I keep wondering if anyone will actually mention the elephant in the room. The fucking enormous debt. I heard a snippet on the radio earlier - someone saying whoever wins will lose the next election and won't get back in for a generation cos of the fucking great axe they are going to have to wield.
I'm leaning on the side of no. I just can't be arsed listening to any more platitudinous bullshit.
Turned it off after half an hour. They are not really talking about the economy at all - just how they will manage a spreadsheet.
RuleBritannia wrote:
Still don't know if I'm gonna go for Lib Dems or Greens.
Don't bother voting Green for the sake of principle. I'm a big believer in not wasting votes on candidates that cannot win. If Ralph Nader hadn't run in 2000, we'd have had President Al Gore instead of President George W. Bush.
But of course I'm a 'merkin, so ye need not heed my advice.
I was very proud of myself for watching the first 5 mins of the 'debate' before watching Mythbusters instead!
Bella Fortuna wrote: You know you love it you dirty bitch!
devogue wrote:Actually, I am a very, very, stupid man.
Pappa wrote: I even ran upstairs and climbed into bed once, the second I pulled the duvet over me I suddenly felt very silly and sheepish, so I went back downstairs.
BBC wrote:Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been caught on microphone describing a voter he had just spoken to in Rochdale as a "bigoted woman".
Sixty five-year-old Gillian Duffy had challenged Mr Brown on a number of issues including immigration and crime.
As he got into his car, he was still wearing a broadcast microphone and was heard to say "that was a disaster".
Classic case of life imitating fiction, except in Brown's case the real sentiments were made public.
If I were entitled to vote in this election, and keeping in mind that it is of the first-past-the-post variety, I'd vote for the Labour Party. There may not be much difference between it and the Tories, but in social terms the latter would be as disastrous as Thatcher's reign turned out to be.
It's a pity that preferential voting has not been adopted yet, and that it is unlikely to be instituted while the two majors have so much to lose if it were.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Seraph wrote:It's a pity that preferential voting has not been adopted yet, and that it is unlikely to be instituted while the two majors have so much to lose if it were.
I think the best result will be for Labour to come third in the popular vote, but first in terms of seat numbers. It mean that the Lib Dems will hold all the power (who will push for PR), inspite coming second in the popular vote, and having more than half the seats of Labour. Nothing can outline more why first-past-the-post is madness.
RuleBritannia wrote:Worlds best argument for proportional representation:
Trigger Warning!!!1! :
In 1824 John Quincy Adams won the presidency with only 31% of the vote to Andrew Jackson's 41% of the popular vote. Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1876, but Rutherford Hayes won the election. Benjamin Harrison won in 1888, despite losing the popular vote to Grover Cleveland.
I don't think that these results mean that the system would be better with a pure popular vote outcome. Proportional representation is really contrary to the American system, which does not elect the President based on a popular vote, but rather a vote of electors designated by the States. Technically, there is no reason why a given State has to hold a popular election at all in order to choose electors, or choose electors based on the popular vote in that state. It's conceivable that a State might choose its electors by a vote of the State Legislature.
And, there is really nothing to scoff at about this. In the UK, you have a Prime Minister that acts as the head of the executive function of government (since your parliament combines the legislative and executive functions, which are separate in the US). But, most people in the UK never cast a ballot for or against the Prime Minister, right? He just is the leader chosen by the MPs of the majority party, right? So, you just vote for your MP, and then your MP votes for the PM.
Here, our MPs are Congresspeople, and we vote for them the same as you vote for your MP. IN ADDITION, however, we have a system which chooses the President which has evolved to be based on the popular vote, to a large degree. However, the federal nature of the US is taken into account by providing 2 electors for each state automatically, regardless of population, to ensure slightly weight the scales in favor of less populated (and hence less powerful) states.
You know you love it you dirty bitch!
