Should Britain leave the European Union?
They should leave
40.2%
78
They should leave but won't
16.0%
31
They should stay
27.8%
54
They should stay but won't
16.0%
31
194 votes
Luthandorius said: Yes I saw that yesterday. Read about it in some news site online and then looked at YouTube. I laughed at that guy. Arrogant asshole and troll. Schulz is doing a good job as president of the parliament in keeping order and trying to calm down the others. It is pretty obvious that the Farage guy is a demagogue and only looking for his own interests. The other demagogue is even worse. Yes , I mean that English Trump, Boris Johnson. @Noboru As to what is democratic, I'd argue that it is democratic as long as People can freely elect Representatives, who act in the Will, Interest and Good of the People, which can be better than being potentially influenced through either Side of the Campaign, which I don't believe occurs that intensively with those, who have it as a Profession. Yes, there might be MPs who make disastrous Decisions, but the Power is still limited to several hundred People so that it shouldn't be that much of an Issue. Democracy doesn't even work 100% in Germany (5% Sperrklausel) so we can hardly expect it from England. As for Brexit..the decision was ridiculous and wrong for various reasons but nothing can be done about that now. The reason why people voted ''leave'' was either because of migrants/foreigner or because of ''OMG the EU is restricting my free speech!11!!1'' or ''EU wants to create a superstate!!'' and just believed right-wing populists. Now not even the populists want to accept responsibility. |
WaterFistoleJul 2, 2016 5:05 PM
 |
| this is one criticism of democracy, irrational voters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy#Irrational_voters Brexit research suggests 1.2 million Leave voters regret their choice in reversal that could change result Up to 7 per cent of the people who voted for a Brexit in the EU referendum now regret their choice, new research has found. When the survey’s findings are projected on to last week’s vote, they would cut the Leave share by 1.2 million, almost wiping out the majority that gave Friday's shock result. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-second-eu-referendum-leave-voters-regret-bregret-choice-in-millions-a7113336.html |
Masked_Mantis said: It is a relevant point because if someone votes Leave with a pro-democracy argument, it only makes sense if the alternative results in more democracy.Luthandorius said: Well democracy in the UK does work, that's an unrelated point to make, and it doesn't make sense to try and connect that to the brexit decision.You clearly don't know how the EU works. He was talking to the parliament - and the members there were elected. And I doubt democracy in the UK works ... otherwise they would have invoked article 50 already but they are playing on time. Maybe they don't leave after all. Does democracy in the UK really work? Can you really hold the Tories accountable under the FPTP election system? Let's look at the last election. Tories: 36.8% of votes, 50.8 % of seats. Labour: 30.5 % of votes, 35.7 % of seats. SNP: 4.7 % of vote, 8.6 % of seats. ... UKIP: 12.7 % of votes, 0.2 % of seats. ... Clearly this is what real democracy looks like, right? UK democracy is indeed great if you like wasted votes, tactical voting, regional parties, and crushed third-party alternatives. Masked_Mantis said: You are forced to stay until you have left? That's reaching new levels of semantical games. The UK is not forced to stay precisely because it is allowed to leave. The only reason it's staying for the moment is because it's stalling for time and not going ahead with the exit negotiations.Luthandorius said: Or they could have went ahead with what the people voted. Even then you're missing the key issue that experts on the EU describe as the democratic deficit. You simply don't care when other country members ratify after the result over turning an entire country. That's the reason for the second referendum which shouldn't have been. They could have still voted no at the 2nd referendum. Then it woudl have been probably failed - the treaty .... or EU without Ireland (others adopting the treaty and Ireland leaving). So yes it is democracy since no one forced them to vote yes. Maybe they voted just yes because there was some "pressure" but then the pressure was like "either leave or vote yes". And they were free to leave. Nobody forced them to stay. Maybe they thought it would be more beneficial to stay - even though they did not like some stuff mentioned on the treaty. And that then made them vote yes out of their own free decision. They are forced to stay as long as their vote is respected both in the EU structure, and their countries governmental structure. The UK is forced to stay until we have left the EU. |
Zelgadis said: The 5% Election Threshold (haven't found a better Translation) is there to prevent a too scattered political System and to make new, possibly extremistic, Parties harder to establish. There are also Exceptions from the Rule when a Party is representing a Minority like the Danish Party in Schleswig-Holstein.Democracy doesn't even work 100% in Germany (5% Sperrklausel) so we can hardly expect it from England. I wouldn't say that nothing can be done about it. I know it was said multiple Times already and I'm repeating myself as well, but the Referendum is not binding. Same as the one over 60 Years ago in Germany about the Saarland which was a "Voksbefragung" (People's Inquiry), however that one showed a much clearer Result. If the Voting had been anywhere near this Level, I would have said: "okay, it is absolutely clear that they want to break off the EU." While in Theory, the Parliament could have decided against it, since it wasn't a "Volksentscheid" (People's Decision), it would have been risky to go against it because of the Supermajority, which is not the Case for the current British Referendum. Considering the Survey posted in the Link posted by @j0x and adding the 16 and 17 Years old, who weren't allowed to vote and were mostly for the EU, it suddenly doesn't become a clear Majority anymore. It might be even dubious whether there would be even a Majority anymore. For that Reason, Representative Democracy is often used to make the (final) Decisions about Issues like those. It also helps against Manipulations of the Population to go for a certain Result. ----------- Last but not least, if the UK decides to leave, they will lose their VIP Membership in the European Union. It's highly unlikely that they would ever get back to a Status of having the UK Rebate with all the Opt-Outs should they decide to participate once again in the political Union. I know the EU has quite some Issues, but running away from the shared Responsibility to keep the Power and Influence in Europe for a better World is no Solution. |
| @TheDeedsOfMen It's not a relevant point, you didn't explain those statistics, whether it's smaller or larger parties, or corruption. The EU has a clear democracy issue, I can only continue to show you. Though I won't repeat articles and events that actually happened constantly if they'll be ignored. Here the Dutch voted against closer EU ties with Ukraine as they thought that was the sensible thing to do. They had a huge majority vote as you can see. But for the people of the Netherlands they have no democracy in the EU since they were ignored as the Ukraine pushed toward the EU and the Dutch government ignored the peoples vote about EU decisions. Outside of the EU the peoples vote counts for what they want pushed for in their country. Inside the EU the peoples vote can simply be ignored when it comes to EU matters. The difference is clear and it is acceptable for the people of one country to want out of that add on system where they have less of a voice. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/06/dutch-voters-reject-closer-eu-links-to-ukraine-in-referendum |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Masked_Mantis said: It is very relevant. If there's any benefit to democracy, it's the ability to keep the government accountable, but in the UK it's next to impossible to kick the two main parties out. Give the British people a real choice. @TheDeedsOfMen It's not a relevant point, you didn't explain those statistics, whether it's smaller or larger parties, or corruption. Over 63 % voted against the Tories, a clear majority as you'd call it, but look who is running the government. If democracy is about majority rule and ignoring 63 % is fine, why would it be terrible to ignore 52 %? Because some votes are arbitrarily held with different rules? Hah. If you can pick the rules, you can get any result. If the Tories care about democracy so much, why don't they fix their own terrible system then? It's almost like... they like maintaining their power more than democracy. What a surprise. Masked_Mantis said: Overwhelming majority with a 32 % turnout, only 2 points over the threshold. ...Yeah, that's a really strong majority. Many people didn't vote because of the threshold.Here the Dutch voted against closer EU ties with Ukraine as they thought that was the sensible thing to do. They had a huge majority vote as you can see. But for the people of the Netherlands they have no democracy in the EU since they were ignored as the Ukraine pushed toward the EU and the Dutch government ignored the peoples vote about EU decisions. Anyway, why should the other EU countries abide by the Dutch referendum? Do you think the Dutch should have a veto over decisions like this? That's no democracy! Masked_Mantis said: Out of the member states, the UK has been one of the most strongly opposed to any democratic reform in the EU. They want to give the European Parliament as little power as possible. They want national vetos (included in Cameron's recent deal, by the way). They want opaque backroom deals. If the British people truly want a democratic EU, why do they vote for governments that block it?Outside of the EU the peoples vote counts for what they want pushed for in their country. Inside the EU the peoples vote can simply be ignored when it comes to EU matters. The difference is clear and it is acceptable for the people of one country to want out of that add on system where they have less of a voice. The problem the UK has had with the EU is not the democracy deficit. It's that the UK too often gets outnumbered. They don't want more democracy; they want less. Their "reforms" are not about democracy; they are about UK getting more rights to veto majority decisions. For better or worse, that is by definition the opposite of democracy. |
| @TheDeedsOfMen The two main parties are labour and conservative, and conservative had the higher percentage of votes. TheDeedsOfMen said: Doesn't matter. Overwhelming majority with a 32 % turnout, only 2 points over the threshold. ...Yeah, that's a really strong majority. Many people didn't vote because of the threshold. TheDeedsOfMen said: Well everyone seems to think Scotland should have a veto now. Anyway, why should the other EU countries abide by the Dutch referendum? Do you think the Dutch should have a veto over decisions like this? That's no democracy! And I don't care to be honest. It's meaningless having these votes and it's meaningless being in the EU. Free countries are better off actually being able to reject negotiations with the EU, instead of having other countries decide for you. I don't believe in your ideological democratic EU so I disagree with the last point on that. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Masked_Mantis said: Well, how do you define democracy then? Is it majority rule or not? If the choice of election system is arbitrary, then there would be no problem with setting a 70 % "no" threshold for anti-EU referendums, for example. Would you agree to that?@TheDeedsOfMen The two main parties are labour and conservative, and conservative had the higher percentage of votes. Masked_Mantis said: You said there was a "huge majority." This is misleading because the real race was getting over the turnout threshold.Doesn't matter. Masked_Mantis said: If you don't care, why did you so strongly call it undemocratic? I already know the answer, of course: you rant about democracy without caring about it much at all. What you care about is national sovereignty, for reasons not well established.TheDeedsOfMen said: Well everyone seems to think Scotland should have a veto now. Anyway, why should the other EU countries abide by the Dutch referendum? Do you think the Dutch should have a veto over decisions like this? That's no democracy! And I don't care to be honest. It's meaningless having these votes and it's meaningless being in the EU. Free countries are better off actually being able to reject negotiations with the EU, instead of having other countries decide for you. Besides, those small countries or the UK for that matter wouldn't be free in any real sense. They would be constrained by what others would be willing to agree to. In negotiations they would get steamrolled by other European countries and even more so by the US and China. That is, as you put it, "having other countries decide for you." It gets even harder against multinational corporations who care very little about what the Netherlands think about them. They will easily just run off elsewhere. Masked_Mantis said: "My ideological democratic EU?" How is it mine? I don't believe in your ideological democratic EU so I disagree with the last point on that. 1) You called for democracy. 2) I pointed out a way to get that democracy. 3) You rejected it by appealing to reasons other than democracy. If anyone has an ideology here, it's you. I simply pointed out that your ideology is internally inconsistent. You say your Brexit stance is about democracy; it's not and I explained why. |
TheDeedsOfMen said: I'm fine with how it's done in the UK. Conservatives got the most votes out of the other parties. I'm also fine with how we voted out of the EU, and don't care about the irrelevant whining about either a certain threshold not being met, not having certain ages be allowed to vote, Scotland wanting to remain, people being too lazy to vote, and every other complaint people can reach for that doesn't effect the democratic system. Well, how do you define democracy then? Is it majority rule or not? If the choice of election system is arbitrary, then there would be no problem with setting a 70 % "no" threshold for anti-EU referendums, for example. Would you agree to that? TheDeedsOfMen said: There is no turnover threshold. We had plenty of time to prepare, and by law had to register to vote otherwise face a fine from the government.You said there was a "huge majority." This is misleading because the real race was getting over the turnout threshold. Majority vote win since everyone registered. You need to accept that really if you're going to reply. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Masked_Mantis said: Who is whining? You say you are in favor of democracy. I'm asking you to define more clearly what it is. If you don't know what your own ideology is, how can you expect your debate opponents to know?TheDeedsOfMen said: I'm fine with how it's done in the UK. Conservatives got the most votes out of the other parties. I'm also fine with how we voted out of the EU, and don't care about the irrelevant whining about either a certain threshold not being met, not having certain ages be allowed to vote, Scotland wanting to remain, people being too lazy to vote, and every other complaint people can reach for that doesn't effect the democratic system.Well, how do you define democracy then? Is it majority rule or not? If the choice of election system is arbitrary, then there would be no problem with setting a 70 % "no" threshold for anti-EU referendums, for example. Would you agree to that? Masked_Mantis said: Completely regardless of whether people's complaints are legit, the things you mentioned do affect the system and the outcome in individual cases of using that system. That's a fact.don't care about the irrelevant whining about either a certain threshold not being met, not having certain ages be allowed to vote, Scotland wanting to remain, people being too lazy to vote, and every other complaint people can reach for that doesn't effect the democratic system. Masked_Mantis said: What are you even talking about? The Brexit vote?TheDeedsOfMen said: There is no turnover threshold. We had plenty of time to prepare, and by law had to register to vote otherwise face a fine from the government.You said there was a "huge majority." This is misleading because the real race was getting over the turnout threshold. Majority vote win since everyone registered. You need to accept that really if you're going to reply. If you read the context, I was talking about the Dutch referendum you were referring to. There was a 30 % turnout threshold for it to take effect. They got 32 %, which was barely above. The majority was huge because abstaining was a very effective way to block it. The "for" voters arguably made a tactical error. They should have stayed home. |
TheDeedsOfMenJul 2, 2016 2:40 PM
| @TheDeedsOfMen Everyone who wants UK to remain is whining about the brexit vote with irrelavant nonsense. Therefore the things I mentioned do not affect the system. What do you want people to be dragged to vote? They registered so there is no legit arguments. As for the Dutch referendum they were above and denied. That's a fact too. There's nothing more to be said really. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Masked_Mantis said: Don't cherrypick parts of referendum results then. Clearly state the turnout threshold when there is one and they barely got above it. It's kind of important for interpreting the results.@TheDeedsOfMen As for the Dutch referendum they were above and denied. That's a fact too. There's nothing more to be said really. Everyone who wants UK to remain is whining about the brexit vote with irrelavant nonsense. Therefore the things I mentioned do not affect the system. Irrelevant in what sense? In terms of affecting the outcome of a vote? In terms of whether it's democratic? If it's the latter, I have no idea because your definition of democracy is too vague.What do you want people to be dragged to vote? They registered so there is no legit arguments. No, I want you to define more clearly what your democracy is. You keep saying that institution such and such is democratic and institution such and such is undemocratic pretty much at random. What, are we just going to chalk democracy up as "vague and undefined stuff"? |
| @TheDeedsOfMen I don't need to state anything since they were above the threshold. Whether barely or not makes no difference since the majority that voted (64%) were ignored. We don't know why the threshold was 32% so I don't care until I know why. And yes people complaining about brexit are irrelevant both about the vote outcome, and in terms of democracy. The UK away from the EU is democratic, I still don't understand your point from earlier. Conservatives won by 12 seats, when only 1 more seat is needed to win. How is the UK not democratic? The majority of the UK voted conservative so they had the most seats. They also lost a lot of seats making other parties gain seats there. What more do you want? If next time more UK constituencies vote other than the tories, the tories will lose even more seats. I'm not saying anything at random, I'm just convinced you don't know how the UK works since you haven't made any arguments against the UK's democracy. |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Masked_Mantis said: The threshold wasn't 32 %, it was 30 %. The turnout was 32 %. Different concepts.@TheDeedsOfMen I don't need to state anything since they were above the threshold. Whether barely or not makes no difference since the majority that voted (64%) were ignored. We don't know why the threshold was 32% so I don't care until I know why. The majority getting ignored is a pointless argument because those voters don't consitute a majority of the EU population. The Dutch vetoing the EU would be no different in terms of democracy than Scotland vetoing the UK. And yes people complaining about brexit are irrelevant both about the vote outcome, Complete nonsense. If people banned old people from voting, let Scotland veto, got a second referendum, etc., obviously it could affect the result.and in terms of democracy. What are you even saying anymore? If these things are irrelevant, then what's your problem with them? They can't be both undemocratic and irrelevant in terms of democracy at the same time."We can't have a second referendum. That would be undemocratic." "Whether we have a second referendum is irrelevant in terms of democracy." It can't be both. The UK away from the EU is democratic, I still don't understand your point from earlier. You kept saying 52 % is enough to decide Brexit because they are the majority. 36 % are not a majority, but you say they can democratically form a government. Clearly your democracy can't be about majority rule then.Conservatives won by 12 seats, when only 1 more seat is needed to win. How is the UK not democratic? The majority of the UK voted conservative so they had the most seats. They also lost a lot of seats making other parties gain seats there. What more do you want? If next time more UK constituencies vote other than the tories, the tories will lose even more seats. The majority of the UK voted conservative so they had the most seats. On what planet is 36 % a majority?Likewise, the most seats =/= the majority of seats. In this context, I'm only objecting to the latter. With voters like you, UK democracy is clearly in safe hands. I'm not saying anything at random, You say stuff like:"Scotland doesn't have a veto, but Brexit is democratic." "Netherlands doesn't have a veto, therefore the EU is undemocratic." "48 % shouldn't get to make a decision because democracy is about majority rule." "36 % can form a government because democracy is about majority rule... oh wait." Seems pretty arbitrary to me. I'm just convinced you don't know how the UK works since you haven't made any arguments against the UK's democracy. Judging by your reply, I'm convinced you don't understand simple words like "majority." Which is a big problem when you're appealing to both majority rule and minority rule, apparently without noticing the difference. |
TheDeedsOfMenJul 3, 2016 6:12 PM
| Found something funny on twitter: Lefties spend their lives calling for the 'revolution', & when it comes, they piss their pants and side with the banks! |
 |
| @TheDeedsOfMen Scotland are with the UK until their next vote, so don't compare the EU to the UK again. And clearly I meant anything coming from a pro remainer such as "ban old people from voting" is irrelevant as an argument that the UK has a democracy issue. You're obsessed with the idea that the 36% isn't a majority when I've already told you that by law you register to vote. That's the majority of the UK. What you want is to brush the majority that were interested in voting under the carpet because of people who did not vote. Well too bad, that's corrupt in so many ways. The majority could have voted, they have seen the debates, the fear mongering of what could happen in the biggest moment in UK history in a long time, and they had the time to decide and vote but chose not too. UK is out, democracy has spoken. The majority registered and you have the cheek to say I don't understand the term "majority". Again waht do you want? People dragged to vote, more fear mongering? |
Dick_DawkinsJul 4, 2016 10:04 AM
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
| I have a strong inkling that your Parliament will ignore the referendum. I hope they do, cause, more drama. |
| That would be fun. Media in my country already speculating about this - since the referendum is not binding and not much happened until now. Would be more fun if Scotland still tried for independence and if that happened. :D |
| I am against Brexit, but I'm pro UK fucking itself over. What do? |
| End Zionazism |
If their parliament ignores the referendum then you'll get millions of pissed off brits. If Brexit goes in, you'll get millions of pissed off brits AND some interesting economic turmoil. You can't lose. It's a win-win if you're into political drama. @Luth That would be hilarious, but I'm pretty sure the Scots won't start up another referendum until article 50 is invoked. Actually now that i think about it, Brexit is a far more interesting outcome. The possible dissolution of the UK sounds interesting. Okay, now I'm hoping they'll leave the EU. That'll be fun to watch. |
NudeBearJul 5, 2016 4:57 AM
Masked_Mantis said: It's different because Scotland is with the UK? The Netherlands is with the EU too, that's what you disliked in the first place!@TheDeedsOfMen Scotland are with the UK until their next vote, so don't compare the EU to the UK again. If you argue that it's different by appealing to national sovereignty, then it's an argument out of national sovereignty and has nothing to do with democracy. And clearly I meant anything coming from a pro remainer such as "ban old people from voting" is irrelevant as an argument that the UK has a democracy issue. Well, do you find these things simply irrelevant for democracy or outright undemocratic? Those are different things. Would giving Scots a veto or banning old people make it undemocratic? If Leave was forced to split their votes between multiple options, would that make it undemocratic?You're obsessed with the idea that the 36% isn't a majority when I've already told you that by law you register to vote. That's the majority of the UK. What you want is to brush the majority that were interested in voting under the carpet because of people who did not vote. Well too bad, that's corrupt in so many ways. The majority could have voted, they have seen the debates, the fear mongering of what could happen in the biggest moment in UK history in a long time, and they had the time to decide and vote but chose not too. Why are you talking about Brexit? 36 % is not a figure for Brexit; it's for the 2015 elections. 36 % out of the people who voted in the 2015 elections voted Conservative. And yes, that is 36 % out of the people who voted.UK is out, democracy has spoken. The majority registered and you have the cheek to say I don't understand the term "majority". Again waht do you want? People dragged to vote, more fear mongering? Let's see what you said: Masked_Mantis said: The majority of the UK voted conservative so they had the most seats. So let's hear it: where's this majority you mentioned? |
| The way thing are playing out there's going to be no EU left by the time they call article 50 anyway. |
TheDeedsOfMen said: If the majority of a country in the EU vote for something and other EU countries veto it, then that countries population would have their decision ignored. Hence there being votes to leave the EU if you want. It's different because Scotland is with the UK? The Netherlands is with the EU too, that's what you disliked in the first place! If you argue that it's different by appealing to national sovereignty, then it's an argument out of national sovereignty and has nothing to do with democracy. If you do leave then you always get a majority vote when voting for anything in your own country. There's no outside factor to veto you. TheDeedsOfMen said: I still don't know why you clutch at this straw so much. Immahnoob has already countered this by saying "why not ban university students from voting". It's an irrelevant point, no one is banning old people and Scotland can vote to leave the UK before making any decisions. Would giving Scots a veto or banning old people make it undemocratic? If Leave was forced to split their votes between multiple options, would that make it undemocratic? TheDeedsOfMen said: So let's hear it: where's this majority you mentioned? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results Think you've got the wrong article. Does the turnout not matter anymore? |
Dick_DawkinsJul 5, 2016 11:19 AM
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
| Seems like the pound fell below the $1.3 mark earlier today (for a moment) following M&G's decision to suspend their property funds (biggest in the UK). I think I agree with @NudeBear that the parliarment will ignore the referendum. With several corps, banks, etc either suspending their activities or relocating themselves in the EU, the members would probably rather face the inevitable riots/protests from the leave camp than let the economy collapse. |
Masked_Mantis said: If a country gets voted down by the others, it's less of a veto and more of a democratic loss. The majority beating the minority... That's democracy. The "outside factor" is just the democratic majority.TheDeedsOfMen said: If the majority of a country in the EU vote for something and other EU countries veto it, then that countries population would have their decision ignored. Hence there being votes to leave the EU if you want. It's different because Scotland is with the UK? The Netherlands is with the EU too, that's what you disliked in the first place! If you argue that it's different by appealing to national sovereignty, then it's an argument out of national sovereignty and has nothing to do with democracy. If you do leave then you always get a majority vote when voting for anything in your own country. There's no outside factor to veto you. ...So yeah, your idea of democracy is "It's not democracy if foreigners can vote!" Masked_Mantis said: How does it counter me when I never wanted to ban old people or defended university students? What I'm saying is "Your notion of democracy is too arbitrary." If you can pick any arbitrary selection of voters, you can get any result.TheDeedsOfMen said: I still don't know why you clutch at this straw so much. Immahnoob has already countered this by saying "why not ban university students from voting".Would giving Scots a veto or banning old people make it undemocratic? If Leave was forced to split their votes between multiple options, would that make it undemocratic? It's an irrelevant point, no one is banning old people I never said they are banning them. I just wanted to hear if it would be democratic or not.and Scotland can vote to leave the UK before making any decisions. So is a vote only democratic if every participant can set up their own independent state?You didn't answer this, by the way: If Leave was forced to split their votes between multiple options, would that make it undemocratic? Masked_Mantis said: Err, the 36.9 % Conservative vote share is right there in the article... Do you even understand the difference between seats and votes then?TheDeedsOfMen said: So let's hear it: where's this majority you mentioned? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results Think you've got the wrong article. Does the turnout not matter anymore? Let's recap: Masked_Mantis said: I can't make it any more obvious. It's there in plain English.The majority of the UK voted conservative |
TheDeedsOfMen said: No your idea of democracy is if other countries can vote against yours. Not foreigners. If a country gets voted down by the others, it's less of a veto and more of a democratic loss. The majority beating the minority... That's democracy. The "outside factor" is just the democratic majority. ...So yeah, your idea of democracy is "It's not democracy if foreigners can vote!" TheDeedsOfMen said: Then don't pick a selection of voters. Keep it simple. The UK voted out, not the elderly of the UK voted out. Even young demographics who voted out contributed to the result so you may as well stop with your point. How does it counter me when I never wanted to ban old people or defended university students? What I'm saying is "Your notion of democracy is too arbitrary." If you can pick any arbitrary selection of voters, you can get any result. What I don't respond to is irrelevant. TheDeedsOfMen said: Your original point was to convince me that this is somehow undemocratic. You've also ignored the 66% turnout.Err, the 36.9 % Conservative vote share is right there |
Trance said: I'm a guy and I can imagine buttfucking another guy. I don't find the thought repulsive, and I can even imagine kissing another man. |
Masked_Mantis said: More than "my democracy," I was examining your ideas.TheDeedsOfMen said: No your idea of democracy is if other countries can vote against yours. Not foreigners.If a country gets voted down by the others, it's less of a veto and more of a democratic loss. The majority beating the minority... That's democracy. The "outside factor" is just the democratic majority. ...So yeah, your idea of democracy is "It's not democracy if foreigners can vote!" "The other countries" are just the elected representatives of those countries. If the problem is uneven distribution of voting power, then you have a point, but an EU-wide referendum or parliamentary decision would suffice. But then your narrative of the UK "liberating itself" would look strange because the UK has strongly opposed measures like that. You can't liberate yourself on the basis of a democracy deficit if you're one of the states that wants democracy the least. TheDeedsOfMen said: Then don't pick a selection of voters. Keep it simple. The UK voted out, not the elderly of the UK voted out. Even young demographics who voted out contributed to the result so you may as well stop with your point.How does it counter me when I never wanted to ban old people or defended university students? What I'm saying is "Your notion of democracy is too arbitrary." If you can pick any arbitrary selection of voters, you can get any result. Actually, the whole group of UK citizens is arbitrary. Most of them are born that way by chance, and leaving might not be easy because of financial risk and a lack of ideal options. I don't think there's any selection of voters that's legit in the sense of "real" democracy. What I don't respond to is irrelevant. Suit yourself, but it was an obvious analogy to UK general elections. All you need to do for Leave to lose is split the vote. It could have been done: people had different ideas of the UK's new position and treaties.TheDeedsOfMen said: Your original point was to convince me that this is somehow undemocratic.Err, the 36.9 % Conservative vote share is right there I explained it already. You say democracy is about the majority, but it can't exclusively be so if 37 % of votes let you form a democratic government. So you need to define democracy differently. Is voting under any arbitrary rules always democratic? It's also a problem because you talk about transparency. Under FPTP it is very hard to make the two main parties accountable and kick them out. If democracy is about transparency and accountability, UK democracy is weaker than proportional representation. You've also ignored the 66% turnout. If you want to count the non-voters against Conservatives, that will only hurt their figure. |
TheDeedsOfMenJul 7, 2016 6:13 PM
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |