ChatterBank0 min ago
Recount Of The Us Election .....
Headline says it all ......
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by seekeerz. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mikey:
"TTT,,,you are again mixing up UKIP with anything, and everything else !" - no I am pointing out that your silly usage of raw figures can apply to our own election too.
"In the FPTP system, UKIP got exactly the amount of seats that it was entitled too....ie one. The Tories won fair and square." - Yes and the Electoral collage system is similar to FPTP and Trump won under that so why are you belly aching over irrelevant statistics?
"If you are advocating a system of PR, then please start your own thread and see how it runs. I seem to recall that we were offered a vote on one system of PR, just after the 2010 Election and it was roundly defeated." - I am not and never have I merely mentioned PR because that appears to be what you are advocating here because you have found an irrelevant statistic that would have meant your favoured candidate would have won.
"But in America they also work the FPTP system, but are hampered by the EC issue, which has distorted the result." by distorted you mean you lost?
"I ask the same question again....if it had been Trump that got more votes, would you be content if Hilary had won instead ? " - as I said above I would accept the result, Obviously I would not be happy with the outcome but I would be content with the system regardless of the numbers of votes because that is irrelevant.I would not be running around trying to find a way that i really won using statistics.
"TTT,,,you are again mixing up UKIP with anything, and everything else !" - no I am pointing out that your silly usage of raw figures can apply to our own election too.
"In the FPTP system, UKIP got exactly the amount of seats that it was entitled too....ie one. The Tories won fair and square." - Yes and the Electoral collage system is similar to FPTP and Trump won under that so why are you belly aching over irrelevant statistics?
"If you are advocating a system of PR, then please start your own thread and see how it runs. I seem to recall that we were offered a vote on one system of PR, just after the 2010 Election and it was roundly defeated." - I am not and never have I merely mentioned PR because that appears to be what you are advocating here because you have found an irrelevant statistic that would have meant your favoured candidate would have won.
"But in America they also work the FPTP system, but are hampered by the EC issue, which has distorted the result." by distorted you mean you lost?
"I ask the same question again....if it had been Trump that got more votes, would you be content if Hilary had won instead ? " - as I said above I would accept the result, Obviously I would not be happy with the outcome but I would be content with the system regardless of the numbers of votes because that is irrelevant.I would not be running around trying to find a way that i really won using statistics.
Mickey, like others of his political persuasion only likes a method if it is in his favour. When it is not he bleats.
The UKIP 4m for 1 seat is exactly the same problem as in the US, it's the system we have and that is the way it is.
What I find hilarious is the way Mickey continually uses the fact UKIP got one seat to claim they are not popular, now Hilary has lost he is the other way but still wont accept UKIP got 4m votes.
The UKIP 4m for 1 seat is exactly the same problem as in the US, it's the system we have and that is the way it is.
What I find hilarious is the way Mickey continually uses the fact UKIP got one seat to claim they are not popular, now Hilary has lost he is the other way but still wont accept UKIP got 4m votes.
“There is nothing remotely democratic about the person who polled 2 million less than votes than the other candidate winning the Election. Otherwise Ed Milliband would now be in Number Ten, quite wrongly”.
No he would not, Mikey. Not that simply, anyway, as you well know.
“Clinton got more votes....that is the bottom line. “
Quite so, Mikey. Another simple statement:
SNP polled 1.45m votes and got 56 seats
UKIP 3.88m votes and got one seat
All sorts of reasons for this all of which we all know. Your “dismissal” of this phenomenon does nothing to lessen it as a fact. In your view it is not “daft” that a party that polled about a third of the votes cast for another gets 56 times as many seats. But Mr Trump gaining the Presidency under the conventions prevailing in the US is daft.
Back to the UK and to the “major” parties, the Labour Party has twice formed minority governments (1923 and 1929). In 1923 it polled over one million votes fewer than the Conservatives and took 67 seats less but still they formed a government. Our system is not short on anomalies and neither is that of the US. But all candidates enter their races knowing the rules that will decide the outcome and to describe the result as “daft” is daft. It’s only daft to you because you did not like the outcome. Had Mrs Clinton won in a similar fashion I doubt we’d have heard a peep.
So….”if Trump had won 2 million more votes than Hilary, but had lost the Election due to the distortion produced by the EC, would you be as pleased as you are today ?” No. (Though having said that I believed that Trump would be bad for the USA and Clinton would be very bad, so not much difference). But I would not be calling the result ”daft”. The Electoral College is the way they do thing there and seats in Parliament is the way we do things here. Neither are daft.
“I can't find the link but at the time there were allegations of dead people voting and also votes being put into the wrong boxes.”
No, that’s in Tower Hamlets, danny.
“What is the connection between the BREXIT vote and the Presidential vote please ?”
Both are being dismissed as not the true “will of the people”. Brexit because only 72% of people voted (and nobody under 18 had a say); Trump because of the reasons above.
No he would not, Mikey. Not that simply, anyway, as you well know.
“Clinton got more votes....that is the bottom line. “
Quite so, Mikey. Another simple statement:
SNP polled 1.45m votes and got 56 seats
UKIP 3.88m votes and got one seat
All sorts of reasons for this all of which we all know. Your “dismissal” of this phenomenon does nothing to lessen it as a fact. In your view it is not “daft” that a party that polled about a third of the votes cast for another gets 56 times as many seats. But Mr Trump gaining the Presidency under the conventions prevailing in the US is daft.
Back to the UK and to the “major” parties, the Labour Party has twice formed minority governments (1923 and 1929). In 1923 it polled over one million votes fewer than the Conservatives and took 67 seats less but still they formed a government. Our system is not short on anomalies and neither is that of the US. But all candidates enter their races knowing the rules that will decide the outcome and to describe the result as “daft” is daft. It’s only daft to you because you did not like the outcome. Had Mrs Clinton won in a similar fashion I doubt we’d have heard a peep.
So….”if Trump had won 2 million more votes than Hilary, but had lost the Election due to the distortion produced by the EC, would you be as pleased as you are today ?” No. (Though having said that I believed that Trump would be bad for the USA and Clinton would be very bad, so not much difference). But I would not be calling the result ”daft”. The Electoral College is the way they do thing there and seats in Parliament is the way we do things here. Neither are daft.
“I can't find the link but at the time there were allegations of dead people voting and also votes being put into the wrong boxes.”
No, that’s in Tower Hamlets, danny.
“What is the connection between the BREXIT vote and the Presidential vote please ?”
Both are being dismissed as not the true “will of the people”. Brexit because only 72% of people voted (and nobody under 18 had a say); Trump because of the reasons above.
jno, //Mikey, will you donate //
///silly personal dig: only US citizens can donate. ///
Not at all. It was a reasonable question. This is something Mikey clearly feels very passionate about. If, as you say, only US citizens can donate, he has friends in the US so I've no doubt something could be arranged.
///silly personal dig: only US citizens can donate. ///
Not at all. It was a reasonable question. This is something Mikey clearly feels very passionate about. If, as you say, only US citizens can donate, he has friends in the US so I've no doubt something could be arranged.
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
