Election 2015 exit poll

[juddian]

Talk about bluster, we didn’t have a vote on PR we had a on the alternative voting (AV) system which was more complicated than a complicated thing, that was nothing like PR.

We won’t get PR now, why should the tories worry about levelling the playing field when they have a majority, what they say goes.

Wonder if they’ll let Scotland have another referendum on leaving the UK, might be worth it for the tories.

In other news Lucifer Blair has been gobbing off again apparently in the Observer, and his disciple Chukka has been re-iterating what the master preaches…just think we’ll probably have Lucifer in control of labour again via his apprentice, won’t that be fun.

[carryfast]

Juddian:
Talk about bluster, we didn’t have a vote on PR we had a on the alternative voting (AV) system which was more complicated than a complicated thing, that was nothing like PR.

We won’t get PR now, why should the tories worry about levelling the playing field when they have a majority, what they say goes.

Wonder if they’ll let Scotland have another referendum on leaving the UK, might be worth it for the tories.

The reason why any government needs to look at the electoral system,even if it doesn’t suit their own interests,is that a majority calculated on dodgy methods,which aren’t representative of any direct link whatsoever between overall vote numbers and seats in the house,is that of credibility and legitimacy and by implication recognition in that case.While in this case it would also be in the unions’ interests to go along with the idea of union ballots requiring more than 50% of the ‘electorate’ not just those who voted just so long as that is also applied to the government electoral system.Which would involve the option of none of the above on governmental election ballot papers together with voting being made compulsory.

While the only question against a PR type system is that of local accountability.Which we still technically don’t get anyway even with the present system.In which,although we vote for a local MP,their views and decisions can be,and usually are,overruled by ‘foreign’ outside MP’s with a ‘foreign’ outside mandate,or sometimes vice versa.

In which case the solution seems to be a PR type system.‘But’ with local sovereign right of opt out,amendment to policy and/or veto.Which is basically again the difference between Federalism/Unionism v Confederalism,at whatever level of government be it County within England or UK state within the UK,or the UK within the EU ( or for that matter American State within America ).

While it is probably that fact which explains why America seems to take a seeming unhealthy interest in in UK politics and we might,if not probably,have just ended up with an Obama puppet. IE zb scared that Lincoln’s system of government is shown up for the dictatorial sham against democracy based on force that it is.
Congratulations Cameron/Con voters.

huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/0 … 42282.html

wsj.com/articles/obama-says- … 1401984621

breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/ … y-lawsuit/

[winseer]

Juddian:
Talk about bluster, we didn’t have a vote on PR we had a on the alternative voting (AV) system which was more complicated than a complicated thing, that was nothing like PR.

We won’t get PR now, why should the tories worry about levelling the playing field when they have a majority, what they say goes.

Wonder if they’ll let Scotland have another referendum on leaving the UK, might be worth it for the tories.

In other news Lucifer Blair has been gobbing off again apparently in the Observer, and his disciple Chukka has been re-iterating what the master preaches…just think we’ll probably have Lucifer in control of labour again via his apprentice, won’t that be fun.

Yes… I don’t know if Cleggy was palmed off with this duff version of a deal being allowed to be “Put to the public” and all.

I’m in great favour of the full PR system - I’m totally against the “Alternative Vote” system which, as you say is “nothing like it”.
Our next prime minister would be NO ONE’S “first choice” most likely, but “everyone’s second” instead… Who would that have been in this election just done? Milliband?
If a ballot paper is deemed to be “spoilt” if you put too FEW as well as “too many” candidate selections as well… That’s a recipie for disaster to any uninformed voter who thinks
“Well, I’ve not heard of any of these other people - but I’m supposed to mark a second and third choice here… Let’s pick this Mimi Tatton lady - who looks like she can get results… Or perhaps this quiet fellow Dennis Nielson who’s been taking in the homeless for years apparently Very charitable indeed. Yes…”

The next government could consist of:

Prime Minister:
Chancellor of the Excheqeur:
Home Secretary:
Foreign Secretary:

Personally, I’d rather have George McFly as chancellor as a successful author who’s not afraid to punch someone’s lights out than some guy who’s never been hard-up enough to require “money management” skills in his own life - let alone being left with the finances of the entire nation.

Don’t be so surprised the names of two dead people are listed above… If the tax office in this country can bill people who’ve been dead for 7 years, then I’m sure the “Alternative Vote” system can also let slip through the net people who’ve been dead for over 500…

[desypete]

i wonder if people will end up taking to the streets and riots kicking off in the next 5 years ? there sure are enough people who are not happy the torys have power again thats for sure, over 60% of the country dont want them yet for the next 5 years there going to have to put up with it

will the country burst with emigration ? as at 300,000 a year it surely will get to impact even in billy hunts back yard

i dont think there is any point at all anymore us having a voting system ? as its clearly unfair that 33 % of the people can put a party in power, no party should have power unless they command over half the country as at least it could be proved that more people wanted them in power than were against them.

i was hopping that no single party would have over all control, as its how it should be, its what the voteres voted for as its clear almost 60% of voters did not vote for torys so it should of been a hung parliament as that is the true face of what happend

i can bet more people than ever will give up voting any more as what’s the point ? no matter how they vote they will not get what they vote for and have to accept a party that commands such a small percentage of the people

i had some hope before the election, some belief that maybe just maybe a difference could be found and the torys and labour would get the biggest kicking of there lives by the people, for cocking everything up for so long, for most ordinary people.

now i think i will move to the Philippines find myself a nice bride out there and buy a house and retire in the sun. rather than watch what the next 5 years will bring about in this country.

[carryfast]

slobodaiprosperitet.tv/sites … review.jpg

Wrong.

There are two types of Capitalist.‘One’ of which being the elitist non Fordist type.Which,together with the politics of envy of the Socialist,is also disgusted.But in this case by what it would consider as being ‘too good’ for the working class.On the basis of the typical idea ‘if the employees can afford to live like that then they are being paid too much and where is the incentive to be a so called risk taking entrepreneur employer’.

There are also two types of Socialist in the form of those who think along the lines of the wrong type of Capitalist described above.IE every Socialist is equal but some Socialists deserve to be more equal than others.

Sadly this election just seems to have pushed the country into the entrenched two sided simplistic left v right argument shown in the pic.Which if it isn’t stopped by some clear thinking by the ( rightly ) disillusioned working class vote and a political system,which is prepared to ditch the obsolete idea of left v right,could make the poll tax riots look like a small pub brawl.

[carryfast]

desypete:
i wonder if people will end up taking to the streets and riots kicking off in the next 5 years ? there sure are enough people who are not happy the torys have power again thats for sure, over 60% of the country dont want them yet for the next 5 years there going to have to put up with it

will the country burst with emigration ? as at 300,000 a year it surely will get to impact even in billy hunts back yard

its clearly unfair that 33 % of the people can put a party in power, no party should have power unless they command over half the country as at least it could be proved that more people wanted them in power than were against them.

i was hopping that no single party would have over all control, as its how it should be, its what the voteres voted for as its clear almost 60% of voters did not vote for torys so it should of been a hung parliament as that is the true face of what happend

i had some hope before the election, some belief that maybe just maybe a difference could be found and the torys and labour would get the biggest kicking of there lives by the people, for cocking everything up for so long, for most ordinary people.

^ This.

Anyone who lived through the Thatcher era knows the dangers of an unopposed arrogant out of touch government.Luckily in this case with a majority of 12 it could have been worse in that regard and we’re not really in Thatcher territory more like the John Major era.The main problem in this case being that the country still obviously hasn’t evolved out of a left v right mindset.Which is the real danger and problem and its that issue which needs sorting and fast.

[beardedblunder]

■■■■■■■:
Havent trawled through the full thread yet tbh, so dont know if this has been covered.
It is postulated (by some) that we enjoy one of the greatest systems of democratic governance in the “civilised” world.
These graphs however, tell a starkly different story.
We are NOT being governed democratically, that much is certain.

So we should have all issues decided ultimately by the small parties for whom very few voted?
How is this fairer than having them decided by the party for whom the largest minority voted?

PR is extremely Undemocratic, it puts small minorities in charge rather than big ones, the alleged “cure” is way worse than the disease.

[carryfast]

BeardedBlunder:

■■■■■■■:
Havent trawled through the full thread yet tbh, so dont know if this has been covered.
It is postulated (by some) that we enjoy one of the greatest systems of democratic governance in the “civilised” world.
These graphs however, tell a starkly different story.
We are NOT being governed democratically, that much is certain.

So we should have all issues decided ultimately by the small parties for whom very few voted?
How is this fairer than having them decided by the party for whom the largest minority voted?

PR is extremely Undemocratic, it puts small minorities in charge rather than big ones, the alleged “cure” is way worse than the disease.

The electorate has a right to expect the overall number of votes to have a direct mathematical correlation with the amount of seats representing it in the house.

While the idea of democracy is ‘majority’ rule and minority opposition.‘Majority’ in this case can of course mean an alliance/combination of similar thinking,but seperately minority,parties either on a vote by vote basis or on a co alition basis which outweighs the largest minority Party.In which case the example of the election result expressed in PR terms seems fair enough and certainly fairer than what we seem to have got.

The argument having nothing whatsoever to do with majority seat rule in the house but an arbitrary disparity applying in the case of the level of representation in government by vote numbers.That’s without getting into the issues of local sovereign right of opt out,veto,or amendment.Being that there is no way that either system can cater for local democratic mandate without those caveats.

Feel free to explain in that case how a system,which allows different vote number requirements,often by a massive factor,to get an equivalent level of representation in the house,is supposedly ‘more democratic’ than the idea of each vote buying an equal level of representation as to whichever Party being voted for.Especially when also combined with local right of veto,opt out,or amendment of majority decisions,affecting specific areas,made without local mandate.Bearing in mind the ever increasing transfer of the local government decision making process to top down national control such as development policy and federal rule in the case of the EU and the UK as opposed to national sovereignty and/or Confederal rule.Just as would be expected from a historically ideologicallly federalist Party like the Conservatives but which should have ditched all the historic ideological baggage in that regard long ago.Just like its backward regressive form of ‘Capitalism’ that has more in common with Communism.

[beardedblunder]

Having representation decided by counting runny noses and awarding seats in proportion results in very small minorities having undue influence

Just look at recent political history in countries that do it that way, you’ll find plenty of cases where critical issues were decided by the votes of MPs representing spiritual brethren of the BNP

EFFECTIVE power lies with whoever holds the balance, usually the third party… but sometimes repugnant outright loonies way down the list of parties, but in all cases where so-called proportionality is used, smaller minorities end up with more influence after the election than bigger ones, it’s less “fair” than what we have at present.

At least currently it’s the biggest single minority ultimately calling the shots, not the third fourth fifth or smaller one deciding yes/no to every bit of legislation.

I’m not claiming the system is perfect, it isn’t, it’s just better and fairer based on the ratio of influence to size of minority than any other system.

[desypete]

BeardedBlunder:
Having representation decided by counting runny noses and awarding seats in proportion results in very small minorities having undue influence

Just look at recent political history in countries that do it that way, you’ll find plenty of cases where critical issues were decided by the votes of MPs representing spiritual brethren of the BNP

EFFECTIVE power lies with whoever holds the balance, usually the third party… but sometimes repugnant outright loonies way down the list of parties, but in all cases where so-called proportionality is used, smaller minorities end up with more influence after the election than bigger ones, it’s less “fair” than what we have at present.

At least currently it’s the biggest single minority ultimately calling the shots, not the third fourth fifth or smaller one deciding yes/no to every bit of legislation.

I’m not claiming the system is perfect, it isn’t, it’s just better and fairer based on the ratio of influence to size of minority than any other system.

i dont know what the answer is but this election has shown and left a lot of people feeling that the whole thing is a waste of time, not because its sour grapes but based on the facts of how many people in this country went off to vote and voted against the torys

the figures qouted are 33 % of people who voted, voted tory

which leaves 67 % voted against tory, yet the torys have enough mps to form a government

there is no way in the world ukip who got 4 million votes and only 1 mp compared to snp who got 2 million votes and 56 mps is fair.

the lib dems got crushed out of sight.

labour got a bloody nose and rightly so for my mind as labour have had more then enough chances over the years, Blair, Harriet hatemen, and Diane race card abbot and all those other loony political correct types in labour killed off what labour used to be about, we have no party other than ukip that would stand up to the political correct nonsense that has overtaken this country.
labour did themselves no favours by not offering a referendum on Europe and so they have paid the price for that.

but what should to voting system be ? what is a fair one that would keep everyone happy and make them feel there vote is worth using or it can make a difference ?

maybe we should get rid of central government and just have councils run our areas so we have area by area representation that will affect only that area. if we are unhappy with the area we can move out and go to another area that we would be happy to live in ?
after all the way things are going we have a welsh and scots chambers and irish or course and i guess there will be an english one soon to follow with more jobs for the political correct loonys, so why not get rid of them all and just have councils run our areas ?

like i say i dont know what the best answer is as nothing would ever be perfect but surely there must be a better way to make my vote count or for me to have my voice heard ? other than me posting on this site that is

[beardedblunder]

desypete:

BeardedBlunder:
Having representation decided by counting runny noses and awarding seats in proportion results in very small minorities having undue influence

Just look at recent political history in countries that do it that way, you’ll find plenty of cases where critical issues were decided by the votes of MPs representing spiritual brethren of the BNP

EFFECTIVE power lies with whoever holds the balance, usually the third party… but sometimes repugnant outright loonies way down the list of parties, but in all cases where so-called proportionality is used, smaller minorities end up with more influence after the election than bigger ones, it’s less “fair” than what we have at present.

At least currently it’s the biggest single minority ultimately calling the shots, not the third fourth fifth or smaller one deciding yes/no to every bit of legislation.

I’m not claiming the system is perfect, it isn’t, it’s just better and fairer based on the ratio of influence to size of minority than any other system.

i dont know what the answer is but this election has shown and left a lot of people feeling that the whole thing is a waste of time, not because its sour grapes but based on the facts of how many people in this country went off to vote and voted against the torys

the figures qouted are 33 % of people who voted, voted tory

which leaves 67 % voted against tory, yet the torys have enough mps to form a government

there is no way in the world ukip who got 4 million votes and only 1 mp compared to snp who got 2 million votes and 56 mps is fair.

the lib dems got crushed out of sight.

labour got a bloody nose and rightly so for my mind as labour have had more then enough chances over the years, Blair, Harriet hatemen, and Diane race card abbot and all those other loony political correct types in labour killed off what labour used to be about, we have no party other than ukip that would stand up to the political correct nonsense that has overtaken this country.
labour did themselves no favours by not offering a referendum on Europe and so they have paid the price for that.

but what should to voting system be ? what is a fair one that would keep everyone happy and make them feel there vote is worth using or it can make a difference ?

maybe we should get rid of central government and just have councils run our areas so we have area by area representation that will affect only that area. if we are unhappy with the area we can move out and go to another area that we would be happy to live in ?
after all the way things are going we have a welsh and scots chambers and irish or course and i guess there will be an english one soon to follow with more jobs for the political correct loonys, so why not get rid of them all and just have councils run our areas ?

like i say i dont know what the best answer is as nothing would ever be perfect but surely there must be a better way to make my vote count or for me to have my voice heard ? other than me posting on this site that is

Did some study of electoral systems as a college student (engineering students were forced to add such studies at the time), system we have has it’s faults, but in my opinion, PR isn’t the cure, and is in fact worse than the disease.

Yes we now have a government more voted against than for, but best case under PR is a backroom stitch up, for which nobody actually voted, with what we get decided by a party or parties even less voted for than voted for either main party.

Is the system fair? Obviously not, the alternative is even less fair, what we have in my view is the least-worst of a bad lot of alternatives, and that’s all that can be said for it.

The nation was asked during the last government if we wanted ( probably the least obnoxious of ) the “more proportional” electoral systems, the nation rejected that, those now bleating loudest are really showing their anti-democratic position by refusing to accept the majority decision because they don’t like the outcome.

[carryfast]

BeardedBlunder:

desypete:
i dont know what the answer is but this election has shown and left a lot of people feeling that the whole thing is a waste of time, not because its sour grapes but based on the facts of how many people in this country went off to vote and voted against the torys

the figures qouted are 33 % of people who voted, voted tory

which leaves 67 % voted against tory, yet the torys have enough mps to form a government

there is no way in the world ukip who got 4 million votes and only 1 mp compared to snp who got 2 million votes and 56 mps is fair.

the lib dems got crushed out of sight.

labour got a bloody nose and rightly so for my mind as labour have had more then enough chances over the years, Blair, Harriet hatemen, and Diane race card abbot and all those other loony political correct types in labour killed off what labour used to be about, we have no party other than ukip that would stand up to the political correct nonsense that has overtaken this country.
labour did themselves no favours by not offering a referendum on Europe and so they have paid the price for that.

but what should to voting system be ? what is a fair one that would keep everyone happy and make them feel there vote is worth using or it can make a difference ?

maybe we should get rid of central government and just have councils run our areas so we have area by area representation that will affect only that area. if we are unhappy with the area we can move out and go to another area that we would be happy to live in ?
after all the way things are going we have a welsh and scots chambers and irish or course and i guess there will be an english one soon to follow with more jobs for the political correct loonys, so why not get rid of them all and just have councils run our areas ?

like i say i dont know what the best answer is as nothing would ever be perfect but surely there must be a better way to make my vote count or for me to have my voice heard ? other than me posting on this site that is

Did some study of electoral systems as a college student (engineering students were forced to add such studies at the time), system we have has it’s faults, but in my opinion, PR isn’t the cure, and is in fact worse than the disease.

Yes we now have a government more voted against than for, but best case under PR is a backroom stitch up, for which nobody actually voted, with what we get decided by a party or parties even less voted for than voted for either main party.

Is the system fair? Obviously not, the alternative is even less fair, what we have in my view is the least-worst of a bad lot of alternatives, and that’s all that can be said for it.

The nation was asked during the last government if we wanted ( probably the least obnoxious of ) the “more proportional” electoral systems, the nation rejected that, those now bleating loudest are really showing their anti-democratic position by refusing to accept the majority decision because they don’t like the outcome.

What we actually have is the worst option not least worst.Why would anyone want to accept any form of ‘majority’ that doesn’t directly reflect vote numbers.Or for that matter the idea of a democratic ‘choice’ of candidate/representative then being confused with a dictatorship in the form of majority decision making.As opposed to ‘decisons’ based on referendum and the caveats/safeguards of local opt out and/or veto and/or amendment of policy.

Which is probably how Anglo Saxon government would have evolved from the system of individual shire governments ‘if’ it hadn’t been destroyed by a bunch of invading dictatorial French federalists.

[beardedblunder]

Because simply, whilst you can’t please all of the people all of the time, you can displease them all…

Even at it’s very best, PR is only “fair” in the same way taking a vote for what’s on tv, and then mixing the sound and pictures voted for on screen is “fair”…

What you get, every time, is an incoherent mess NOBODY actually wanted…

By instead putting on the channel that the largest number requested, you’ve pleased * as many people as it’s possible to please *

[carryfast]

BeardedBlunder:
Because simply, whilst you can’t please all of the people all of the time, you can displease them all…

Even at it’s very best, PR is only “fair” in the same way taking a vote for what’s on tv, and then mixing the sound and pictures voted for on screen is “fair”…

What you get, every time, is an incoherent mess NOBODY actually wanted…

By instead putting on the channel that the largest number requested, you’ve pleased * as many people as it’s possible to please *

Blimey by that logic Switzerland would have long ago descended into anarchy with rioting in the streets because of its incoherent electoral and political system.When the fact is its electoral and governmental systems,not to mention its version of Capitalism v that of the Cons,might be a bit more complicated.But it definitely pleases more of the people, more of the time,than our version of ‘democracy’ and any of our previous governments ever have.

While incoherence doesn’t get much more incoherent that an electoral ‘majority’ in the house that isn’t a directly accurate representation of the vote numbers obtained.With an obviously in built exaggeration factor.While to add insult to injury the Party in question had complained previously about even that putting them at an unfair electoral disadvantage.

Although assuming a decent system of checks and balances,in the form of local electoral accountability,like referendum,veto,opt out,and amendment a parliamentary ‘majority in the house’ obviously ( rightly ) becomes an irrelevance anyway in most cases.

[wetback]

I have no problems with any democratically derived outcome. I DO have a problem however, with the criminally cynical methods by which the election results are subsequently doctored and corrupted. Whatever your political affiliations, it’s plain to see the glaring flaws which make a mockery of millions of people’s votes.

Not sour grapes - just a sense of fairness and proportion.

[beardedblunder]

CF, I’ve read enough of your posts on TN to have learned that you’ll never actually consider any view that differs from your own,
nor acknowledge any facts inconvenient to it,
nor engage in reasoned debate, a concept that seems alien to you.

I have, however, for those willing to actually think about the points made, given a different view from the standard unreasoned “changing the system must be fairer / better” view that surfaces post every election.

Those people are free to consider what I’ve said, and accept my conclusion or otherwise, if they present a coherent reasoned refutation of the points made, they may even change my opinion.

Repeatedly stating that it simply must be wrong because number of runny noses counted doesn’t correlate with proportions of members appointed is not such a reasoned refutation, and thus will convince neither me, nor anyone who’s actually understood the points I’ve made.

The fact other nations use different flawed systems from the flawed system we use here, doesn’t remove the flaws from those systems, it only proves that more than one flawed system is actually workable.

Nor am I aware of any democratic system without flaws that would be workable, you picks the best of a bad bunch, I’m yet to be convinced the current system here isn’t that best of a bad bunch.

[billyhunt]

Well it seems Lord Nigel didn’t like being on the dole too long, back in charge of the kippers after being persuaded to change his mind. Looks like we dodged a bullet there if he’s liable to change his mind that quickly. Just as well they aren’t a one man band then isn’t it?
Bearded one, your wasting your time trying to get sense out of some of these, it would be easier to nail one of my turds to the ceiling. The kippers didn’t have a landslide win & Lord Nigel didn’t get in, these two points alone show that the system we’ve used for years, successfully, is rubbish. Especially when you look at the properly run,scientific poll run on here, I think some, desypete for one, thought it would transfer into actual real life, the deluded fools.

[carryfast]

BeardedBlunder:
CF, I’ve read enough of your posts on TN to have learned that you’ll never actually consider any view that differs from your own,
nor acknowledge any facts inconvenient to it,
nor engage in reasoned debate, a concept that seems alien to you.

Repeatedly stating that it simply must be wrong because number of runny noses counted doesn’t correlate with proportions of members appointed is not such a reasoned refutation, and thus will convince neither me, nor anyone who’s actually understood the points I’ve made.

I’d suggest that, ‘repeatedly stating’,that any so called representation,let alone a majority,in the house,that has no set direct relationship to the actual vote numbers,is more ‘wrong’.Than ‘repeatedly stating’ that parliamentary representation/majority isn’t worth a can of beans without an electoral mandate in terms of overall vote numbers to back it up.

Let alone all the other issues of local accountability added to that by government ministers deciding,or trying to decide,what happens outside their own electoral constituencies without any local mandate.Wether that be our own over centralised domestic government,or the UK federation,or the even worse EU federation.

IE if we’re going to have a quasi elected but in reality unelected dictatorship then tell it like/call it what,it is.

[carryfast]

BillyHunt:
Well it seems Lord Nigel didn’t like being on the dole too long, back in charge of the kippers after being persuaded to change his mind. Looks like we dodged a bullet there if he’s liable to change his mind that quickly.

No together with Dannan he can do more damage to Cameron’s administration back in the EU parliament than he could ever have done in the UK one under the present electoral system and while it remains a puppet of Brussels.

The difference with UKIP is that it isn’t a bunch of amateurs like the Labour ranks.It has a purpose and it will eventually succeed in smashing the federalist dream of a federal Europe.

[switchlogic]

Carryfast:

BillyHunt:
Well it seems Lord Nigel didn’t like being on the dole too long, back in charge of the kippers after being persuaded to change his mind. Looks like we dodged a bullet there if he’s liable to change his mind that quickly.

No together with Dannan he can do more damage to Cameron’s administration back in the EU parliament than he could ever have done in the UK one under the present electoral system and while it remains a puppet of Brussels.

The difference with UKIP is that it isn’t a bunch of amateurs like the Labour ranks.It has a purpose and it will eventually succeed in smashing the federalist dream of a federal Europe.

Yup, he’s done no end of damage to Cameron so far…so much he got a shock majority. Good old Nigel.