Trump took the POTUS-twitter account. Now it’s really official.
It’s still incredible to me how Hill, with almost three million more votes, is not the president. Is there another country in the world where the general vote is not the decider?
1 Like
And he’s gonna keep on posting shit like he did with his private account.
The UK lol
In 1951 Winston Churchill’s Conservatives won the election despite getting about 250,000 fewer votes than Clement Attlee’s Labour Party.
3 Likes
FPTP in action folks.
The popular vote isn’t really an accurate measure of anything
I like FPTP
1 Like
Well that isn’t true, it’s an accurate measure of how the electorate voted down to an exact figure.
It’s absolutely fine to prefer FPTP, it has its advantages, but to say the popular vote isn’t an accurate measure of anything is clearly not true.
1 Like
Well the exact figure has been skewed by the realities of the electoral system. A republican voter in Cali or NY is practical a non entity in the grand scheme of things. Who know how many voters have been dissuaded from voting because their vote is effectively meaningless.
If you have direct popular vote the result would be more accurate measure of the electorate because single voters are empowered. Even then the data would be skewed but more accurate. In fairness the entire system is flawed.
I think HRC failing to secure key states where Trump campaigned hard says alot more about the mood of the electorate than the popular vote. In any case the dems have a lockdown on two of the most populous urban states in the US the data is clearly skewed.
How is FPTP any different to that though?
Is it true since yesterday there is no longer any reference to climate change or LGBT on the official White House website 
1 Like
I never said it was.
Saying I like FPTP was a separate observation
Because in the north of England, the torries can win seats, if those areas were as big as US States, they wouldn’t be able to. It’s similar but not quite as bad.
Both are undemocratic.
Not necessary.
In the context of the UK, FPTP strikes a good balance between representation and more importantly effective government.
A better version of democracy is one where we can clearly hold elected official accountable.
Not it doesn’t though, it creates a 2 party system that can’t be influenced by a large percentage of the population who would prefer another party. It’s good and bad in essense, that it blocks far right parties like UKIP having influence, but it also blocks centre left parties like Lib Dems having any say in our democracy despite at times getting around 1/4 of the vote.
It also allows a party getting a 1/3 of the vote total power, that is in itself undemocractic whether you like it or not.
Well I’ve always found that the effect of smaller parties on government policy is indirect. Rise Of UKIP motivated by Euro scepticism for example prompted the Conservatives to lean to the right and deliver a referendum on the issue. They’ve definitely had an indirect effect on our democracy. If the Lib Dem resurgence continues that will prompt Labour to react too.
Your version of democracy is one which prioritizes representation over effective government - something which I dislike because a government should be clearly accountable and unburdened with internal division.
PR systems are undesirable because it prevents effective government. The concept of effective government through FPTP has been essential to the UK. You just need to look at the performance of the coalition to see how any PR model would be highly detrimental to the UK especially in a time where we need consistent policy
Fair enough.
It’s exactly the same. If it’s electoral collage or governer then it’s the whole state otherwise it’s smaller districts like in a UK general election and people are dissuaded from voting because their preferred candidate hasn’t a chance.
What about the performance of German coalition governments? Or some of the ones in Nordic countries?
Your post reads like stereotypical British FPTP propaganda, scaremongering about how coalition governments simply can’t function.
4 Likes
I use to be a fan of FPTP. It generally worked well in Britain for a long time, and even the coalition of 2010 was strong and there was a degree of compromise. The political situation right now though needs much more representation. The two party system doesn’t represent the people anymore, Brexit was a by-product of this.
Also, if the electoral college gives a voice to those in the mid-west etc, surely FPTP is taking a way a voice from those in safe seats. Only a low proportion of seats in the UK are actually contestable.
Edit: on the theme of the inauguration. I found Trump’s speech to be the most uninspiring speech possible. Compare and contrast that to the one of Obama of 2008. It’s pretty sad when the Chinese president makes a better case for trade than the US lol.
1 Like
I don’t know how relevant continental comparisions are when we had our very own coalition to examine. The results of the election showed the electorate were clearly unsatisfied the coalition performance - you can’t really argue with that. I think certain systems work well for their respective countries. I think FPTP works for the UK.
I never said coalition governments simply can’t function never implied it either, I’m just saying the water gets alot murkier in terms of accountability when there isn’t consistency and consensus.
With Brexit in mind I just don’t see how any PR system comes to benefit the UK. It’s an issue which is does not give way to alot of consensus between parties