Please vote

[andrew_dundee]

hi guys

just a reminder that the European Elections are on today so please do vote!!! as thousands died for our right to vote it would seem a shame to waste it :agree:

GGTTH

[Steve-O]

hi guys

just a reminder that the European Elections are on today so please do vote!!! as thousands died for our right to vote it would seem a shame to waste it :agree:

GGTTH

Did they?

[andrew_dundee]

Did they?

well in an abstract historical sense probably yes but in a literal sense no not really :wink:

[Long suffering]

well in an abstract historical sense probably yes but in a literal sense no not really :wink:

Im ur man for anything on the vote, (Just been revising my History lately :greengrin:greengrin)

[SlickShoes]

Im all for voting but there is no one to vote for, i read all the crap they sent me in the post and the websites linked on those leaflets and none of them seem like people i want to vote for. I might go and draw a lovely horse on the ballot paper.

[steakbake]

Im all for voting but there is no one to vote for, i read all the crap they sent me in the post and the websites linked on those leaflets and none of them seem like people i want to vote for. I might go and draw a lovely horse on the ballot paper.

Good to hear that even if you think there is no-one who represents you, you'll go and make your mark anyway.

I'm still swithering between SNP and Green. I'll see how I feel in the booth. I normally vote SNP, but for Europe it seems acceptable to vote for your wee team to give them a chance.

I think in the next week or so, there will be major changes in the UK government and I don't expect that Brown will be PM for too much longer.

[SlickShoes]

Good to hear that even if you think there is no-one who represents you, you'll go and make your mark anyway.

I'm still swithering between SNP and Green. I'll see how I feel in the booth. I normally vote SNP, but for Europe it seems acceptable to vote for your wee team to give them a chance.

I think in the next week or so, there will be major changes in the UK government and I don't expect that Brown will be PM for too much longer.

Its a weird one for me, last time voting i voted SNP more as a protest vote to labour to get them out and realise they cant just do what ever they want and people will still vote for them.

This time though, the only reason i want to vote is so that its another vote that the BNP doesnt get, i suppose thats more constructive than drawing a horse on the ballot.

[Long suffering]

Good to hear that even if you think there is no-one who represents you, you'll go and make your mark anyway.

I'm still swithering between SNP and Green. I'll see how I feel in the booth. I normally vote SNP, but for Europe it seems acceptable to vote for your wee team to give them a chance.

I think in the next week or so, there will be major changes in the UK government and I don't expect that Brown will be PM for too much longer.
My mother was swithering between the same two parties, she went for green in the end

[Jack]

This is the point of voting

As I understand it 10% of the vote guarantees a seat in these European elections. :confused:

With the understandable apathy towards, and therefore a reduced vote for, the main parties at the moment it is likely the minor parties will do all they can to mobilise their support and get them to the ballot box.

It would seem to me then that this is an ideal opportunity for the odious British National Party to get a foothold in our [national] political arena.

I don’t really care for politics, or politicians, but the thought of that party representing my country in an international setting fills me with disgust.

So I would urge you fellow posters (and lurkers) to get out and vote (for any party other than the BNP obviously) to make this 10% more difficult for them to achieve.

Thank you.

Tomorrow belongs to me – not them! :greengrin

[andrew_dundee]

if this were a scottish election i would vote SNP because they have done a generally good job in office. However i intend to vote Green in these elections because it's a positive protest and i want to see the SNP punished for the elaborate promises they made to students last year (return to grant and doing away with debt) as in my work i am involved in full time student representation. i couldn't vote Labour or Tory.

[Woody1985]

It's a sad state of affairs when people only vote cos the other guys are really *****.

Wouldn't it be great if we could actually vote for someone that would represent us all in the best way possible.

**** politics.

[Sylar]

if this were a scottish election i would vote SNP because they have done a generally good job in office. However i intend to vote Green in these elections because it's a positive protest and i want to see the SNP punished for the elaborate promises they made to students last year (return to grant and doing away with debt) as in my work i am involved in full time student representation. i couldn't vote Labour or Tory.

To be fair, they got rid of the major bug-bear in the Graduate Endowment fee, which benefited me, as I graduated last year. There is only so much money can be thrown at students these days, particularly when most (in my past 4 year experience as an undergrad) piss it against a wall. Returning to a grant-based reward scheme will exacerbate that - at least with the loan system, they gain responsibility in financial management!

If students are willing to incur debt whilst going through University, they should be held accountable for that debt, without relying on the national government to bail them out.

p.s. - on an absolutely unrelated note, great job getting Idlewild to the grab ball this year! :thumbsup:

[RyeSloan]

I won't vote as I have little or no idea what the European Parliament actually does. Seems to me it's nothing more than a talking shop with the decisions and directives created behind closed doors.

Granted I've not investigated it much but at the same time no one has bothered to explain what these representatives will do for us (if anything).

The EU must be the most undemocratic, morally corrupt political organisation going and I feel no need to give it a fig leaf of respectability by voting for some bod to sit in Brussels or wherever the go to acheive the square root of f.all while millions and millions of europes tax payers money gets wasted on the CAP and syphend off never to be seen again.

[bawheid]

I won't vote as I have little or no idea what the European Parliament actually does. Seems to me it's nothing more than a talking shop with the decisions and directives created behind closed doors.

Granted I've not investigated it much but at the same time no one has bothered to explain what these representatives will do for us (if anything).

The EU must be the most undemocratic, morally corrupt political organisation going and I feel no need to give it a fig leaf of respectability by voting for some bod to sit in Brussels or wherever the go to acheive the square root of f.all while millions and millions of europes tax payers money gets wasted on the CAP and syphend off never to be seen again.

There are parties that want to take Britain out the EU. Why not go and vote for one of them?

[andrew_dundee]

To be fair, they got rid of the major bug-bear in the Graduate Endowment fee, which benefited me, as I graduated last year. There is only so much money can be thrown at students these days, particularly when most (in my past 4 year experience as an undergrad) piss it against a wall. Returning to a grant-based reward scheme will exacerbate that - at least with the loan system, they gain responsibility in financial management!

If students are willing to incur debt whilst going through University, they should be held accountable for that debt, without relying on the national government to bail them out.

p.s. - on an absolutely unrelated note, great job getting Idlewild to the grab ball this year! :thumbsup:

thanks on the Idlewild point :-)

i have to disagree with you on the SNP point though. My issue with them is not to do with the pros and cons of student debt, i would agree with you that scrapping grad endowment fee was very welcome and has also saved me money :wink:

my issue is about political honety, they won the last election by 1 seat and a very close national vote, it wouldnt be unfair to say that had they not had that policy they may have lost the election. My issue is that they knew the mechanisms of the Scottish Parliament and knew fine well that they would never pass the policy, it was either politically naieve or opportunistic to run with it in the first place, they may as well have run on a policy of giving every single Scot £100k a year and then blamed the opposition when it didnt come to fruition. either they are naieve and should have know better or they are opportunistic and said it to get votes.

having said that i think they have done a fairly good job in government and i will almost certainly vote for them in the next big elections

also to my understanding SNP and Greens are part of the same European Grouping and hence vote the same way on all the issue anyway :greengrin

[JimBHibees]

thanks on the Idlewild point :-)

i have to disagree with you on the SNP point though. My issue with them is not to do with the pros and cons of student debt, i would agree with you that scrapping grad endowment fee was very welcome and has also saved me money :wink:

my issue is about political honety, they won the last election by 1 seat and a very close national vote, it wouldnt be unfair to say that had they not had that policy they may have lost the election. My issue is that they knew the mechanisms of the Scottish Parliament and knew fine well that they would never pass the policy, it was either politically naieve or opportunistic to run with it in the first place, they may as well have run on a policy of giving every single Scot £100k a year and then blamed the opposition when it didnt come to fruition. either they are naieve and should have know better or they are opportunistic and said it to get votes.

having said that i think they have done a fairly good job in government and i will almost certainly vote for them in the next big elections

also to my understanding SNP and Greens are part of the same European Grouping and hence vote the same way on all the issue anyway :greengrin

Surely SNP would have assumed they may have had a workable majority in the Parliament allowing them to pass this policy rather than the coalition that can curtail many of their plans.

[PeeJay]

I won't vote as I have little or no idea what the European Parliament actually does. Seems to me it's nothing more than a talking shop with the decisions and directives created behind closed doors.

Granted I've not investigated it much but at the same time no one has bothered to explain what these representatives will do for us (if anything).

The EU must be the most undemocratic, morally corrupt political organisation going and I feel no need to give it a fig leaf of respectability by voting for some bod to sit in Brussels or wherever the go to acheive the square root of f.all while millions and millions of europes tax payers money gets wasted on the CAP and syphend off never to be seen again.

No reason really for not knowing anything about the European Parliament. I would suggest that, before you vote for some cheap and nasty populist party, you could inform yourself of the issues at stake. Voting for a party that will take you out of something you know little or nothing about is not clever: why not find out if it's agood idea first?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/default_en.htm?language=EN

The EU actually does a lot for us ... and while not everything there may be to our/your particular liking, it's up to us - the electorate - to participate, surely and make changes?

Your attitude is representative of a typical British malady really (general point, not aimed at you in particular) no need to know anything about the EU and its workings - just blame everything and anything on it - easy peasy!

[Landells]

I dunno whos even taking part :rolleyes:

[ancienthibby]

hi guys

just a reminder that the European Elections are on today so please do vote!!! as thousands died for our right to vote it would seem a shame to waste it :agree:

GGTTH

I have taken your instruction to heart and been out and voted!!

I don't see this as a huge party political thing, but as a bit of solidarity with ordinary folks in countries where there is no free vote. When I put that x in a box I hope and trust that 'voteless' people everywhere will not be voteless much longer!:agree:

[marinello59]

I dunno whos even taking part :rolleyes:

You could try searching the various Party websites.

[Beefster]

I dunno whos even taking part :rolleyes:

Big Tam from up the road definitely is. I'm not sure about wee Mary though.

[Scooter]

i dont vote cause there is no one to vote for. i'm happy if SNP get nothing. all they are about Alex Salmond and all this crap about scotland this and scotland that is all for him

[CropleyWasGod]

i dont vote cause there is no one to vote for. i'm happy if SNP get nothing. all they are about Alex Salmond and all this crap about scotland this and scotland that is all for him

Have you SEEN the size of the ballot paper? No one to vote for?

[ancienthibby]

i dont vote cause there is no one to vote for. i'm happy if SNP get nothing. all they are about Alex Salmond and all this crap about scotland this and scotland that is all for him

And at 24(?) your Mammy is still changing your nappies:devil:

[RyeSloan]

No reason really for not knowing anything about the European Parliament. I would suggest that, before you vote for some cheap and nasty populist party, you could inform yourself of the issues at stake. Voting for a party that will take you out of something you know little or nothing about is not clever: why not find out if it's agood idea first?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/default_en.htm?language=EN

The EU actually does a lot for us ... and while not everything there may be to our/your particular liking, it's up to us - the electorate - to participate, surely and make changes?

Your attitude is representative of a typical British malady really (general point, not aimed at you in particular) no need to know anything about the EU and its workings - just blame everything and anything on it - easy peasy!

Thanks for the link....the knowledge hasn't really changed my thoughts though....although it seems to nominally hold some power all the legislation comes from the Commission...this sentance was especially revealing:

"On ‘sensitive’ questions (e.g. taxation, industrial policy, agricultural policy) the European Parliament gives only an advisory opinion (the ‘consultation procedure’"

i.e on anything that counts the elected representatives of the European people have no real power at all. Its a democratic sham and seems like a vast talking shop of vested interests. I did try to find a page that detailed its acheivements over the last 5 years but gave up after a while!

You have me wrong I'm no europhile and certainly agree on Europes efforts to form a single market however the whole structure of the EU is wrong, it's budget priorities are wrong and if you have ever seen it's treatment of anyone who tries to audit the massive budget you will see that it's institutionally corrupt. Instead of expanding a federal style of governance and guidance it looks to centralise more and more...not healthy IMHO.

The CAP has to be the single biggest waste of money ever created by man (outside of the US defence budget!) and as for the 1.2billion euros it cost to run the Euopean parliament alone in 2006 (the admin of the EU seems to cost in excess of 6 billion euros!) well I struggle to see how that can be considered value for money!

[steakbake]

CAP and the fisheries policy are especially disasterous.

[hibsbollah]

Im all for voting but there is no one to vote for, i read all the crap they sent me in the post and the websites linked on those leaflets and none of them seem like people i want to vote for. I might go and draw a lovely horse on the ballot paper.

You're still exercising your mandate by defacing the ballot paper, or just put 'none of the above'. Better than not contributing at all:agree:

I always feel good after voting.

[Allant1981]

I only had one leaflet come through my door so I voted them seen as they actually bothered to try and get my vote

[ArabHibee]

To be fair, they got rid of the major bug-bear in the Graduate Endowment fee, which benefited me, as I graduated last year. There is only so much money can be thrown at students these days, particularly when most (in my past 4 year experience as an undergrad) piss it against a wall. Returning to a grant-based reward scheme will exacerbate that - at least with the loan system, they gain responsibility in financial management!

If students are willing to incur debt whilst going through University, they should be held accountable for that debt, without relying on the national government to bail them out.


:top marks Great post.
Not able to vote this year as haven't changed my address with electoral roll so polling card will have gone to old address.

[Onceinawhile]

CAP and the fisheries policy are especially disasterous.

Cap was especially bad about 7-10 years ago, however it's been sorted to an extent that it isn't such the bugbear it used to be.:agree:

Fisheries policy is terrible though.

[marinello59]

I only had one leaflet come through my door so I voted them seen as they actually bothered to try and get my vote

And who was that then?

[Part/Time Supporter]

I only had one leaflet come through my door so I voted them seen as they actually bothered to try and get my vote

That's a fair point, none of the parties seem that bothered about the election up here. Probably keeping their powder dry for the general election.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Thanks for the link....the knowledge hasn't really changed my thoughts though....although it seems to nominally hold some power all the legislation comes from the Commission...this sentance was especially revealing:

"On ‘sensitive’ questions (e.g. taxation, industrial policy, agricultural policy) the European Parliament gives only an advisory opinion (the ‘consultation procedure’"

i.e on anything that counts the elected representatives of the European people have no real power at all. Its a democratic sham and seems like a vast talking shop of vested interests. I did try to find a page that detailed its acheivements over the last 5 years but gave up after a while!

You have me wrong I'm no europhile and certainly agree on Europes efforts to form a single market however the whole structure of the EU is wrong, it's budget priorities are wrong and if you have ever seen it's treatment of anyone who tries to audit the massive budget you will see that it's institutionally corrupt. Instead of expanding a federal style of governance and guidance it looks to centralise more and more...not healthy IMHO.

The CAP has to be the single biggest waste of money ever created by man (outside of the US defence budget!) and as for the 1.2billion euros it cost to run the Euopean parliament alone in 2006 (the admin of the EU seems to cost in excess of 6 billion euros!) well I struggle to see how that can be considered value for money!

The only way to fix it would be to have a directly elected EU president.

:duck:

[Scooter]

And at 24(?) your Mammy is still changing your nappies:devil:

and breast feeding:greengrin

[PC Stamp]

The SNP blew it for me right from the word go when instead of having the baws to make the big decision and put the kybosh on the £450M colossal waste of money that is the now "half a line" Edinburgh tram system ... they sooked up to the Lib Dems to get their support in order to feather their own political nest.

[Allant1981]

and who was that then?


snp

[marinello59]

snp

Just wondered. We got leaflets from all the major parties up here but only the SNP fleshed it out a bit. Until I saw the ballot paper I was totally unaware of some of the candidates and I had done some research beforehand online.. There were no posters up on display anywhere yet over in Ireland I hardly saw a lampost without a candidates poster on it. A poor show all round in this country really.

[RyeSloan]

The only way to fix it would be to have a directly elected EU president.

:duck:

:greengrin:greengrin Now yer talking...I think Tony Blair would be an excellent choice :wink:

[SlickShoes]

You're still exercising your mandate by defacing the ballot paper, or just put 'none of the above'. Better than not contributing at all:agree:

I always feel good after voting.

Yeah i ended up voting, couldnt let the opportunity pass by. Any chance to not vote for the BNP ill take it!

[Allant1981]

Just wondered. We got leaflets from all the major parties up here but only the SNP fleshed it out a bit. Until I saw the ballot paper I was totally unaware of some of the candidates and I had done some research beforehand online.. There were no posters up on display anywhere yet over in Ireland I hardly saw a lampost without a candidates poster on it. A poor show all round in this country really.


It was very poor coverage in our area. Polling cards came out weeks ago but nothing from any parties except the one i mentioned. Normally I dont vote SNP as I dont agree with their policies but as I said if no other party is that bothered then why should I go out my way to vote for them

[Allant1981]

Yeah i ended up voting, couldnt let the opportunity pass by. Any chance to not vote for the BNP ill take it!


Do they actually have anyone standing in scotland. Didnt think they had many MP's up here

[marinello59]

Do they actually have anyone standing in scotland. Didnt think they had many MP's up here

They had candidates in the Euro Election. (Top of the ballot paper.)

[RyeSloan]

It was very poor coverage in our area. Polling cards came out weeks ago but nothing from any parties except the one i mentioned. Normally I dont vote SNP as I dont agree with their policies but as I said if no other party is that bothered then why should I go out my way to vote for them

What a strange concept, sorry but voting for a party cause they managed to drop a leaflet through your door is lame to say the least.

I didn't vote becasue as I have stated think that it is nothing more than an expensive democratic sham but if i did vote (which I do for elections that actually count for something) it would never be for someone just because they managed to get a leaflet through my door...if I did it would be a landslide for the local Indian take away. Proof indeed if it was needed that a leaflet through the door does not a vote deserve.

[(((Fergus)))]

Last time I went to vote I noticed there was a serial number on the ballot paper which matched up to a serial number on the counterfoil. When they gave me the ballot paper, they wrote my name/reference on the counterfoil.

In other words: they can work out who voted for which party.

[hibsbollah]

Last time I went to vote I noticed there was a serial number on the ballot paper which matched up to a serial number on the counterfoil. When they gave me the ballot paper, they wrote my name/reference on the counterfoil.

In other words: they can work out who voted for which party.

They wont need a serial number to work out who you voted for:wink:

[Woody1985]

Last time I went to vote I noticed there was a serial number on the ballot paper which matched up to a serial number on the counterfoil. When they gave me the ballot paper, they wrote my name/reference on the counterfoil.

In other words: they can work out who voted for which party.

Could it also prevent people from voting more than once? How exactly does voting work in terms of them making sure that you only vote once?

I've never voted cos they're all as bad as each other.

[Golden Bear]

For the first time in my life I did not vote.

I received no literature or communications in any form from any the candidates, so my attitude was "if they can't be bothered then why the hell should I?

Besides, I've a deep distrust of the Brussels bureaucrats and the fact their Annual Accounts have consistently failed to meet the approval of the Auditors speaks for itself.

We can all make our own minds up as to why that should be.


I'll be more interested in the %age polled results tonight than anything else.

[Sir David Gray]

I see the BNP has their first ever MEP.

I saw Nick Griffin being interviewed on Sky News earlier and he came across as a really stupid man.

I had to moderately agree with what he had to say on the dangers posed by radical Islam but I listened with complete disbelief when he said "you just have to look" to see if someone is indigenous to Britain and therefore welcome to join the BNP.

I hope that is as good as things get for them.

As things stand just now with 33/69 seats having been declared, this is how the parties have fared in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland);

Conservative-12
Labour-7
UKIP-6
Liberal Democrats-5
BNP-1
Greens-1
Plaid Cymru-1

[Calvin]

The SNP have had a great election! :thumbsup:

Excluding the Western Isles:

SNP - 318,360 votes (29.2%)
Labour - 228,731 votes (21%)
Tory - 185,283 votes (17%)
Lib Dem 126,749 votes (11.6%)
Swing to SNP - 7.4%
Turnout - 28%

[cabbageandribs1875]

The SNP have had a great election! :thumbsup:

Excluding the Western Isles:

SNP - 318,360 votes (29.2%)
Labour - 228,731 votes (21%)
Tory - 185,283 votes (17%)
Lib Dem 126,749 votes (11.6%)
Swing to SNP - 7.4%
Turnout - 28%



highest ever euro vote for the SNP which means the 6 MEP's will be made up of 2 SNP...2 labour...and one each for the conservatives and lib-dems :agree:


i would just like to take the time to congratulate labour(new tory) for a close battle with the conservatives(old tory) to the runners-up spot :spammy::clapper::fishin: :devil::thumbsup:

[Betty Boop]

I see the BNP has their first ever MEP.

I saw Nick Griffin being interviewed on Sky News earlier and he came across as a really stupid man.

I had to moderately agree with what he had to say on the dangers posed by radical Islam but I listened with complete disbelief when he said "you just have to look" to see if someone is indigenous to Britain and therefore welcome to join the BNP.

I hope that is as good as things get for them.

As things stand just now with 33/69 seats having been declared, this is how the parties have fared in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland);

Conservative-12
Labour-7
UKIP-6
Liberal Democrats-5
BNP-1
Greens-1
Plaid Cymru-1
A sad day for British Politics, the Fascists won two seats. The sight of that twat smirking all over his racist face, was truly gut wrenching! :jamboak: Nick Griffin representing Britain in the European parliament what an embarassment! :grr:
Hungary and Poland also won seats with extremist parties, sad movies! :bitchy:

[hibsbollah]

A sad day for British Politics, the Fascists won two seats. The sight of that twat smirking all over his racist face, was truly gut wrenching! :jamboak: Nick Griffin representing Britain in the European parliament what an embarassment! :grr:
Hungary and Poland also won seats with extremist parties, sad movies! :bitchy:

It is indeed grim news. However, console yourself with two things; 1. BNP actually got fewer votes than in 2004, its only the collapse in the Labour vote and the amount of stay-at-homes that put up their share of the vote. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/

Secondly, the presence of two BNP MEPs might wake people up to the threat that these people pose and start taking them a bit more seriously.

[Killiehibbie]

It is indeed grim news. However, console yourself with two things; 1. BNP actually got fewer votes than in 2004, its only the collapse in the Labour vote and the amount of stay-at-homes that put up their share of the vote. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/

Secondly, the presence of two BNP MEPs might wake people up to the threat that these people pose and start taking them a bit more seriously.

All the people who couldn't be bothered voting are the ones to blame for hitlers sorry griffins mob getting a couple of seats. When is everybody going to realise they pose a real threat?

[Betty Boop]

It is indeed grim news. However, console yourself with two things; 1. BNP actually got fewer votes than in 2004, its only the collapse in the Labour vote and the amount of stay-at-homes that put up their share of the vote. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/

Secondly, the presence of two BNP MEPs might wake people up to the threat that these people pose and start taking them a bit more seriously.

Andrew Brons what an absolute erse he is. Was he not the leader of the National Front at one time? Anybody that votes for the Fascists should be ashamed of themselves! :bitchy:

[RyeSloan]

All the people who couldn't be bothered voting are the ones to blame for hitlers sorry griffins mob getting a couple of seats. When is everybody going to realise they pose a real threat?

Dangerous nonsense. Am I responsible for every other parties seats too or just the BNP's?

I didn't vote because I don't believe in the parliament the votes were for.

If you think the MP's were on a gravy train I'm sure Robert Kilroy Silk will be quite happy with his 300k he's made in the last 5 years .

A MEP's salary is 92k a year, 298 euros allowance a day and 260 euros a week for travel, not to mention the £175k office allowance and a £18.5k p.a pension.....for what, a glorified talking shop???

Nothing what so ever to do with the BNP that you now seem to accuse me of illicitly supporting through ignorance.

[PeeJay]

Dangerous nonsense. Am I responsible for every other parties seats too or just the BNP's?

I didn't vote because I don't believe in the parliament the votes were for.

.....for what, a glorified talking shop???


Surely one of the main criticisms heard in the pubs and clubs in the UK is that most laws are now made in Europe - so the 'talking shop' you refer to is actually anything but that ... it is involved to an immense degree in the ratification and enforcement of new laws that directly impact on people in the UK, including you. What part do you choose not to believe in?
And as to "...talking shop", if you really believe that, how does your non-contribution help to change things and make them better?

[Killiehibbie]

Dangerous nonsense. Am I responsible for every other parties seats too or just the BNP's?

I didn't vote because I don't believe in the parliament the votes were for.

If you think the MP's were on a gravy train I'm sure Robert Kilroy Silk will be quite happy with his 300k he's made in the last 5 years .

A MEP's salary is 92k a year, 298 euros allowance a day and 260 euros a week for travel, not to mention the £175k office allowance and a £18.5k p.a pension.....for what, a glorified talking shop???

Nothing what so ever to do with the BNP that you now seem to accuse me of illicitly supporting through ignorance.

The extremists of whatever persuasion must be stopped. When these people can get seats with a small percentage of the overall available votes then yes you and every other non voter are to blame. Do you think ordinary Germans wanted the nazis and everything that followed or the ordinary Russians wanted communism if they knew what was coming?

[PeeJay]

Do you think ordinary Germans wanted the nazis ... ?

While I agree in general with the sentiments of your post, I think the answer to your quote above has to be a resounding YES - the Nazi Party was actually teeming with 'ordinary' Germans. :agree:

[Killiehibbie]

While I agree in general with the sentiments of your post, I think the answer to your quote above has to be a resounding YES - the Nazi Party was actually teeming with 'ordinary' Germans. :agree:

You missed a bit out. What about everything that followed? If they had any idea in 1932 what was going to happen I think hitler would've been shot.

[Woody1985]

Dangerous nonsense. Am I responsible for every other parties seats too or just the BNP's?

I didn't vote because I don't believe in the parliament the votes were for.

If you think the MP's were on a gravy train I'm sure Robert Kilroy Silk will be quite happy with his 300k he's made in the last 5 years .

A MEP's salary is 92k a year, 298 euros allowance a day and 260 euros a week for travel, not to mention the £175k office allowance and a £18.5k p.a pension.....for what, a glorified talking shop???

Nothing what so ever to do with the BNP that you now seem to accuse me of illicitly supporting through ignorance.

:top marks


The extremists of whatever persuasion must be stopped. When these people can get seats with a small percentage of the overall available votes then yes you and every other non voter are to blame. Do you think ordinary Germans wanted the nazis and everything that followed or the ordinary Russians wanted communism if they knew what was coming?

That is complete and utter bull****. If there were alternative parties who weren't so far up their own *****, obsessed with self interest and towing the party line whether they agree with it or not, endless lists of lies etc etc then maybe people would vote.

I never voted and to be honest I couldn't give a flying duck who's in charge of what as they're all the same.

AN ELECTION SHOULD NEVER BE ABOUT 'VOTE FOR US COS WE'RE NOT AS BAD AS THEM'. It's shambolic that mainstream parties have had to practically beg for votes because they are so bad.

Voting should be about what is best for the electorate and who can offer that. The people who have voted BNP have done so because they obviously feel that they offer them what is best for them and their area. Whether that's right or wrong I don't know as I don't know much about the areas where the people voted for them or the BNP and their policies(other than they are meant to be a racist party).

[PeeJay]

You missed a bit out. What about everything that followed? If they had any idea in 1932 what was going to happen I think hitler would've been shot.

I didn't miss it out - I ignored it: German history is full of wars - some won, some lost - they knew what could happen. Let's leave it though - don't want to be a hijacker! :bye:

[LiverpoolHibs]

That is complete and utter bull****. If there were alternative parties who weren't so far up their own *****, obsessed with self interest and towing the party line whether they agree with it or not, endless lists of lies etc etc then maybe people would vote.

AN ELECTION SHOULD NEVER BE ABOUT 'VOTE FOR US COS WE'RE NOT AS BAD AS THEM'. It's shambolic that mainstream parties have had to practically beg for votes because they are so bad.

It's not perfect but it's a perfectly logical step to take. In the next General Election I'll, almost certainly, be voting Labour despite finding the Labour governments of the last 12 (or so) years utterly reprehensible and morally repugnant.

That sounds slightly odd but as soon as you apply the logic: 'I would definitely a prefer a party in power who, to my mind, would be even marginally better than the alternative', it becomes an astonishingly easy (and morally consistent and justifiable) decision to make.

I'm not sure I buy into any of this 'people died for your right to vote!' stuff as reasonable in any sense, however.

[RyeSloan]

Surely one of the main criticisms heard in the pubs and clubs in the UK is that most laws are now made in Europe - so the 'talking shop' you refer to is actually anything but that ... it is involved to an immense degree in the ratification and enforcement of new laws that directly impact on people in the UK, including you. What part do you choose not to believe in?
And as to "...talking shop", if you really believe that, how does your non-contribution help to change things and make them better?

Ratification and enforcement??

What exactly does the MEP 'enforce' in his daily business?

As for ratification...exactly my point. The Euro Parliament is NOT the main legislature or where the agenda for the future is made...it is given legislation which it mulls over, talks about a lot, might even change a wee bit then hey presto it's ratified. Sounds more like the House of Lords than a parliament with any real power.

My non contribution, along with a huge percentage of eligible voters that didn't vote sends a signal that I and many others simply don't believe in voting for a sham parliament or for that matter the ridiculous cost of all that talking and lots and lots and lots of translating.

[RyeSloan]

The extremists of whatever persuasion must be stopped. When these people can get seats with a small percentage of the overall available votes then yes you and every other non voter are to blame. Do you think ordinary Germans wanted the nazis and everything that followed or the ordinary Russians wanted communism if they knew what was coming?

As I said before, your argument is flawed...if I am responsible for the BNP then I must be responsible for all other results as well so no I am not to blame...lets get this straight I havn't voted for the BNP, you cannot blame me for them having enough votes to gain seats in a democratic election.

I agree that extremism should be stopped but running around accusing everyone of complicity does not help. Turn your ire on those that did vote and voted BNP, it is those people and those people alone that gave the BNP their seats, not me excersing my democratic right to abstain from a vote I simply didn't believe in.

[PeeJay]

Ratification and enforcement??

What exactly does the MEP 'enforce' in his daily business?

As for ratification...exactly my point. The Euro Parliament is NOT the main legislature or where the agenda for the future is made...it is given legislation which it mulls over, talks about a lot, might even change a wee bit then hey presto it's ratified. Sounds more like the House of Lords than a parliament with any real power.

My non contribution, along with a huge percentage of eligible voters that didn't vote sends a signal that I and many others simply don't believe in voting for a sham parliament or for that matter the ridiculous cost of all that talking and lots and lots and lots of translating.

European Parliament:
The principal democratic component of the EU system, composed of members directly elected by Europeans. Its job is to bring the concerns and priorities of European citizens into the system and to represent their political views in accordance with the outcome of the elections. Together with the Council, with which agreement must be found, the European Parliament is responsible for examining, amending and passing EU legislation and setting the EU's annual budget, based on proposals from the European Commission. It also supervises the Commission, holding it to account for the way it implements EU policy and spends taxpayers' money from the EU budget.

Why do you choose to ignore the facts?
This election was your chance as a European citizen to have a say in what goes in on Europe and to give the UK more influence - instead we now have BNP and UKIP:grr:
I don't quite get why you believe that sticking your head in the sand helps!

I personally think it is the duty of citizens to inform themselves of the issues and the facts, and then to vote in order to ultimately bring about a change for the better. Surely, sitting on the fence or hiding behind it does not help anyone - why not get involved?

[RyeSloan]

European Parliament:
The principal democratic component of the EU system, composed of members directly elected by Europeans. Its job is to bring the concerns and priorities of European citizens into the system and to represent their political views in accordance with the outcome of the elections. Together with the Council, with which agreement must be found, the European Parliament is responsible for examining, amending and passing EU legislation and setting the EU's annual budget, based on proposals from the European Commission. It also supervises the Commission, holding it to account for the way it implements EU policy and spends taxpayers' money from the EU budget.

Why do you choose to ignore the facts?
This election was your chance as a European citizen to have a say in what goes in on Europe and to give the UK more influence - instead we now have BNP and UKIP:grr:
I don't quite get why you believe that sticking your head in the sand helps!

I personally think it is the duty of citizens to inform themselves of the issues and the facts, and then to vote in order to ultimately bring about a change for the better. Surely, sitting on the fence or hiding behind it does not help anyone - why not get involved?

I'm hardly sticking my head in the sand....I agree though that BNP and UKIP are unwanted parties no matter how you look at it.

I disagree though that my non participation can be directly linked to support of these parties or that the fact they have seats is my fault.

Finally do you really believe that the peoples parliament should only have the ability to "examining, amending and passing EU legislation"....that's exactly my point they hold no REAL power, they don't propose any significant legislation the Commision does and as for overseeing the effective use of public money by the EU....now that is a laugh!!! Overseeing effective use of EU money to line their pockets first then being totally inept at enforicng any transparency in EU spending second I would say.....

I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one. :greengrin

[Peevemor]

I'm of the opinion that if you don't use your vote, then you forfeit the right to protest against those who are elected and the legislation that they pass.

[PeeJay]

I'm hardly sticking my head in the sand....I agree though that BNP and UKIP are unwanted parties no matter how you look at it.

I disagree though that my non participation can be directly linked to support of these parties or that the fact they have seats is my fault.

Finally do you really believe that the peoples parliament should only have the ability to "examining, amending and passing EU legislation"....that's exactly my point they hold no REAL power, they don't propose any significant legislation the Commision does and as for overseeing the effective use of public money by the EU....now that is a laugh!!! Overseeing effective use of EU money to line their pockets first then being totally inept at enforicng any transparency in EU spending second I would say.....

I think we might have to agree to disagree on this one. :greengrin

One last response then ... I believe the EU Parliament should have more powers, but ...

Anyway, I think discussions like this are all part of the political process - discussing, arguing, agreeing - and even disagreeing.

Pretty sure this topic and others won't go away ... until next time!:bye:

[Woody1985]

It's not perfect but it's a perfectly logical step to take. In the next General Election I'll, almost certainly, be voting Labour despite finding the Labour governments of the last 12 (or so) years utterly reprehensible and morally repugnant.

That sounds slightly odd but as soon as you apply the logic: 'I would definitely a prefer a party in power who, to my mind, would be even marginally better than the alternative', it becomes an astonishingly easy (and morally consistent and justifiable) decision to make.

I'm not sure I buy into any of this 'people died for your right to vote!' stuff as reasonable in any sense, however.

Whilst I agree with this in principle, the danger comes in where a precedant is set that all the main parties need to do is exemplify how bad the BNP are. Their own standard will inevitably drop even lower than they already are.

Who knows, a few seats for the BNP may kick the mainstream into gear as they'll recognise that they can't continue with their constant BS, bickering and political spin. IMO the public (people I know / overheard discsussing politics) are sick of it (and not just because of the expenses scandal).

On a side note, how come you've been fairly quiet on the Holy Ground? It's always a lot more discussion and interesting points when you're around.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Whilst I agree with this in principle, the danger comes in where a precedant is set that all the main parties need to do is exemplify how bad the BNP are. Their own standard will inevitably drop even lower than they already are.

Who knows, a few seats for the BNP may kick the mainstream into gear as they'll recognise that they can't continue with their constant BS, bickering and political spin. IMO the public (people I know / overheard discsussing politics) are sick of it (and not just because of the expenses scandal).

We'll see. It's looking pretty bleak at the moment though.


On a side note, how come you've been fairly quiet on the Holy Ground? It's always a lot more discussion and interesting points when you're around.

Had exams, work and post-exam carousing (along with somehow breaking my laptop) so haven't been on as much as usual.

[RyeSloan]

One last response then ... I believe the EU Parliament should have more powers, but ...

Anyway, I think discussions like this are all part of the political process - discussing, arguing, agreeing - and even disagreeing.

Pretty sure this topic and others won't go away ... until next time!:bye:

Hey I only said MIGHT have to agree to disagree :wink:

Too right, far too few people actually discuss things instead of sticking dogmatically to their 'beliefs'...part of the reason for the rise of the 'marginal' parties maybe.

Regarding the EU parliament....I'm not against it per se and not against Europe either, I just totally disagree with the set up and the fig leaf of democracy they put on it.....a fully accountable legislature that proposed and passed European wide guidelines and minimum requirements for the individual countries to operate within while leaving enough latitude for local circumstances would defo get my vote........

Still I've defo learned a lot more about Europe and it's institutions than I knew before....sadly they failed to dispel any of my initial thoughts on their effectiveness but hey you live, you learn, you die :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm of the opinion that if you don't use your vote, then you forfeit the right to protest against those who are elected and the legislation that they pass.

Why?

[Woody1985]

I'm of the opinion that if you don't use your vote, then you forfeit the right to protest against those who are elected and the legislation that they pass.


Why?

Because Peevemor automatically thinks that if you don't take part then your opinion obviously doesn't count.

I think the fact that approx 60/70% of the available voters didn't vote says A LOT more about the current candidates we have in place. That probably gives you more of a right to protest than someone who votes for a party that is detremental to the population as a whole.

[Betty Boop]

70% turn out in the Iranian Presidential election, puts a lot of Western democracies to shame.

[Sir David Gray]

70% turn out in the Iranian Presidential election, puts a lot of Western democracies to shame.

Certainly in terms of the number who have chosen to vote, it does. I wish 70% of the British public would vote in elections, we might not have had Holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathisers representing us in Brussels if that number had voted last week.

However, you have to consider whether Iran really has true democracy or not. For a start, a lot of the candidates have been disqualified from running for various reasons by Ayatollah Khamenei and all candidates must agree to uphold Iran's status as an Islamic Republic. If they won't do that, they won't be allowed to stand for election.

I don't doubt that the elections are free from rigging or anything like that but the President of Iran only has so many powers. The real person in charge in that country is the Supreme Leader and he's NOT democratically elected by the ordinary Iranian people, nor is he allowed to be criticised in any way.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Certainly in terms of the number who have chosen to vote, it does. I wish 70% of the British public would vote in elections, we might not have had Holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathisers representing us in Brussels if that number had voted last week.

However, you have to consider whether Iran really has true democracy or not. For a start, a lot of the candidates have been disqualified from running for various reasons by Ayatollah Khamenei and all candidates must agree to uphold Iran's status as an Islamic Republic. If they won't do that, they won't be allowed to stand for election.

I don't doubt that the elections are free from rigging or anything like that but the President of Iran only has so many powers. The real person in charge in that country is the Supreme Leader and he's NOT democratically elected by the ordinary Iranian people, nor is he allowed to be criticised in any way.

About a third of Gordon Brown's cabinet is made up of unelected and unaccountable officials. Plus we've got the inherently undemocratic first-past-the-post system. I'm not sure we're in any position to judge. :wink:

[Sir David Gray]

About a third of Gordon Brown's cabinet is made up of unelected and unaccountable officials. Plus we've got the inherently undemocratic first-past-the-post system. I'm not sure we're in any position to judge. :wink:

That reminds me. Would you be able to provide me with a very simple guide as to the differences between the range of voting systems?

I kept hearing all last week how the European elections were decided by a form of proportional representation and that had helped minor parties, like the BNP, get some success, whereas the UK election uses first-past-the-post, which ultimately keeps it a two-horse race and hinders minor parties.

I've tried to do some research to help explain what the differences are but the explanations have been too complex and I haven't really understood.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I would like to hear someone try and explain it to me.

The main thing I want to know is the fundamental differences between the way the votes are counted under each system and why it is more likely for minor parties to do well under PR than it is under FPTP.

Remember to keep it nice and simple. :wink:

If anyone else feels they could provide me with a good explanation, please feel free to chip in with your answer.

Cheers in advance.

[Hibee-Lewis]

can someone clarify this for me - i was told recently that Scotland/the UK was to have its number of MEP's reduced by one to make way for a representative for Romania and Bulgaria. Is this true ?

[hibsdaft]

can someone clarify this for me - i was told recently that Scotland/the UK was to have its number of MEP's reduced by one to make way for a representative for Romania and Bulgaria. Is this true ?

complicated, but since enlargement of the EU in 2007 (and therefore growth in the number of MEPs) they cut the number of MEPs going to Brussels from many countries at this election, yes.

e.g. France went from 78 MEPs to 72, Poland 54 to 50.

UK also went from 78 to 72, and one of the seats scrapped was the sixth Scottish seat.

so its not exactly true to say that the seat made way for a representative from Romania, more that Romania entering the EU in 2007 meant that the European Parliament just became too big, and when they agreed this enlargement (with the Treaty of Nice) they agreed also to reorganise the numbers going to Brussels as part of the shakeup to keep the European Parliament more manageable.

more on this here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009#Re-apportionment_of_seats

[hibsdaft]

FalkirkHibee, theres quite an in depth guide to all this at the Electoral Reform Society:
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5

the main problem with FPTP is that if a small party gets 5% in every seat in the UK with, say, 3 million votes, they currently get no representation at Westminster.

if there was totally proportional representation then they'd get 5% of the seats, each vote would count (although nobody i don't think is proposing such a system).


in the Euro Elections there were a range of constituencies - London, Scotland, South East England etc.

each had different numbers of seats allocated to it depending on its population. Scotland had six seats.

these were distributed according to who got the most votes, but because there was only 6 seats you needed a fair few votes to have a chance of getting a seat. and you needed 100 divided by 6 (16.6%) to be guaranteed a seat. (or multiples of 16.6% to get more than one, e.g. 33.2% to be guaranteed a second seat).

this bit is pretty complicated and comes down to number crunching.

suffice to say that as it transpired, the Lib Dems got one seat with 12% of the vote, but the Greens missed out with 7%, while the SNP and Labour both got two with 29% and 21% of the vote respectively.

i have no idea whether that helps or not but it made sense when i was typing it out :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

That reminds me. Would you be able to provide me with a very simple guide as to the differences between the range of voting systems?

I kept hearing all last week how the European elections were decided by a form of proportional representation and that had helped minor parties, like the BNP, get some success, whereas the UK election uses first-past-the-post, which ultimately keeps it a two-horse race and hinders minor parties.

I've tried to do some research to help explain what the differences are but the explanations have been too complex and I haven't really understood.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I would like to hear someone try and explain it to me.

The main thing I want to know is the fundamental differences between the way the votes are counted under each system and why it is more likely for minor parties to do well under PR than it is under FPTP.

Remember to keep it nice and simple. :wink:

If anyone else feels they could provide me with a good explanation, please feel free to chip in with your answer.

Cheers in advance. Voting systems are explained here --
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=54

[PeeJay]

That reminds me. Would you be able to provide me with a very simple guide as to the differences between the range of voting systems?

I kept hearing all last week how the European elections were decided by a form of proportional representation and that had helped minor parties, like the BNP, get some success, whereas the UK election uses first-past-the-post, which ultimately keeps it a two-horse race and hinders minor parties.

I've tried to do some research to help explain what the differences are but the explanations have been too complex and I haven't really understood.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I would like to hear someone try and explain it to me.

The main thing I want to know is the fundamental differences between the way the votes are counted under each system and why it is more likely for minor parties to do well under PR than it is under FPTP.

Remember to keep it nice and simple. :wink:

If anyone else feels they could provide me with a good explanation, please feel free to chip in with your answer.

Cheers in advance.

I'm not sure if this is simple, but maybe it's worth persevering with???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalized_Proportional_Representation

By way of an aside, while some Brits are talking of opting for PR, some Germans are saying we should perhaps adopt the 'infintely more democratic' UK system??

[Betty Boop]

I'm not sure if this is simple, but maybe it's worth persevering with???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalized_Proportional_Representation

By way of an aside, while some Brits are talking of opting for PR, some Germans are saying we should perhaps adopt the 'infintely more democratic' UK system??
Does Germany not have the Additional Members System, which is a combination of FPTP and Proportional Representation? This is also the method used by the Scottish Parliament.

[PeeJay]

Does Germany not have the Additional Members System, which is a combination of FPTP and Proportional Representation? This is also the method used by the Scottish Parliament.

Yes - you're right!
Mixed member proportional representation, also termed mixed-member proportional voting and commonly abbreviated to MMP, is an 'additional member (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Additional_member_system)' voting system (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Voting_system) used to elect representatives (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Legislator) to numerous legislatures (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Legislature) around the world. MMP is similar to other forms of proportional representation (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Proportional_representation) (PR) in that the overall total of party members in the elected body is intended to mirror the overall proportion of votes received; it differs by including a set of members elected by geographic constituency (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Constituency) who are deducted from the party totals so as to maintain overall proportionality. Therefore, the additional party seats are compensatory: they top up the local results. In Germany MMP is called "personalized proportional representation" as distinct from the PR system used before MMP superseded it. (thanks to WIKI!)

I've been here in Germany almost 30 years now and we've always had a coalition. Currently we have the two main parties (CDU & SPD) and basically no opposition. Usually we've had one of the main parties (CDU or SPD) along with a minority party (FDP or Greens) with roughly 6 -7 - 14% of the vote. If a party with the largest share of the vote wishes to govern, it has to do a deal with one of the minority parties, and they (minority party) then receive a disproportionate share of power IMO.
There is no perfect system if you ask me, people will always complain and say the system is unfair.

[Betty Boop]

Yes - you're right!
Mixed member proportional representation, also termed mixed-member proportional voting and commonly abbreviated to MMP, is an 'additional member (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Additional_member_system)' voting system (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Voting_system) used to elect representatives (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Legislator) to numerous legislatures (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Legislature) around the world. MMP is similar to other forms of proportional representation (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Proportional_representation) (PR) in that the overall total of party members in the elected body is intended to mirror the overall proportion of votes received; it differs by including a set of members elected by geographic constituency (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Constituency) who are deducted from the party totals so as to maintain overall proportionality. Therefore, the additional party seats are compensatory: they top up the local results. In Germany MMP is called "personalized proportional representation" as distinct from the PR system used before MMP superseded it. (thanks to WIKI!)

I've been here in Germany almost 30 years now and we've always had a coalition. Currently we have the two main parties (CDU & SPD) and basically no opposition. Usually we've had one of the main parties (CDU or SPD) along with a minority party (FDP or Greens) with roughly 6 -7 - 14% of the vote. If a party with the largest share of the vote wishes to govern, it has to do a deal with one of the minority parties, and they (minority party) then receive a disproportionate share of power IMO.
There is no perfect system if you ask me, people will always complain and say the system is unfair. One of the weaknesses of proportional representation, it usually leads to coalition governments, and also the rise of extremist parties. :agree: and :agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

That reminds me. Would you be able to provide me with a very simple guide as to the differences between the range of voting systems?

I kept hearing all last week how the European elections were decided by a form of proportional representation and that had helped minor parties, like the BNP, get some success, whereas the UK election uses first-past-the-post, which ultimately keeps it a two-horse race and hinders minor parties.

I've tried to do some research to help explain what the differences are but the explanations have been too complex and I haven't really understood.

Maybe I'm just thick, but I would like to hear someone try and explain it to me.

The main thing I want to know is the fundamental differences between the way the votes are counted under each system and why it is more likely for minor parties to do well under PR than it is under FPTP.

Remember to keep it nice and simple. :wink:

If anyone else feels they could provide me with a good explanation, please feel free to chip in with your answer.

Cheers in advance.

Looks like others have, thankfully, saved me the bother.:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

One of the weaknesses of proportional representation, it usually leads to coalition governments, and also the rise of extremist parties. :agree: and :agree:

Or you could say that is its strengh...for coalition governments read government with consensus, for 'extremist parties' read representation for the minority......

FWIW I think the additional transferable vote is probably the best balance as there is no system that doesn't have it's con's to go with it's pro's.

Regarding Iran...while it's correct to say the president is not the supreme power they actually have quite a sophisticated method of checks and balances in their political and religious structure. No matter what though it's still an impressive turnout and one that show's if the vote is important enough or the stakes high enough people will vote, look at the recent US election. Linking back into the OP the poor turnout for the Euro elections can on a basic level be put down to the (real or perceived!) lack of relevance to the general populous.

[Betty Boop]

Or you could say that is its strengh...for coalition governments read government with consensus, for 'extremist parties' read representation for the minority......

FWIW I think the additional transferable vote is probably the best balance as there is no system that doesn't have it's con's to go with it's pro's.

Regarding Iran...while it's correct to say the president is not the supreme power they actually have quite a sophisticated method of checks and balances in their political and religious structure. No matter what though it's still an impressive turnout and one that show's if the vote is important enough or the stakes high enough people will vote, look at the recent US election. Linking back into the OP the poor turnout for the Euro elections can on a basic level be put down to the (real or perceived!) lack of relevance to the general populous. I agree on all you points! :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

First of all, thanks to everyone who provided some sort of explanation to the voting systems.

I'll give my interpretation of each system now and people can tell me if I'm right;

Single Transferable Vote

You vote in order of your preferred candidate, starting from 1, 2, 3... and so on. Then a quota is announced, which states how many votes a candidate needs to be elected. It is worked out by dividing the total number of valid votes by the number of people that are to be elected, plus one.

The "number one" votes are counted first and, from that, a certain number of candidates will have been elected. Those candidates that have a surplus of votes, lose that number (so they only have the amount that is needed to be elected) and then all of their "first" ballots are re-examined.

So, if there were 20 people who voted for "candidate a" but they only required 10 votes, the surplus would be transferred at a rate of 10/20. So the candidates who were listed "two" would gain half a vote for every ballot paper that had them second behind the victorious candidate.

After this, a few more candidates will meet the required number of votes to be elected.

After this, of the candidates who have not been elected, the one who has the fewest votes will be disqualified from the process and all "first" votes that they had will be transferred to the next available candidate who has not yet been elected. The process should continue until the correct number of candidates have been elected.

Supplementary Vote

Two columns on the ballot paper, one for first choice, one for second choice. Voters are not required to make a second choice.

If a candidate receives an absolute majority after counting first choice votes, they are elected. If no candidate has a majority, the top two go into a second round where voter's second choice votes are counted. The ballot papers who have an excluded candidate as first choice, then have their second choice votes counted and if they are for the top two candidates, these votes will be transferred to them.

Whoever has the most votes, after this process has taken place, will be declared the winner.

Party Lists

Can either be open or closed.

If they are open, votes are, in theory, cast for individual candidates but if they are closed, electorate is voting for a party only.

There is a threshold set which determines how much percent of the vote you are required to win in order to gain a seat.

According to Hibsdaft, the threshold for the recent European election was calculated by dividing 100 by the amount of seats that were up for grabs in each region. In Scotland's case, there were six seats, so it was 100/6, which means that a party had to get 16.6% to be guaranteed one seat and 33.2% to be guaranteed two seats etc.

However, as Hibsdaft also pointed out, the Lib Dems got a seat with 11.5% of the vote and SNP and Labour both got two seats with less than 30% of the vote each. How does that work out? :confused:

Alternative Vote

Voters rank as many candidates as they want from number one, two, three and so on...

If a candidate gets an absolute majority of votes, they are elected. If there is no-one with a majority, the second choice votes of the candidate who finished last are redistributed.

Alternative Vote Plus

Starts off the same as alternative vote. Voters rank each candidate in order of preference.

The additional part is a second vote for each person and decides votes at county/regional level. These votes are used to decide how many additional seats a party gets within a region.

That's where I stop understanding that particular system, a bit too complicated for my liking.

First Past The Post

Voters put a cross next to the name of the one candidate that they want to see elected in their constituency. The person with the most votes gets elected.

Limited Vote

Voters have more than one vote but less votes than there are candidates to choose from.

Additional Member System

Too complicated.

Approval Voting

Similar to FPTP but instead of voting for just one candidate, you can vote for as many people as you like. The person with the most votes, wins.

Borda Count

Each candidate receives points depending on where they are ranked by each voter. The candidate who receives the most points, wins.

FINALLY...

I'm guessing that the reason why minority parties get more of a chance under PR than under FPTP, is because people vote for more than one candidate under PR and sometimes votes for main candidates, who have already been elected, are transferred onto smaller parties (i.e. under single transferrable vote system).

Are all these explanations correct? If not, could someone please correct me.

Cheers! :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

Certainly in terms of the number who have chosen to vote, it does. I wish 70% of the British public would vote in elections, we might not have had Holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathisers representing us in Brussels if that number had voted last week.

However, you have to consider whether Iran really has true democracy or not. For a start, a lot of the candidates have been disqualified from running for various reasons by Ayatollah Khamenei and all candidates must agree to uphold Iran's status as an Islamic Republic. If they won't do that, they won't be allowed to stand for election.

I don't doubt that the elections are free from rigging or anything like that but the President of Iran only has so many powers. The real person in charge in that country is the Supreme Leader and he's NOT democratically elected by the ordinary Iranian people, nor is he allowed to be criticised in any way.

It would seem that I was perhaps a little hasty in saying the bit in bold.

The scenes from Iran over the past few days have been unbelievable. I don't expect there to be much chance of a new set of elections taking place as the clerics who are supposedly investigating the result, really need someone like Ahmadinejad to be in power, in order to keep the Islamic Republic intact. I know all of the Presidential candidates support the idea of the Islamic Republic but some of the supporters of Mousavi, who have been demonstrating on the streets, seem to be fairly radical in how they view Iran's theocracy.

So even if Mousavi, himself, doesn't intend to challenge Iran's status as an Islamic Republic, if he got in power after a new election, there may be the danger that some of his supporters would use that as an opportunity to challenge the authority of the Ayatollah.

I would be very surprised if the clerics would be willing to take such a chance.

Although in saying that, they are already in trouble just now as it is because the mass protests do not look like stopping any time soon, despite the fact that they have been made illegal. It'll be very interesting to see how Mousavi's supporters react if the original election result is deemed to be valid.

[lyonhibs]

I'm of the opinion that if you don't use your vote, then you forfeit the right to protest against those who are elected and the legislation that they pass.

:agree: :agree:

A lot of hot air on this thread - this is the most succinct summary of how I feel.

[(((Fergus)))]

:agree: :agree:

A lot of hot air on this thread - this is the most succinct summary of how I feel.


Then maybe you could explain why that is a logical position?

[Peevemor]

Because Peevemor automatically thinks that if you don't take part then your opinion obviously doesn't count.

I think the fact that approx 60/70% of the available voters didn't vote says A LOT more about the current candidates we have in place. That probably gives you more of a right to protest than someone who votes for a party that is detremental to the population as a whole.

Is it not the case the the majority of those who didn't vote simply couldn't be bothered?

If you care but don't want to vote for any of the options available, then go along and spoil your ballot paper. Then your sending a message.

[Betty Boop]

It would seem that I was perhaps a little hasty in saying the bit in bold.

The scenes from Iran over the past few days have been unbelievable. I don't expect there to be much chance of a new set of elections taking place as the clerics who are supposedly investigating the result, really need someone like Ahmadinejad to be in power, in order to keep the Islamic Republic intact. I know all of the Presidential candidates support the idea of the Islamic Republic but some of the supporters of Mousavi, who have been demonstrating on the streets, seem to be fairly radical in how they view Iran's theocracy.

So even if Mousavi, himself, doesn't intend to challenge Iran's status as an Islamic Republic, if he got in power after a new election, there may be the danger that some of his supporters would use that as an opportunity to challenge the authority of the Ayatollah.

I would be very surprised if the clerics would be willing to take such a chance.

Although in saying that, they are already in trouble just now as it is because the mass protests do not look like stopping any time soon, despite the fact that they have been made illegal. It'll be very interesting to see how Mousavi's supporters react if the original election result is deemed to be valid.
You would think the way the Western media are reporting the situation in Iran, that nobody in the whole of the country had voted for Ahmadinejad! :rolleyes:

[Woody1985]

Is it not the case the the majority of those who didn't vote simply couldn't be bothered?

If you care but don't want to vote for any of the options available, then go along and spoil your ballot paper. Then your sending a message.

So you think that 60/70% of the available voters are just lazy.

Maybe they can't be bothered because they have no connection with the people who are running the country. Middle/upper class people who have millions in the bank who wouldn't dare walk through a housing estate on their own. And when they do the walk around with stab vests and ten police officers escorting them.

I think spolied ballots counted IIRC but is the nature of the spoil recorded i.e if someone puts two x's that's spoiled (is that correct?) or if someone goes in and scribbles across it. Do the parties actually give a **** about the spoils and the democratic system or do they only care if they got more valid papers than the other parties.

[Peevemor]

So you think that 60/70% of the available voters are just lazy.

Maybe they can't be bothered because they have no connection with the people who are running the country. Middle/upper class people who have millions in the bank who wouldn't dare walk through a housing estate on their own. And when they do the walk around with stab vests and ten police officers escorting them.

I think spolied ballots counted IIRC but is the nature of the spoil recorded i.e if someone puts two x's that's spoiled (is that correct?) or if someone goes in and scribbles across it. Do the parties actually give a **** about the spoils and the democratic system or do they only care if they got more valid papers than the other parties.

Can't be bothered = no right to an opinion IMHO.

It's a democracy FFS. Do you understand what that means?

[(((Fergus)))]

Is it not the case the the majority of those who didn't vote simply couldn't be bothered?

If you care but don't want to vote for any of the options available, then go along and spoil your ballot paper. Then your sending a message.

there is no way of knowing whether it is the majority or not - their opinions are not recorded.

"spoiling" the ballot paper - as the name pejoratively suggests - is viewed as vandalism rather than an expression of a considered position.

also, with the serial number tracking of ballot papers, i for one do not want a record as a 'ballot spoiler' that may or may not be used against me at a later date. nor do i want to participate in the charade of a secret ballot that in reality is not secret.

[hibsbollah]

It's a democracy FFS. Do you understand what that means?

Democracy is from the ancient Greek; Demos 'People/The Mob' Kratos 'Power', hence it means 'mob rule':wink:

Seriously though, there is no common definition of what the word means. Its used today in 'Western' countries to broadly mean 'putting a cross on a little piece of paper next to a candidates name from one of a small number of political parties who will do a number of very similar things within a free market liberal consensus'. Its used in North Korea to mean 'an autocratic state in which power passes from father to son who controls all activity on behalf of the people'. It was also used by Pol Pot to mean 'complete anarchy with the biggest mob with the best weapons making all the decisions'.

Democracy has no meaning. Discuss:greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

You would think the way the Western media are reporting the situation in Iran, that nobody in the whole of the country had voted for Ahmadinejad! :rolleyes:

He does have a large support base but everyone was saying last week how the election was too close to call and that Ahmadinejad and Mousavi were practically neck and neck.

Then when the result was announced over the weekend, it transpired that Ahmadinejad had won at a canter by winning two thirds of the vote.

Either the people who forecast election results in Iran are extremely bad at their job, or there is something fishy going on.

The Western media will be painting Mousavi in a slightly better light than Ahmadinejad because I think most people realise the implications that another term, as Ahmadinejad as President, will have on Iranian relations with the West.

The fact that foreign based journalists are now being banned from reporting on pro-Mousavi rallies, also won't be helping the way in which the Western media are treating Ahmadinejad.

[steakbake]

Democracy is from the ancient Greek; Demos 'People/The Mob' Kratos 'Power', hence it means 'mob rule':wink:

Seriously though, there is no common definition of what the word means. Its used today in 'Western' countries to broadly mean 'putting a cross on a little piece of paper next to a candidates name from one of a small number of political parties who will do a number of very similar things within a free market liberal consensus'. Its used in North Korea to mean 'an autocratic state in which power passes from father to son who controls all activity on behalf of the people'. It was also used by Pol Pot to mean 'complete anarchy with the biggest mob with the best weapons making all the decisions'.

Democracy has no meaning. Discuss:greengrin

Democracy is an illusion.

Vote rigging goes on, even in our hallowed paradigm of a democracy.

[Woody1985]

Can't be bothered = no right to an opinion IMHO.

It's a democracy FFS. Do you understand what that means?

Can't be bothered = No trustworthy, reliable, respectable, understanding, regular people to vote for.

Patronise the people who don't agree with you. I can now see how you relate.

[Dashing Bob S]

Completely agree. I detest this thoroughly reactionary idea that we have some duty or obligation to cast a vote for someone who's policy, stance or ideology we may completely disagree with.

I certainly won't be voting Labour or Lib Dem just because they are the most moderate of the clutch of right-wing parties on offer, from BNP, UKIP, Tories etc.

People fought for the right to vote. This right also intrinsically and logically, in a democracy, includes the right not to vote. People generally vote in terms of self-interest, and if there were parties and candidates that enthused them, then they would go to the polls.

The fact that many people feel disenfranchised from the electoral/political system is the fault of that system, and not of the individuals who choose to exercise their democratic option by saying 'no thanks' to the corrupt garbage on offer.

[hibsbollah]

He does have a large support base but everyone was saying last week how the election was too close to call and that Ahmadinejad and Mousavi were practically neck and neck.

Then when the result was announced over the weekend, it transpired that Ahmadinejad had won at a canter by winning two thirds of the vote.

Either the people who forecast election results in Iran are extremely bad at their job, or there is something fishy going on.

The Western media will be painting Mousavi in a slightly better light than Ahmadinejad because I think most people realise the implications that another term, as Ahmadinejad as President, will have on Iranian relations with the West.

The fact that foreign based journalists are now being banned from reporting on pro-Mousavi rallies, also won't be helping the way in which the Western media are treating Ahmadinejad.

I dont think it helps us understand Iran (or any political culture for that matter) to see it through relations with the West. From what i know, the conflict in Iran at the moment is broadly between a) a metropolitan, young, city-based educated middle class elite who want reform, who are quite left wing and progressive, and b) a conservative class who are still in power from the Ayatollahs day, who get most of their support from the countryside and the elderly and are quite right wing.

You'd never get this from the Western media though. It seems to be portrayed as 'Baddie Ahmadinejad hates Israel' and 'Moderates led by Mousavi more likely to like the West'. The truth is a bit more complicated than that...

[Mibbes Aye]

He does have a large support base but everyone was saying last week how the election was too close to call and that Ahmadinejad and Mousavi were practically neck and neck.



There was certainly a buy-in across the Western media for that. Whatever may or may not have transpired, Abbas Barzeger offered a useful commentary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/13/iranian-election) in Saturday's Guardian


I dont think it helps us understand Iran (or any political culture for that matter) to see it through relations with the West. From what i know, the conflict in Iran at the moment is broadly between a) a metropolitan, young, city-based educated middle class elite who want reform, who are quite left wing and progressive, and b) a conservative class who are still in power from the Ayatollahs day, who get most of their support from the countryside and the elderly and are quite right wing.

You'd never get this from the Western media though. It seems to be portrayed as 'Baddie Ahmadinejad hates Israel' and 'Moderates led by Mousavi more likely to like the West'. The truth is a bit more complicated than that...

I think there's a lot of truth (if you excuse the expression) in that. The prism through which we view Iran has little in the way of any genuine understanding of the social and cultural forces at work there and indeed little understanding of Shi'ism and its similarities to Western liberalism on a philosophical level.

Nor do some people seem able or willing to acknowledge that even amongst the 'Islamic' elements that drove the Revolution there was, and is, a telling diversity of viewpoint. Far easier to wrap it all up in (culturally-specific) language of fundamentalism and revolutionaries.

What also amuses and bemuses me in equal measure is the short shrift given to Iran's mistrust of the West, and in particular the USA and the UK. Barely over fifty years ago, i.e. in living memory for some people, the US and UK governments engineered a coup in Iran to overthrow an elected, progressive government in order to safeguard their oil interests.

In Scotland we have an elected (if not very progressive) government who have long made it their express desire to safeguard what they see as our oil. I wonder what our reaction would be if a couple of foreign powers tried to overthrow the government and install a puppet regime because they had different designs on our oil?

[Peevemor]

Can't be bothered = No trustworthy, reliable, respectable, understanding, regular people to vote for.

Patronise the people who don't agree with you. I can now see how you relate.

I apologise if I came across as patronising - that wasn't my intention. This is a subject that I'm especially touchy about given that I don't have full voting rights here. Every year I send my cheque off to the French tax people, but I don't have my miniscule input as to how it's spent. That's why I get so annoyed about people who can't be bothered - for whatever reason.


Completely agree. I detest this thoroughly reactionary idea that we have some duty or obligation to cast a vote for someone who's policy, stance or ideology we may completely disagree with.

I certainly won't be voting Labour or Lib Dem just because they are the most moderate of the clutch of right-wing parties on offer, from BNP, UKIP, Tories etc.

People fought for the right to vote. This right also intrinsically and logically, in a democracy, includes the right not to vote. People generally vote in terms of self-interest, and if there were parties and candidates that enthused them, then they would go to the polls.

The fact that many people feel disenfranchised from the electoral/political system is the fault of that system, and not of the individuals who choose to exercise their democratic option by saying 'no thanks' to the corrupt garbage on offer.

Exercising your right not to vote won't do anything to change a sytem with which you're disenchanted will it?

[Betty Boop]

Why are the West suddenly concerned for the Iranian people? :rolleyes:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22847.htm

[(((Fergus)))]

I apologise if I came across as patronising - that wasn't my intention. This is a subject that I'm especially touchy about given that I don't have full voting rights here. Every year I send my cheque off to the French tax people, but I don't have my miniscule input as to how it's spent. That's why I get so annoyed about people who can't be bothered - for whatever reason.



Exercising your right not to vote won't do anything to change a sytem with which you're disenchanted will it?

neither will voting for someone you don't believe in just for the sake of it. short of standing for election yourself - in which case you too become someone else's nightmare candidate - then the only option is to seize power. :wink:

Alternatively you can just get on with governing your own life properly and leave politics to those who think it matters.

As Bollah says, democracy is literally mob rule so the country is a hostage to the whims of human passion and self interest.

If a candidate stood on principles that were for the long-term general good of mankind he/she would never get elected. The electorate don't want that suffering. That explains why wise and principled people never stand for election and all the MPs we have are so dodgy. They reflect society perfectly.

[Dashing Bob S]

I apologise if I came across as patronising - that wasn't my intention. This is a subject that I'm especially touchy about given that I don't have full voting rights here. Every year I send my cheque off to the French tax people, but I don't have my miniscule input as to how it's spent. That's why I get so annoyed about people who can't be bothered - for whatever reason.



Exercising your right not to vote won't do anything to change a sytem with which you're disenchanted will it?

Yes it will. It will encourage other politicians and parties to come in and attempt to appeal to non-voters, it will also encourage existing politicians and parties to modify their policies to try and attract/enthuse non-voters.

Voting for a party or politician you don't agree with, just for the sake of voting, is as futile as it gets, as all you are doing is endorsing something you don't believe in, thus destorying any impetus for real change.

[(((Fergus)))]

Yes it will. It will encourage other politicians and parties to come in and attempt to appeal to non-voters, it will also encourage existing politicians and parties to modify their policies to try and attract/enthuse non-voters.

Voting for a party or politician you don't agree with, just for the sake of voting, is as futile as it gets, as all you are doing is endorsing something you don't believe in, thus destorying any impetus for real change.

Good point. There is massive potential at the moment for someone to fill the vacuum and get people voting again. Compulsory voting would blur that potential so you could see why the existing parties would support it.

[Sir David Gray]

I dont think it helps us understand Iran (or any political culture for that matter) to see it through relations with the West. From what i know, the conflict in Iran at the moment is broadly between a) a metropolitan, young, city-based educated middle class elite who want reform, who are quite left wing and progressive, and b) a conservative class who are still in power from the Ayatollahs day, who get most of their support from the countryside and the elderly and are quite right wing.

You'd never get this from the Western media though. It seems to be portrayed as 'Baddie Ahmadinejad hates Israel' and 'Moderates led by Mousavi more likely to like the West'. The truth is a bit more complicated than that...

It might not be a great way of looking at it but I think people in the West are concerned about the kind of country Iran will be if Ahmadinejad is in power for the next few years, and the consequences that might have for their relations with the West. They would much rather have Mousavi in there, who is much more likely to seek favourable ties with the West.

I think people are also concerned about Iran's potential nuclear capabilities. It seems inevitable that they will obtain them at some point in the near future and it would be far more palatable for the West if someone like Mousavi had control over them, rather than someone like Ahmadinejad.

As an aside, I think it's strange how the kind of people who support a liberal candidate in Iran, would probably support a more conservative candidate in the West. As you point out, Mousavi's supporters are mainly well educated and middle class. Most of their British counterparts would probably support the Conservative Party and the middle class in America generally support the Republicans.

Also, a lot of Ahmadinejad's supporters are poor, working class. Again, their counterparts in the West would tend to support a more liberal candidate.

Although I suppose you have to consider that if Mousavi was a British politician, he would probably be considered to be a conservative candidate.

Something else that I have noticed is that a lot of far left individuals in the West seem to be quite keen to defend hardline Islamic figures like Ahmadinejad. Which is quite ironic when you consider that they are exactly the sort of people that the likes of Ahmadinejad absolutely despises, given the fact that they are usually committed atheists.


Why are the West suddenly concerned for the Iranian people? :rolleyes:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22847.htm

I can't speak for anyone else but, for me, it's not a case of being concerned for the Iranian people, per se.

I would be concerned for anyone who lives in a country that does not have the right to vote in free and fair elections.

Plus, I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that it's the moderates who are alleging election fraud and it's someone who is "anti-West", that is benefiting from it all.

If Mousavi had controversially won the election and it was Ahmadinejad and his supporters protesting on the streets of Tehran just now, I don't think the Western media would be quite as bothered.

[Sir David Gray]

Could someone please let me know if I'm correct in my understanding of the various voting systems and if I'm not, could they tell me where I've gone wrong?

It took me ages to read all the info and then type it all out.

Cheers!

[Sir David Gray]

Could someone please let me know if i'm correct in my understanding of the various voting systems and if i'm not, could they tell me where i've gone wrong?

It took me ages to read all the info and then type it all out.

Cheers!

Please!!!

I really would like to know if my understanding of these systems is correct. :boo hoo:

[RyeSloan]

Please!!!

I really would like to know if my understanding of these systems is correct. :boo hoo:

I'll put you out of your misery:

Yes.

:greengrin:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Please!!!

I really would like to know if my understanding of these systems is correct. :boo hoo:
I would say that STV is a far more complicated system than AMS.

[Sir David Gray]

I'll put you out of your misery:

Yes.

:greengrin:greengrin

Cheers! :thumbsup:


I would say that STV is a far more complicated system than AMS.

That's possibly down to the fact that they've provided a pretty in-depth analysis of STV on that website and they've also included an example of how it works, but they only give a little explanation of AMS.

Any chance that you (or anyone else) could provide a theoretical explanation of how AMS works?

Please! :greengrin