mkhammer wrote:Whiskyman wrote:mkhammer wrote:
Get what your saying whiskey I think, but if I am getting it right and your saying people who don't vote
would be anti Tory,the fact that they didn't vote Labour either,also makes them anti Labour.
So we either disregard,or we have to split the way they would have voted if they were forced to.
I think the flaw in the system is people not recognising when a party has won an election,even
if not a majority.
You get the same points for a hard fought 1-0 win as you do for a 5-0 thrashing...
Which we all know about.. :i am genuinely amused:
So the winning party must be allowed to govern,it's not like it's level,I mean it is 60 seats...
I agree with the PR thing,but for the life of me can't work a system out that would suit
this country and the way it's set up.
( I've just stuck something up about the PR thing on here,so won't bore you anymore.. :i am genuinely amused: )
Just to avoid confusion I'm basing everything on the number of votes cast. I don't think any consideration can be made, or assumptions on who they might vote for, about people who didn't bother to exercise their democratic right.
Simply put what I'm actually saying is that, even when the government has a massive, Blairlike, majority if you add up the total votes cast more people actually voted for someone else than voted Labour. And imo that isn't truly democratic.
Sorry mate thought you meant that people who didn't vote were against a winning party..
Yeah Def think a PR System in the commons on certain issues should somehow be introduced.
So even if a party only has a few seats,their percentage of public support,should be recognised.
And on that we are in agreement.