Bretix Vote Demographics

[cassa333]

I asked this on another thread but for the life of me I can't find it so will post it as a separate q. If it has been answered elsewhere please let me know.

Did we vote in the referendum as individuals, counties, constituency, separate nations (England sCotland etc)?

I thought we voted as individuals. If that is the case then how can any MP, whether at Westminster or any of the devolved governments, vote against triggering a50?

Surely even their conscience or what they believe is in the best interest of the country doesn't count for toffee??!

[mikey4444]

TTT....your explanation, at 11:24, of how our system is similar to America's makes no sense at all. The EC adds another layer of voting, over and above the Election that people can participate in, and we have nothing even remotely similar. Its the numbers of seats won in Westminster that determins who will lead the next Government. Even then, it doesn't out nicely, as 2010 showed, when we ended up have a coalition administration.

If it wasn't for the EC, Trump would not have won. It was the EC that gave him victory.

If we had something similar here, then there would another organisation that would pick a winner, instead of the popular vote by the voters.

[Old_Geezer]

People do not vote for parties at a GE. They vote for a constituency representative of their collective opinion. If they take into account which party the candidate does or doesn't belong to then that's their option. But that can not reasonable be used as an excuse to say that the final proportions each party has doesn't match the votes cast for that party, because no party had votes cast for it. the argument is a a non-starter.

The referendum is a completely different category for it is a single issue and we all all expressing an opinion on it. We are not all in the same constituency choosing between the same group of candidates.

(As for the electoral college system the Americans have, it falls between 2 stools and seems undefendable. All are voting for the same choice and yet some votes count more than others.)

[Old_Geezer]

... it. The argument is a non-starter.

Like I "$^%$&" typed !

...
We are not all in the same constituency choosing between the same group of candidates during a GE.
...

... All are voting for one from the same set of choices and yet ...

[mikey4444]

OG....you are correct in your last paragraph. Its completely indefensible. The explanation of the EC is labyrinthine, to say the least ! :::::

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

I suspect it may had have some use at some time in the past, but its very difficult to justify it now, when it comes out with a verdict at odds with the will of the people, as happened last Novermber.

[collywobbles1]

Many thanks

[New Judge]

"Its completely indefensible. The explanation of the EC is labyrinthine, to say the least"

There's nothing labyrinthine about it. But that's not my point. It seems strange that this is the first major criticism I've heard of the US Presidential election system. I heard nothing when George W Bush won in 2000 with only 47.9% of the popular vote (as opposed to Al Gore's 48.4%). Why the sudden furore. Is it because, once again, the "wrong" result was returned. Would there be so much criticism if Mrs Clinton had won in a similar fashion?

[mikey4444]

NJ.....I still maintain that the use of the EC is indefensible. The main reason for this, is it has the power and potential to thwart the will of the people, which is what happened in this case.

Hilary clearly had more popular votes than Trump, and yet the EC awarded him the election.

I will come clean and admit that I was unaware of the full potential of the EC until last November, but I can assure you that if the situation was reversed, and Trump had more popular votes than Hilary, but the EC awarded her the Election, the result could and would not have my support.

[Ellipsis]

> I heard nothing when George W Bush won in 2000 with only 47.9% of the popular vote (as opposed to Al Gore's 48.4%).

You must be joking, or you weren't listening very hard. The great "hanging chad" (and "pregnant chad") debate was everywhere. Not least among the Democrats, whose candidate once again lost out. Strange, that.

[mikey4444]

Ellipsis....I certainly recall the hanging chads, but I can't say the same about the importance of the EC. But in four years time, we will be more vigilant I think !

[New Judge]

It doesn't really matter how vigilant you are, Mikey :-)

The USA has chosen its electoral method for its President. It is well known by all.. I have to say I find it a bit odd. In a competition where there are normally only two realistic runners I should have thought a simple count up of votes would suffice.

[mikey4444]

NJ....I am glad you see the obvious flaws in the EC system.

What I have never understood about Americans is why the sensible ones, who, one hopes are in the majority, don't band together and make changes to something like the EC ? The essential unfairness that it causes is obvious to everybody, of both political persuasions.

After all, it might be the Republicans at a disadvantage next time.

[New Judge]

"What I have never understood about Americans is why the sensible ones, who, one hopes are in the majority, don't band together and make changes to something like the EC ?"

Probably for the same reason as attempts to get our "First past the post" system changed - because not enough people support the change.

[mikey4444]

In the case of Trump, there are many millions of Americans that should care enough, to start a debate to try to ensure it doesn't happen again NJ ?

But apathy is probably the answer.