Yes it is nice to have other territories to tax outside your mother land to tax to pay down your debt.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Oh, I see what dcraelin was talking about now.
> 
> While the Conservative Party won 51% of the _seats_, they did indeed only win 36.9% of the popular vote.
> 
> But this is to be expected in countries that have more than two major parties.  I explain this to dunderheads who want the US to have more than two major parties all the time.



Hence why the electoral college was developed. It was designed to handle multiple parties. It is our two party system that does not want any more parties.


----------



## hipeter924 (May 8, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...


He already did that when he said Farage and Galloway are "are genuine voices, out of the box thinkers", when they are generally viewed in the UK as a public embarrassment.


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I see what dcraelin was talking about now.
> ...


You could always form the Tard Party and see how far it gets.


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Hence why the electoral college was developed. It was designed to handle multiple parties.



Nope. That is completely manufactured bullshit.


----------



## paulitician (May 8, 2015)

When are people gonna get it? It's just a weak insignificant little island nation. There is no England now...


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Wrong! It is not possible for a third party to emerge in this country as the two party system has made sure of that after Ross Perot. But only a far left drone would ignore that.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Hence why the electoral college was developed. It was designed to handle multiple parties.
> ...



Another far left drone fail post!


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Prove that is why the electoral college was developed, tard.

Good luck with that.

You made it up and got caught.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Wrong! That is like trying to prove that riots happened in Baltimore. Typical far left drone..


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

The truth is the exact opposite of Koshtard's claim.  The Founder's did not expect parties ("factions") to rise as they believed there would be no place for factions in our representative government.


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


You made it up.  You got caught.  That's why you can't prove it.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

bodecea said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...




yes, but they should have a runoff system or a proportional voting system...........37% is no basis to run a country....
no policy by the tories is legitimate.


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

Just look at the structure of the original Constitution.  The winner of the most votes would be President, and the second place winner would be Vice President.

This is not a structure which anticipates parties.

Kosh, you are full of shit and got caught again.


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Yes the voters did turn out in large numbers, especially in Australia.
Australia had 93.23% of voter turn out.
Israel had 72.34%
UK - Record turnout on the cards for UK election euronews world news


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The truth is the exact opposite of Koshtard's claim.  The Founder's did not expect parties ("factions") to rise as they believed there would be no place for factions in our representative government.



Once again the far left drones prove they do not understand the electoral system, let alone the Constitution.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...



no, those other words dont represent my thoughts


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Yes I am sure you believe the riots in Baltimore were made up as well.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

peach174 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



They DIDN'T "win big",....they got less that 37% of the vote..............and even that is doubtful if computers counted the vote.


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 8, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



In the eyes of America's "conservatives", most of the world's conservative parties (except America's and Israel's) are much like they what call RINOs, in other words, more in the mainstream (centralist).
I'm not saying I have ever been a Republican, but I did used to vote Republican more than I do now.  Now, I vote for moderate Republicans and also moderate Democrats.
As G5000 pointed out, sometimes having multiple parties can screw things up.  But then considering that both parties have veered to the extreme right and left, I wouldn't mind seeing a more so centralist party as most Americans are more so centralist/moderates.  Here we have the largest voting bloc in the country with little to no representation in their country's political system.  No wonder there so so much dissatisfaction with Congress (about 75% dissatisfied).  The polarized divide is too large, therefore no to little cooperation and nothing really gets done. That's called a broken system.  It needs to be fixed.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Just look at the structure of the original Constitution.  The winner of the most votes would be President, and the second place winner would be Vice President.
> 
> This is not a structure which anticipates parties.
> 
> Kosh, you are full of shit and got caught again.



Proof that you do not understand the electoral college system nor the Constitution.

Typical far left drone, but I bet they drone on and on about and continue to prove they do not know anything about it.

To this one they are also denying that there were riots in Baltimore..


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Voting far left is not voting centrist. Like is like claiming a far left drone is a liberal..


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Oh, I see what dcraelin was talking about now.
> 
> While the Conservative Party won 51% of the _seats_, they did indeed only win 36.9% of the popular vote.
> 
> But this is to be expected in countries that have more than two major parties.  I explain this to dunderheads who want the US to have more than two major parties all the time.



The need for people to express differing opinions in multi-party systems is needed..........what isnt needed is systems that punish that......by giving an obviously left-wing country...a Tory governance....with an ass of an PM


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Just look at the structure of the original Constitution.  The winner of the most votes would be President, and the second place winner would be Vice President.
> ...


All I can say to stupidity and ignorance this deep is, "Wow."

You have no knowledge of our foundational history.  At all.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...



Its a fucked up system that gives you Tory "leadership" with 37% of the vote.

Anything coming out of that government is illegitimate.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

hipeter924 said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



what a toad you are


----------



## nodoginnafight (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Just look at the structure of the original Constitution.  The winner of the most votes would be President, and the second place winner would be Vice President.
> ...



Oh just stfu about Baltimore and other diversions and show us your evidence of how the electoral college was developed to mitigate the downsides of a multi-party system.


----------



## paulitician (May 8, 2015)

Surprised the Left still gets so much support in Great Britain. They've completely destroyed that once great nation. The Left's actually done that all across Western Europe. 

So why do so many still support em? Well, look at the U.S. It's mostly about the Freebies. Welfare addicts are no different than crack addicts. They're Freebie Junkies.


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > hipeter924 said:
> ...



You really don't have much reading comprehension, do you?  Did I post that?  Did I say voting far right or far left was voting for centralist?  No.
You go on the attack mode using your imagination as your base.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



The irony impaired far left drones and their comments..


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

paulitician said:


> Surprised the Left still gets so much support in Great Britain. They've completely destroyed that once great nation. The Left's actually done that all across Western Europe.
> 
> So why do so many still support em? Well, look at the U.S. It's mostly about the Freebies. Welfare addicts are no different than crack addicts. They're Freebie Junkies.


I like ron Paul and im a leftist.....cause he worries about the "freebies" that do the most harm...corporate welfare.

The left won the most votes in England.....and those that despise the Tories won 63%+ .....yet the Tories will run the country......and most likely push out the Scots with their arrogance. ....(The ONLY good result of this idiotic election)


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Yes you did! You arte a far left drone!

Much of your post shows that!


----------



## g5000 (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Its a fucked up system that gives you Tory "leadership" with 37% of the vote.
> 
> Anything coming out of that government is illegitimate.


That's an illogical conclusion.

In any multiple major party system, the winners will almost always win with significantly less than 50% of the vote.  You cannot argue that means there will never be a legitimate government under such a system.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

paulitician said:


> Surprised the Left still gets so much support in Great Britain. They've completely destroyed that once great nation. The Left's actually done that all across Western Europe.
> 
> So why do so many still support em? Well, look at the U.S. It's mostly about the Freebies. Welfare addicts are no different than crack addicts. They're Freebie Junkies.



Well it was about "free" government services, but they are no longer sustainable as much of Europe under far left rule discovered. Now they have over bloated social programs and can barely pay for other things.


----------



## peach174 (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



You don't seem to either
U. S. Electoral College Official - What is the Electoral College 
The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Its a fucked up system that gives you Tory "leadership" with 37% of the vote.
> ...



Just ask the far left drones, as Bill Clinton did not get 50% popular of the vote, but the majority of the electoral votes.


----------



## paulitician (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Surprised the Left still gets so much support in Great Britain. They've completely destroyed that once great nation. The Left's actually done that all across Western Europe.
> ...



The Left has done irreversible damage to that once great nation. Now it's just a weak insignificant little island nation. Not sure why anyone even cares who's running it. It's over for Great Britain. It's glory days are gone forever.


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Really, well below is my post.  Please point out were I posted what you claim.
=======================================================
In the eyes of America's "conservatives", most of the world's conservative parties (except America's and Israel's) are much like they what call RINOs, in other words, more in the mainstream (centralist).
I'm not saying I have ever been a Republican, but I did used to vote Republican more than I do now.  Now, I vote for moderate Republicans and also moderate Democrats.
As G5000 pointed out, sometimes having multiple parties can screw things up.  But then considering that both parties have veered to the extreme right and left, I wouldn't mind seeing a more so centralist party as most Americans are more so centralist/moderates.  Here we have the largest voting bloc in the country with little to no representation in their country's political system.  No wonder there so so much dissatisfaction with Congress (about 75% dissatisfied).  The polarized divide is too large, therefore no to little cooperation and nothing really gets done. That's called a broken system.  It needs to be fixed.
============================================================
All you need to to do is copy and paste your proof.
I'll wait.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



I love it when the far left drones show how far to the left they are (especially when they post far left religious propaganda), then post the evidence showing it, then they try and deny it..

Oh man these far left drones truly show they are not anywhere close to being a moderate on any level, I doubt they even know what a moderate is these days..


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

g5000 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Its a fucked up system that gives you Tory "leadership" with 37% of the vote.
> ...



Oh yes I can, and do....  If 63% of a nation votes against you...you cannot claim a mandate of any type. ....This Tory government is essentially illegitimate.


----------



## paulitician (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Surprised the Left still gets so much support in Great Britain. They've completely destroyed that once great nation. The Left's actually done that all across Western Europe.
> ...



The Left also dismantled the Immigration System. They did that all across Western Europe. The damage is irreversible in Great Britain. But it's still possible other Western European Nations can reverse it. 

The destruction of the Immigration System was all about Blair and Labour stickin it to the Tories. It was incredibly petty and achieved catastrophic results...


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

paulitician said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



It is the right that has run it into the ground....but your right in that it's glory days are over.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



In a more rational system Perot probably would have won that election...being seen as not  a puppet of either major party.


----------



## paulitician (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



The Right wasn't in power during the awful destruction of its Immigration System and so on. The damage done by Britain's Left is irreversible. It's all over. However, there might still be some hope for other Western European Nations damaged by the Left.


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



So, you can't find anything in my post that backs up your claim, can you?  You just attack me, just to attack me.  That's your M.O.  What a loser.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



See how the far left will deny their own posts, even when they repost  them..

Typical far left drone..


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Actually that is incorrect, they now want to bolster and change the immigration policy in England, that is not what the far left wants in any country, including the US.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



However the system for president is not based on popular vote. Which is why it can handle multiple parties, like it has in the past.

Congress on the other hand you are stuck with who ever wins the majority vote even if the majority vote is 37% of the voting population.


----------



## Bootneck (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Your ignorance seems to have no bounds. The party system does not work on the basis of total votes across the country, but by votes cast by constituency. However, given the party system the Conservatives would still have won on total votes:-

VOTES WON

Conservative   -   36.9%
Labour             -   30.5%
UKIP               -   12.6%
LibDem           -     7.8%
SNP               -     4.7%       
Green             -     3.8%

That however has no bearing since the system is about winning the most seats in Parliament. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so to gain a majority the successful party must win in excess of 325 seats which is what the Conservatives did;-

SEATS WON

Conservative   -   331
Labour             -   232
UKIP               -   1
LibDem           -   8
SNP                -   56 
Other               -   18


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



So, you can't prove your claim.  If you could, you would be able to copy and paste your evidence.
Everybody can read our little exchange and that means everyone can see what a fool you are. 
Just keep on making a fool out of yourself.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...



Yes all 650 of them..







Note: red on this map is the Labour party and the blue is the Conservative. Yellow represents Scottish National Party (SNP)


----------



## hipeter924 (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> hipeter924 said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



You proved my claim with your own post, that is the irony here..

And thus proves that the far left is irony impaired..


----------



## kiwiman127 (May 8, 2015)

Well Kosh, I'm calling you out in the Flame Zone.  I'm going to post our entire conversation.  I'm going to embarrass your ass.  I might as well, you just keep on stalking me with lies and bullshit.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

kiwiman127 said:


> Well Kosh, I'm calling you out in the Flame Zone.  I'm going to post our entire conversation.  I'm going to embarrass your ass.  I might as well, you just keep on stalking me with lies and bullshit.



And more far left drone comments not based on reality..


----------



## Bootneck (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> The need for people to express differing opinions in multi-party systems is needed..........*what isnt needed is systems that punish that......by giving an obviously left-wing country...a Tory governance*....with an ass of an PM



Showing your ignorance again! As I mentioned in my previous post, the Conservatives gained 36.9% of total votes. Add to that the 12.6% gained by UKIP (seems you don't know that UKIP is a right wing party) and that means that total votes were spread evenly between left and right. Blows your supposition that Britain is a left wing country out of the water somewhat, eh. I suggest you stick to your own politics. You obviously know nothing about ours.


----------



## boedicca (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...




The Labor Force Participation Rate in the UK is 74% under Cameron - it is 62.8% under Obama.

Looks like the voters in the UK are smart enough to know what's in their best interests:  Jobs.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 8, 2015)

The British electoral system is their own and not easily comprehended by Americans.  There is no "president".  The closest thing to that - and there really is no direct comparison - is the Prime Minister.  NOT chosen by popular vote, rather by the number of seats in parliament. 

Whining about the way the popular vote might have gone?  Then worry about the American "electoral college" system in which presidents can be elected with less than a majority of the popular vote.

Grow up and face that nations have it to themselves to decide how to choose their leadership.  I know that's a big step but if you put on your big-girl panties you can probably do it.

BTW, the numerics might be slightly different were Northern Ireland to quit electing MPs (Members of Parliament) who refuse to serve in a futile protest.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

boedicca said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...



Yes according to the far left if we create more jobs there will be no riots/protests in places like Baltimore and there would be no ISIS either.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

Kosh said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



right and I want a more rational system in both areas


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...



you're the ignorant one.....I know how the system works.....irrationally....so that someone the majority of the nation voted against....Conservative...ends up running the country...try to follow the argument...rather than just reciting the ways things are.   

Citing the way things are as some sort of wisdom just shows you to be  a tool


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > The need for people to express differing opinions in multi-party systems is needed..........*what isnt needed is systems that punish that......by giving an obviously left-wing country...a Tory governance*....with an ass of an PM
> ...


well try an do some simple math you ignorant ass...what is 36.9 plus 12.6.....can you figure out if that gets you over 50%?....

but even that is a stretch as UKIP hate Conservatives enough to vote against them in competitive first-past-the-post districts.

so the idea that the Conservatives end up running the country is idiotic.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

boedicca said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...



in our system Cameron would have lost


----------



## boedicca (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



In our system, there would not have been a viable third party.   Cameron would have won.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (May 8, 2015)

Galloway.... Lol

Great to see that clueless douche sent packing.....


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

boedicca said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



nope, in our system the greens, the SNP, labour, most of lib-dems and some of UKIP would have voted for Miliband


----------



## boedicca (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




Nope.  Most of the dirty hippies would be too stoned to show up to vote.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...



sigh.....your dumb enough to be a Tory voter.......they won 37% of the vote..............does that sound like they were voted for????

?     ....?


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

boedicca said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


----------



## Little-Acorn (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...


Have you noticed that every time the liberals lose, after being rejected by the people, they blame something OTHER than themselves? It's a bad system, or it's gerrymandering, or some other excuse.

It's NEVER that the people disagree with our policies and don't want us running things any more after so many of our lies were exposed, so many of our policies failed, and we made such a complete mess of the country.

Normal people don't call them losers for nothing.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 8, 2015)

By noon tomorrow liberals worldwide will be calling upon Britons to pull a Baltimore and set fire to their cities.

It's all they have left.


----------



## Little-Acorn (May 8, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


As expected, the liberals immediately change the subject and try to avoid addressing the fact that they were resoundingly rejected by the people.

But I do appreciate your acknowledging that someone elected with less than a majority, is illegitimate. That takes care of Barack Obama, who was elected with less than a majority in 2008 and then passed Obamacare. When do you intend to stop supporting it, and working instead for its repeal on grounds that it is not "legitimate"?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2015)

"British election shows stupidity of their voting system. Tories get 37% end up running the country"

It's one of the many negative aspects of a democracy.

Fortunately we're not a democracy; thankfully the Framers had the wisdom to create a Republic.


----------



## blackhawk (May 8, 2015)

If the Labour Party had won I'm guessing their voting system would be just fine then.


----------



## Little-Acorn (May 8, 2015)

BTW, Cameron and his Conservative party got 51% of the seats in Parliament. It's the liberal Labour Party that got 36%.

The conservative party will be running the country.


----------



## Kosh (May 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "British election shows stupidity of their voting system. Tories get 37% end up running the country"
> 
> It's one of the many negative aspects of a democracy.
> 
> Fortunately we're not a democracy; thankfully the Framers had the wisdom to create a Republic.



More proof that the far left religion is the most dangerous religion on the planet..


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...



Obama got a majority...you may be thinking of Clinton

I am not in favor of Obama/Romney care....

Left leaning parties got the majority of the vote in England ...thats not "resoundingly rejected"


----------



## blackhawk (May 8, 2015)

I heard that they only campaign for two months and then have the election that I'm totally in favor of.


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

blackhawk said:


> I heard that they only campaign for two months and then have the election that I'm totally in favor of.



yes, that is a good aspect of it


----------



## dcraelin (May 8, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "British election shows stupidity of their voting system. Tories get 37% end up running the country"
> 
> It's one of the many negative aspects of a democracy.
> 
> Fortunately we're not a democracy; thankfully the Framers had the wisdom to create a Republic.



there is no difference between a republic and a democracy....

Republics thru the ages have had direct citizen lawmaking

see my picture gallery for quotes of the founders that prove my point


----------



## Bootneck (May 9, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> [
> well try an do some simple math you ignorant ass...what is 36.9 plus 12.6.....can you figure out if that gets you over 50%?....
> 
> but even that is a stretch as UKIP hate Conservatives enough to vote against them in competitive first-past-the-post districts.
> ...



I love it when people like you resort to name calling. Demonstrates just how much you are losing the game. Anyway, back to the remainder of your lesson in British politics.

Nothing wrong with my arithmetic. 36.9 plus 12.6 = 49.5. So, Of all the votes cast, 49.5% were for right wing parties and 50.5% were for left wing parties. Now, as I said previously, in your ignorance you made a statement that Britain was predominantly a left wing country. These figures prove just how wrong you are.


----------



## dcraelin (May 9, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



as opposed to when people like you resort to name calling?.....So your nitpicking the word "predominantly" I guess....
it is a majority left leaning country...and certainly deserves better than to be run by the Conservatives.


----------



## Bootneck (May 9, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> as opposed to when people like you resort to name calling?.....So your nitpicking the word "predominantly" I guess....
> it is a majority left leaning country...and certainly deserves better than to be run by the Conservatives.



Perhaps you should try concentrating on what is best for your own country instead of trying to tell others what is best for them, particularly since you know so little about us.


----------



## dcraelin (May 9, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > as opposed to when people like you resort to name calling?.....So your nitpicking the word "predominantly" I guess....
> ...



I have seen a number of articles on the subject in the British  press.............perhaps you should take your commentary to a board not entitled "US" message board.


----------



## Little-Acorn (May 9, 2015)

*British election shows stupidity of their voting system. Tories get 37% end up running the country*


The liberals here consider any system that allows conservatives to get elected, a "stupid voting system".


----------



## Ame®icano (May 9, 2015)

g5000 said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...



Actually, OP has it right.

Conservative 36.8 - 331 seats
Labour 30.4% - 231 seats
UKIP 12.6% - 1 seat
Liberal Dem 7.9% - 8 seats
SNP 4.7% - 56 seats
Green 3.8% - 1 seat


----------



## Nyvin (May 9, 2015)

The Conservative's success was largely due to Englanders being terrified of a SNP-Labour coalition and the SNP more or less calling the shots.   That fear led them to go to the polling stations in droves.   

Basically SNP's success led to Labours downfall throughout the country and not just in Scotland.


----------



## Little-Acorn (May 9, 2015)

Ame®icano said:


> Actually, OP has it right.
> Conservative 36.8 - 331 seats
> Labour 30.4% - 231 seats
> UKIP 12.6% - 1 seat
> ...


So, liberals fighting amongst themselves let conservatives get a majority of seats in Parliament?

Good.

Look on the bright side. A conservative majority (if it's really conservative and not just a title) will get govt our of people's faces for a while and let them build up more prosperity for the liberals to loot later.

You can't soak the rich if you've driven them all out of the country.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...



Yes... All you rabid "3rd Party" people should take this as an opportunity to learn ... How stupid that idea is.


----------



## dcraelin (May 9, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> *British election shows stupidity of their voting system. Tories get 37% end up running the country*
> 
> 
> The liberals here consider any system that allows conservatives to get elected, a "stupid voting system".



Says something about their sense of decency that conservatives dont mind getting elected illegitimately. I suppose maybe most Conservatives here would rather we were still under a king and could do away with elections.


----------



## dcraelin (May 9, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> The Conservative's success was largely due to Englanders being terrified of a SNP-Labour coalition and the SNP more or less calling the shots.   That fear led them to go to the polling stations in droves.
> 
> Basically SNP's success led to Labours downfall throughout the country and not just in Scotland.


if so that was an irrational fear seeded in their midst by propagandists, as Labour still would have had way more seats.


----------



## dcraelin (May 9, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...



Third partys arent the problem........they show the  populations awakening to the thievery of the puppet parties.....the problem is rigged election results..or election systems that dont reflect the will of the voters.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (May 9, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



It's a math thing... And when you add a third party to the equation, you lower the threshold that a party needs to cross to gain power.

2 parties require 50.1
3 parties require 33.331
4 parties 25.1.

Add enough parties and Ted's storage out of Tupolo governs the United States with 4 votes... Which are basically Ted and his 3 installers.  Which lets be honest those three are just Ted's pot dealer and two dudes that hang out with him.  Behind that is British Laybore party or the French Le Bore...


----------



## Bootneck (May 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> I have seen a number of articles on the subject in the British  press.............perhaps you should take your commentary to a board not entitled "US" message board.



Better still, perhaps you should cease commentary on world events that are obviously outside your personal parochial bubble of knowledge and experience.


----------



## dcraelin (May 10, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen a number of articles on the subject in the British  press.............perhaps you should take your commentary to a board not entitled "US" message board.
> ...



your a typical sap,  name calling without proving anything ...get lost


----------



## Bootneck (May 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> your a typical sap,  name calling without proving anything ...get lost


 Really? Where have I called you any names? Get lost? Certainly not.


----------



## dcraelin (May 10, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > your a typical sap,  name calling without proving anything ...get lost
> ...



almost from the beginning you have.  While not offering true criticism....

go comment on a UK board this board is the US message board.


----------



## Bootneck (May 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...



Then prove it by quoting those posts. BTW making statements about your lack of knowledge is not name calling. Keep digging pal. I'm laughing like mad.


----------



## dcraelin (May 10, 2015)

Bootneck said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > Bootneck said:
> ...



Calling a person ignorant.....in the manner you did....without offering factual criticism of a position....is just cheap name calling...I think you said that in your very first reply....but Im not wasting time wading through your BS again.


----------



## Bootneck (May 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Bootneck said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


I didn't call you ignorant, I highlighted your ignorance of the subject. Something quite different. 

BTW I wasn't aware that the management of this board were not in favour of non-US nationals posting here. Furthermore when you post about my country I have every right to respond.If you don't like it...tough.


----------



## boedicca (May 10, 2015)

And now for a final spank on the moronic OP:







In Britain an electoral earthquake shatters pre-election assumptions - The Washington Post


----------



## dcraelin (May 10, 2015)

boedicca said:


> And now for a final spank on the moronic OP:
> 
> View attachment 41039
> 
> ...



how does posting something everybody knows and acknowledges refute me?.....Conservatives won only 36.9% of the nations vote.....almost 2/3rds of the nation rejected them......and yet they run the government?..................that is an idiotic result.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 10, 2015)

Tories are to the left of our Democrats.

NHS is safe, of course.

The SNP will hold the Tories feet to the fire if they try "austerity."


----------



## boedicca (May 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > And now for a final spank on the moronic OP:
> ...




Translation:  you believe in MOB rule.


----------



## dcraelin (May 10, 2015)

boedicca said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



no...you do believe in arbitrary rule ...based on no legitimate rational


----------



## Meathead (May 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...


This is the dumbing down of America. Alas, another child left behind.


----------



## dcraelin (May 10, 2015)

Meathead said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...



again, snide name calling without true criticism .....that is the true dumbing down....of wherever you are


----------



## Meathead (May 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> M idioticeathead said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...


The true dumbing is your inability to distinguish forms of of Democracy many who have not studied or been exposed to various forms of government. What you cannot understand you  consider idiotic.


----------



## Nyvin (May 10, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Tories are to the left of our Democrats.
> 
> NHS is safe, of course.
> 
> The SNP will hold the Tories feet to the fire if they try "austerity."



I don't know if I would quite say to the left of the Democrats, but they certainly aren't as conservative as the Republicans either.


----------



## boedicca (May 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




B'loney, bub.  The Brits set up their districts for election, and the voters voted accordingly.

You don't like the result, but that is far from a justification to hold their elections illegitimate.

Your stupid - it burns.


----------



## Ame®icano (May 10, 2015)

About 9,200 seats were up for grabs in 279 metropolitan, district and unitary authorities across England, excluding London. The last time they were contested was in 2011.

Counting began on Friday, after general election results were declared, and continued on Saturday.

By late evening, the state of play was:

The Conservatives have won 5,364 seats, up 535. They control 159 councils, an increase of 29
Labour have won 2,199 seats, down 180. They control 73 councils, two fewer than before
The Lib Dems have won 619 seats, down 361. They control four councils, four fewer than before
UKIP has won 204 seats, boosting its representation by 85. It controls one council, its first in the UK
The Green Party has won 83 seats, a net gain of 2
BBC News


----------



## Little-Acorn (May 10, 2015)

BTW, the people of England agreed that a party that gets elected with less than a majority, still gets the seats it won on Parliament, and the Enlgih people will obey the laws they pass.

So what do you find "illegitimate" about it?

Oh, I remember: Anything that goes against what the liberals want, is "illegitimate". Doesn't matter if the people agree with it or not.


----------



## Ame®icano (May 10, 2015)

boedicca said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Libs like results only when they win.

Police arrest 15 in anti-austerity protest in London


----------



## HenryBHough (May 10, 2015)

Labour, in Britain, is no longer relevant.  Moribund but not quite dead.

Soon.


----------



## dcraelin (May 10, 2015)

Meathead said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > M idioticeathead said:
> ...



well it is a very inferior form of democracy, when someone 2/3rds of the nation voted against gets power


----------



## Nyvin (May 10, 2015)

The difference between Labour and Tory in the UK is like 1/20th of the difference between the GOP and Democrats in the USA you know...


----------



## dcraelin (May 10, 2015)

boedicca said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Any system that produces that idiot result is illigitimate.


----------



## boedicca (May 10, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > dcraelin said:
> ...




Only to Sore Loser Mans.


----------



## Steinlight (May 10, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> The difference between Labour and Tory in the UK is like 1/20th of the difference between the GOP and Democrats in the USA you know...


Maybe in presentation, but the reality is there is more difference between the Conservatives and the Labour Party in actual policy programs than there is between the Democrats and Republicans. Obama is more or less a continuation of Bush with a more socially liberal presentation to appeal to his particular demographics. 

But you Americans love a good show, some political kabuki theater. All flash no actual substance for you colonials.


----------



## HenryBHough (May 11, 2015)

Email exchange today with a friend I'll be visiting in North Yorkshire week after next.  He was chuckling over what apparently was a concerted effort to lead pollsters down the garden path.  Nothing to do with any party; just people sick of their phone ringing every five minutes with inane questions.

In his small city the polls universally predicted a Labour sweep; MP, Borough Council, Parish (City) Council.  Actuality?  Conservative MP; hung borough council (there'll have to be a coalition of some sort) but at the city level?  The one thing nobody predicted; losses for all the parties and election of three independents.

During the coming trip I'll be in several large cities and a larger number of smaller cities/villages.  Most interesting conversation will be with a distant relative (discovered just months ago through ancestry research) who has retired to a rural farm after a life in politics including has served as an MP for one term.  I haven't discussed the possibility of intentionally misled pollsters but definitely will be doing that.

I could easily discount the chuckling of the first individual as he runs a pub and is given to joking yet the comic polling results raise the possibility that it was "for real".  If it was, imaging the hell that could be raised with American pundits by a _fed-up-with intrusive polling_ public!


----------



## Bootneck (May 11, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> Any system that produces that idiot result is illigitimate.



Lol! So good to have someone to laugh at!


----------



## dcraelin (May 11, 2015)

Steinlight said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between Labour and Tory in the UK is like 1/20th of the difference between the GOP and Democrats in the USA you know...
> ...



I think I agree with you on the Kabuki theater comment


----------



## dcraelin (May 11, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Email exchange today with a friend I'll be visiting in North Yorkshire week after next.  He was chuckling over what apparently was a concerted effort to lead pollsters down the garden path.  Nothing to do with any party; just people sick of their phone ringing every five minutes with inane questions.
> 
> In his small city the polls universally predicted a Labour sweep; MP, Borough Council, Parish (City) Council.  Actuality?  Conservative MP; hung borough council (there'll have to be a coalition of some sort) but at the city level?  The one thing nobody predicted; losses for all the parties and election of three independents.
> 
> ...


except the scary part of it is...at least in america is that some exit polling isnt matching, or didnt in the last election....which some say points to computer ballot counting fraud.....  Would like to know how England counts their ballots wheather they have computerized ballot boxes with a paper trail...


----------



## HenryBHough (May 11, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> except the scary part of it is...at least in america is that some exit polling isnt matching, or didnt in the last election....which some say points to computer ballot counting fraud.....  Would like to know how England counts their ballots wheather they have computerized ballot boxes with a paper trail...


\

Polling is more art than science though pollsters deny that.  Exit polling should pretty well reflect actual result - it surely did in Britain last week.  Perhaps because Britain remains wedded to paper ballots:

Explainer how Britain counts its votes

I do wonder why telephone polling persists when it has become common for people, disgusted with all the calls (many of them blatant "push" polls) and gleefully provide misleading answers.

But, hey, thousands of otherwise un-employables get a few days work.....


----------



## dcraelin (May 11, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > except the scary part of it is...at least in america is that some exit polling isnt matching, or didnt in the last election....which some say points to computer ballot counting fraud.....  Would like to know how England counts their ballots wheather they have computerized ballot boxes with a paper trail...
> ...



glad to see they still use paper


----------



## Phoenall (May 13, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> What an idiotic result......
> 
> Tories get less than 37% of the vote...yet they will govern the country.
> 
> ...






 We have a first past the post system, which means it is the party with the most winners that get the power. The only way to alter this would be to force people to vote and bring in proportional representation.   Every policy they pass will have full legitimacy as they meet with the wishes of the majority of the population that bothered to vote


----------



## Phoenall (May 13, 2015)

dcraelin said:


> one good thing about it tho is that with Cameron running the UK....the Scottish nationalists very well might call for another referendum on independence.






 Lets hope they get it and have to stand on their own, with the deficit they already have even with the help of the English taxpayers what chance do they have. The last SNP leader lied about Oil revenue and now realises that he was barking at the moon, this one still thinks that England will pay the bills and cant see we wont.


----------



## dcraelin (May 13, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > What an idiotic result......
> ...


 U could have first-past-the-post modified with instant runoff voting...that would bring a more rational solution. 
What you got now is a joke.


----------



## dcraelin (May 13, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> dcraelin said:
> 
> 
> > one good thing about it tho is that with Cameron running the UK....the Scottish nationalists very well might call for another referendum on independence.
> ...



From what I've heard they are perfectly willing to make a go of it on their own. I am convinced that given an illegitimate  conservative government they would be better off also. Oil revenue mainly only goes one way...up.


----------

