Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In my view part of the danger of FPTP is that it encourages a two-party system and no pair of parties can encompass all the different issues and compromise.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In my view part of the danger of FPTP is that it encourages a two-party system and no pair of parties can encompass all the different issues and compromise.

True but grand coalition or more than one in ot tends to get alot more unstable.
I can see advantage and disadvantage to both systems.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In my view part of the danger of FPTP is that it encourages a two-party system and no pair of parties can encompass all the different issues and compromise.

True but grand coalition or more than one in ot tends to get alot more unstable.
I can see advantage and disadvantage to both systems.

It's only more unstable because it requires compromise, it considers more than an isolated view of one side of the argument. That makes for a stronger country, more inclusive. It challenges perceptions and facts are used to determine how we approach the world rather than be manipulated to fit a particularly perspective. A solution that results in one arty dominating for decades only results in certain groups benefiting and the rest suffering. It's the sort of thing that V for Vendetta warns against, although obviously exaggerated for the audience but some of the speeches made are quite relevant, for example the slogan for the incumbent party was "Strength through Unity, Unity through Faith" compare this to some of our current soundbites "Strong and Stable"

Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

It's academic anyway, the Tories are about as likely to change the voting system from FPTP, as they are to develop a compassionate ethical stance on just about anything.

However, I know quite a few conservatives, a lot actually, and they're mostly lovely people, one even drove an hour out of his way yesterday to help me out. However, the conservative party just seems to somehow come out with these ideas that end up inflicting uneccessary suffering or misery on the weakest members of our society.
None of the people I know would go out of their way to hurt anyone, or not offer to help and put themselves out for others, yet they do so every time they vote for the conservatives.

I occasionally point this out, and the most consistent reason I get is that they don't trust labour to not tax and spend. They see the role of Govt as purely a financial concern, and that everything else is unecessay interfering.
Which is an odd attitude, considering the fact we're part of a huge Govt institution.

 r_squared wrote:


I occasionally point this out, and the most consistent reason I get is that they don't trust labour to not tax and spend. They see the role of Govt as purely a financial concern, and that everything else is unecessay interfering.
Which is an odd attitude, considering the fact we're part of a huge Govt institution.

I wonder though which is the primary concern, the former or the latter. All governments tax and spend... If you didn't want that then there would be no government at all (or only the rich would be able to even get anywhere near being a politician). Like my brother I think the main concern comes from the tax because they don't see the benefit of the spend. Of course it's all well and good whilst things are going well, but then it lacks any consideration that they might need those services in the future because many don't anticipate anything bad happening (say being in car crash that puts you out of work for three years or a stroke at 50 etc). It doesn't make people bad, just failing to realise the consequences of not having that spend.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy?CMP=fb_gu


wee bit worrying/depressing but worth a read.

More of the same from the Guardian/Observer.

The majority of those who balloted voted Brexit, and as The Guardian knows that its opinion is liberal progressive Truth, Therefore the majority must have been too stupid to think for themselves and can only have been hoodwinked into voting against the revealed Truth.
After all anyone who supported Leave or is in general in disagreement with The Guardian must be an alt right knuckledragger.
It is not possible that people came to the conclusion to vote to Leave by any rational process or opinion as rationality is the exclusive purview of the Truth and the Truth belong to progressive liberalism as enshrined in The Guardian.

This conclusion is essentially the initial premise on which the supporting theory must be used to confirm.
And yes, progressives can the that up their own backsides; they are likely no longer consciously aware of it.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In my view part of the danger of FPTP is that it encourages a two-party system and no pair of parties can encompass all the different issues and compromise.

True but grand coalition or more than one in ot tends to get alot more unstable.
I can see advantage and disadvantage to both systems.

The Empire successfully fought the two biggest wars in history with coalition governments.

That aside, what does stability mean in terms of government?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In my view part of the danger of FPTP is that it encourages a two-party system and no pair of parties can encompass all the different issues and compromise.

True but grand coalition or more than one in ot tends to get alot more unstable.
I can see advantage and disadvantage to both systems.

The Empire successfully fought the two biggest wars in history with coalition governments.

That aside, what does stability mean in terms of government?

ones that are not likely to crumble due to internal disagreement. more parties you add more chances it happens. not that its a bad form of govement but i do see advantages of are a majority over a combined majority,
Though in counter a partner like lib/con did tend to soften each others to be more sensible both ways,

Last time the danger to economy and nation forced its requirement to be established.,
True but they also had a very big reason forcing unity, and compromise even if they disagree and if they failed it was far more lost than votes or seats in parliment, . sometimes you don't have same level of outside drive to make that happen.

If FPTP was acceptable in 1997 it is acceptable today.
Lib Dems would love it if it benefited them.

FPTP has a superior feature, it separates each component of the election down to is individual MP. The UK system doesn't have people directly voting for party x or party y, they vote for their local representative MP.

This is inherently fair as it parses out democracy to where it should be to an MP and the geographical area they are accountable to.

 Orlanth wrote:


The majority of those who balloted voted Brexit, and as The Guardian knows that its opinion is liberal progressive Truth, Therefore the majority must have been too stupid to think for themselves and can only have been hoodwinked into voting against the revealed Truth.
After all anyone who supported Leave or is in general in disagreement with The Guardian must be an alt right knuckledragger.
It is not possible that people came to the conclusion to vote to Leave by any rational process or opinion as rationality is the exclusive purview of the Truth and the Truth belong to progressive liberalism as enshrined in The Guardian.

Except the guardian didn't say that such were people "have been to stupid to think for themselves". This is about targeted campaigns on a small number of undecided voters and bombarding them with weighted information to influence their decision making process. We are humans, we have psychological 'weaknesses' that can be exploited which is something the military do look into. It is not about being brainwashed its about subtly changing peoples views over time by providing information that favours ones particular stand point and altering views so they conform. You haven't provided any alternative about why the article isn't correct, only throwing abuse at the Guardian for reporting what it has investigated. That's the point of investigative journalism, if it's wrong then further investigations will show it to be. Refusing that it can be the case just because it comes from the Guardian is just denial. This sort of journalism is miles above "Enemies of the People" because at least there are things that can be checked and verified whereas the latter is just hate-mongering. What should be worrying is the influence that such a small group of people (and/or states noting the comments on possible Russian influence) can potentially have on referendums or elections that in the end have their own vested interest at heart. Not taking this seriously and flat out denying it just opens us up to more manipulation not less...

This conclusion is essentially the initial premise on which the supporting theory must be used to confirm.
And yes, progressives can the that up their own backsides; they are likely no longer consciously aware of it.

That's lovely and that you can argue your case with such a colourful backwards argument!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
If FPTP was acceptable in 1997 it is acceptable today.
Lib Dems would love it if it benefited them.

FPTP has a superior feature, it separates each component of the election down to is individual MP. The UK system doesn't have people directly voting for party x or party y, they vote for their local representative MP.

This is inherently fair as it parses out democracy to where it should be to an MP and the geographical area they are accountable to.

That's not correct, you can still have PR and local representatives. In reality PR will give you better wider representatives and you are more likely to be able to find one that aligns with your views.

Also LDs were have been campaigning to change the electoral system for quite some time. Any system that allows for a relative minority to vote in a majority is not a good system in whatever year. It's more that the problems with it are becoming more and more pronounced over time.

My view is that internal disagreement within a government reflects disagreement among the wider electorate, and therefore is a good thing.

If this is true, the difference between a FPTP style "strong" government and a coalition of parties elected by PR is that in the PR system it is feasible for smaller partiers to campaign on a narrower platform of issues. This enables the electorate to more directly express its views on different policies and therefore results in decisions that are more likely to reflect the overall mood of the nation.

 reds8n wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy?CMP=fb_gu


wee bit worrying/depressing but worth a read.

For all the money spent on this, leave supporters aren't alone in a dodgy approach to election spending. I'm not clear exactly how they targeted people with adverts. Some screenshots with examples would be good to get a clear idea what we're talking about.

I recall the government spending millions on information booklets sent to every house, that were distinctly pro-remain. Yet the excuse given was that it was the government's position and therefore nothing to do with the allocated spending for the Remain campaign, dodging both the referendum expenses and purdah. The cost of this was £9m, more than the £7 allocated to both campaigns. Could that also have swayed 1% of the population? You can't complain about the opposition when you blatantly have dirty hands.

On the subject of Brexit, I will recall this incident, and yeah it's slightly OT, but it's a reason for my leave vote:

A few years back, at the height of the Ukraine crisis, I was following the coverage quite intensely, and there is one incident I'll never forget.

The protestors had set up camps, barricades, roadblocks etc etc

And then the German foreign minister turned up in Kiev. And then the EU representative turned up, and so on...

And then they went straight from the airport to the protesters' camps...

Not the Ukraine foreign ministry or meeting with some other government representative, but the camps. The camps...the protesters...

It was as clear a breach and violation of diplomatic protocol as you're ever likely to see...

Could you imagine the outcry that would have ensued if the Russian foreign minister had joined the London riots of 2012, or the student protests?

I knew then, that it was crystal clear, that the EU was more than a trading block, then it was determined to expand whatever the cost, even if it meant a geopolitical clash with the Russians.

It's not THE reason, but it is A reason why I voted leave, so this nonsense in the Guardian today carries no water with me.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Except the guardian didn't say that such were people "have been to stupid to think for themselves".

They imply that indirectly, but they imply that strongly.
People voted leave, so to the Guardian that meant they were hoodwinked on immigration, of hoodwinked by Farage, or hoodwinked on EU bureaucracy, or hoodwinked over the NHS. The repeated implication is that Leave voters wee gullible and needed shepherding away from these opinions.

 Whirlwind wrote:

That's lovely and that you can argue your case with such a colourful backwards argument!

Not surprised you don't see it. The progressive bubble is a real phenomenon and a dangerous one. Take 'safe spacing' for example, where freedom of personal doctrine is achieved by denial of platform, and this occurs in places of education.

 Whirlwind wrote:

That's not correct, you can still have PR and local representatives. In reality PR will give you better wider representatives and you are more likely to be able to find one that aligns with your views.

Actually PR gives you regional not local representatives, because actual local representation has to be sacrificed to give the block of votes available to fuel a multi vacancy per voting area. Also there is still no guarantee of representation, also it denies the public the opportunity to vote against candidates directly, because even with fringe parties the top list candidate become unshakably safe unless the vote is effectively wiped out.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Also LDs were have been campaigning to change the electoral system for quite some time. Any system that allows for a relative minority to vote in a majority is not a good system in whatever year. It's more that the problems with it are becoming more and more pronounced over time.

The system is inherently fair as it is, however it is a political system and it is used for advantage.
You might not have noticed this but the UK electoral system is personal not party based, the ballot is for the individual local representative. Over time those representatives have formed parties, but no matter what the press say and no matter how often a voter chooses to look at the party and not the candidate name that is not what is happening.

We have the 'mother of parliaments' and while it elects individual MP's is is also of itself the foundation of the modern party system also. However we didn't invent democracy, the Greeks did, and it was they that formed the theories. Democracy begins to break down once an electorate reaches over a thousand voters, they knew that even then. The Uk parliamentary system is in actuality one of the fairer ones because is devests democracy to as local a level as possible for the representation. How this is used is up to people, and people will find advantage if they can. PR is just a way of saying 'jerrymander different', the answer is to find candidates who can enthuse a local population to vote for them. Whether x million Lib Dems have fewer actual MP's is just statistical noise, instead of blaming the system they need to get local people to vote for local candidates.

Got the first bit of local Lib Dem propaganda through the door today, all dressed up to look like a real local newspaper, with only the content to suggest it might not be real, and a single mention in fine print right at the bottom of the first page that says it was published and promoted on behalf of the Lib Dem candidate to confirm it.

You'd think that, for all the criticism of "fake news" over the past half year, dressing your propaganda up as a newspaper might not be the best idea in the world. The guy apparently decided otherwise.

I look forward to seeing how the Tories respond.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On the subject of Brexit, I will recall this incident, and yeah it's slightly OT, but it's a reason for my leave vote:

A few years back, at the height of the Ukraine crisis, I was following the coverage quite intensely, and there is one incident I'll never forget.

The protestors had set up camps, barricades, roadblocks etc etc

And then the German foreign minister turned up in Kiev. And then the EU representative turned up, and so on...

And then they went straight from the airport to the protesters' camps...

Not the Ukraine foreign ministry or meeting with some other government representative, but the camps. The camps...the protesters...

It was as clear a breach and violation of diplomatic protocol as you're ever likely to see...

Could you imagine the outcry that would have ensued if the Russian foreign minister had joined the London riots of 2012, or the student protests?

I knew then, that it was crystal clear, that the EU was more than a trading block, then it was determined to expand whatever the cost, even if it meant a geopolitical clash with the Russians.

It's not THE reason, but it is A reason why I voted leave, so this nonsense in the Guardian today carries no water with me.

That's clearly pretty partisan response to the situation.
Ots a internal matter, and they should of impartial or close to as you can.

I agree that is not way to handle that situation.

@jhe90

It's the EU - they can't help themselves.

You look at the Federal Government in Washington from its birth in the 18th century, and you look at the growth rate of the EU/EEC/Steel community etc etc

from day 1, and they have done nothing but grow and grow at a staggering rate. It's the nature of the beast.

The EU has a fiscal union, wants a political union (it needs it for the Euro to survive) so why shouldn't it have a foreign policy?

The logical conclusion of the EU is The United States of Europe. A blind man could see that.

The logical conclusion of TTIP and the Trans Pacific Trade agreement was to join both togther.

It may surprise some people, but I think the EU is a wonderful idea in theory, but an idea that has been badly executed.

Who could argue against peace in Europe? Not I...never...

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

We see that already. Paradoxically, the EU is creating more trouble, not less. Increasing the risk of strife, not preventing it.

That, in a nutshell, is why I voted to leave.

Not because I believe that idiot Farage (I detest that man) or was taken in by that horsegak about 350 million a week, or straight bananas...

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the EU will be the death of Europe, not it's lifesaver, and that would be the supreme irony...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@jhe90

It's the EU - they can't help themselves.

You look at the Federal Government in Washington from its birth in the 18th century, and you look at the growth rate of the EU/EEC/Steel community etc etc

from day 1, and they have done nothing but grow and grow at a staggering rate. It's the nature of the beast.

The EU has a fiscal union, wants a political union (it needs it for the Euro to survive) so why shouldn't it have a foreign policy?

The logical conclusion of the EU is The United States of Europe. A blind man could see that.

The logical conclusion of TTIP and the Trans Pacific Trade agreement was to join both togther.

It may surprise some people, but I think the EU is a wonderful idea in theory, but an idea that has been badly executed.

Who could argue against peace in Europe? Not I...never...

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

We see that already. Paradoxically, the EU is creating more trouble, not less. Increasing the risk of strife, not preventing it.

That, in a nutshell, is why I voted to leave.

Not because I believe that idiot Farage (I detest that man) or was taken in by that horsegak about 350 million a week, or straight bananas...

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the EU will be the death of Europe, not it's lifesaver, and that would be the supreme irony...

Aye...
They added so many layers and things that part citizens from there leaders in Europe.
They expanded too fast I think..

Had it not moved to Greece, and Eastern Europe as far I do believe we may not of had brexit.
The older central Europe block would of had less economic variation and maybe been far more stable and easier to unite under one policey etc.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale. This is nothing new, and has been the case for hundreds of years and the cause of bloodshed...more than once. Hence why there was so much strife in Ireland throughout the 20th century, a strong SNP today, and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

While there is some very legitimate criticism of EU policy, structure, etc, any organization of its size is naturally going to have some level of disconnect and have many people that, no matter how well the EU is devolved/locally connected/etc, will never be pro-EU. Same with the US for much of its existence.

 r_squared wrote:
It's academic anyway, the Tories are about as likely to change the voting system from FPTP, as they are to develop a compassionate ethical stance on just about anything.

However, I know quite a few conservatives, a lot actually, and they're mostly lovely people, one even drove an hour out of his way yesterday to help me out. However, the conservative party just seems to somehow come out with these ideas that end up inflicting uneccessary suffering or misery on the weakest members of our society.
None of the people I know would go out of their way to hurt anyone, or not offer to help and put themselves out for others, yet they do so every time they vote for the conservatives.

I occasionally point this out, and the most consistent reason I get is that they don't trust labour to not tax and spend. They see the role of Govt as purely a financial concern, and that everything else is unecessay interfering.
Which is an odd attitude, considering the fact we're part of a huge Govt institution.

They might be nice people but that doesn't stop them from being ignorant, which prevents them from being able to fully empathize with those that the Tories are currently crapping on, that is of course until their local A&E shuts down, or they get sick/loose their job and find themselves being made destitute. Honestly though at this point ignorance isn't even an excuse, I get that all the alternatives might 'scare' them, but there's just no escaping the fact that these perfectly Human voters are allowing a very ruthless government to deny help to those who need it the most. You only have to look in a town centre to see the impact of their collaboration, how much suffering is it all worth?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale. This is nothing new, and has been the case for hundreds of years and the cause of bloodshed...more than once. Hence why there was so much strife in Ireland throughout the 20th century, a strong SNP today, and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

While there is some very legitimate criticism of EU policy, structure, etc, any organization of its size is naturally going to have some level of disconnect and have many people that, no matter how well the EU is devolved/locally connected/etc, will never be pro-EU. Same with the US for much of its existence.

That's why you need to build it from the ground up. Like the American system which was designed pretty much from the early days.mive said this before, but the EU are trying to work backwards and it just doesn't work. The longer it goes on the less democratic it becomes. Eventually it will probably turn into a Franco-German alliance with friends due to the vast differn said between Germany and France and the rest of the EU. That's why America has the Electoral College so America isn't only ruled by 5 states out of 50.

No, it's ruled by two parties due to their system.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale. This is nothing new, and has been the case for hundreds of years and the cause of bloodshed...more than once. Hence why there was so much strife in Ireland throughout the 20th century, a strong SNP today, and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

While there is some very legitimate criticism of EU policy, structure, etc, any organization of its size is naturally going to have some level of disconnect and have many people that, no matter how well the EU is devolved/locally connected/etc, will never be pro-EU. Same with the US for much of its existence.

That's why you need to build it from the ground up. Like the American system which was designed pretty much from the early days.mive said this before, but the EU are trying to work backwards and it just doesn't work. The longer it goes on the less democratic it becomes. Eventually it will probably turn into a Franco-German alliance with friends due to the vast differn said between Germany and France and the rest of the EU. That's why America has the Electoral College so America isn't only ruled by 5 states out of 50.

You do realize that the EU is equally democratic and that votes are distributed based on population size in the European Parliament? With the European Commission based on 28 members, each one picked by a respective member state? Everything in the EU is directly or indirectly chosen by us the voters. Same as the US.

 Vaktathi wrote:
...and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

Surely that was traced to a shipment of leek pasties?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale. This is nothing new, and has been the case for hundreds of years and the cause of bloodshed...more than once. Hence why there was so much strife in Ireland throughout the 20th century, a strong SNP today, and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

While there is some very legitimate criticism of EU policy, structure, etc, any organization of its size is naturally going to have some level of disconnect and have many people that, no matter how well the EU is devolved/locally connected/etc, will never be pro-EU. Same with the US for much of its existence.

That's why you need to build it from the ground up. Like the American system which was designed pretty much from the early days.mive said this before, but the EU are trying to work backwards and it just doesn't work. The longer it goes on the less democratic it becomes. Eventually it will probably turn into a Franco-German alliance with friends due to the vast differn said between Germany and France and the rest of the EU. That's why America has the Electoral College so America isn't only ruled by 5 states out of 50.

You do realize that the EU is equally democratic and that votes are distributed based on population size in the European Parliament? With the European Commission based on 28 members each on picked by a respective member state? Everything in the EU is directly or indirectly chosen by us the voters. Same as the US.

Having a system based off population is not democratic in the slightest. Germany has more MEPs than the 10 smallest nation states. Germany is equal to a third of the total members of the EU.

As for the commission, that is 1 head of state. Just 1. In order to get anything to the commission you need 25% of the commission to support it. So how do you get the support of 6 other heads of state?

It just doesn't work, and that's only 2 parts of the system.

If the EU were to reduce the amount of MEPs so that each country had an equal amount, then we'd be getting somewhere. But when one country can brush off the concerns of 10 others, it isn't democratic.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale. This is nothing new, and has been the case for hundreds of years and the cause of bloodshed...more than once. Hence why there was so much strife in Ireland throughout the 20th century, a strong SNP today, and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

While there is some very legitimate criticism of EU policy, structure, etc, any organization of its size is naturally going to have some level of disconnect and have many people that, no matter how well the EU is devolved/locally connected/etc, will never be pro-EU. Same with the US for much of its existence.

That's why you need to build it from the ground up. Like the American system which was designed pretty much from the early days.mive said this before, but the EU are trying to work backwards and it just doesn't work. The longer it goes on the less democratic it becomes.

Could you expand on that more just out of curiosity? I'm not sure I follow your meaning in this sense.

Eventually it will probably turn into a Franco-German alliance with friends due to the vast differn said between Germany and France and the rest of the EU.

Without the UK that's far more likely as there won't be another major power to sway things, but even then, it's unlikely to be a Franco-German iron dominion, they have their own issues and concerns and other elements of Europe aren't going to be as comparatively weak as they are now forever.

That's why America has the Electoral College so America isn't only ruled by 5 states out of 50.

Except that's exactly what the electoral college does (they're just not the biggest states) if you don't live in one of a small number of swing states, your vote for president is effectively simply tossed out. Look at our last election and see how well that system worked out if you want to talk about democratic representation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4482148/Emily-Thornberry-says-voters-hair.html

seems they love interviews turning into burning wrecks.
they seem to making a few mistakes of late, not to say others have not but thisis what 2-3 in only a week..

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/marx-sunday-peston-marr-ridge_uk_590f3a4fe4b0104c734f9825

if you not like the daily mail, she did not even know whow much the tax rise would be... do they do reseach?

and voting on hair... do you want to get votes from UK public?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You do realize that the EU is equally democratic and that votes are distributed based on population size in the European Parliament? With the European Commission based on 28 members, each one picked by a respective member state? Everything in the EU is directly or indirectly chosen by us the voters. Same as the US.

No. Nobody in the UK knows that. We're all just taught about the faceless 'Eurocrats' banning our bendy bananas, giving our fish to the very same Vikings we kicked out of the Danelaw, and forcing Romanians to occupy all the council housing and both scrounge benefits and take all the jobs. And yet the largely-tabloid media somehow fails to enlighten us by explaining how these pompous panjandra managed to achieve their lofty positions. Weird eh?

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

But I believe that democracy works best the closer you are to it. But if you seperate the people from the decision makers with MEPs, European Commision, President this, president that, and an organisation that grows and grows with unaccountable global trade deals...

Then people are cut off and unrest and bitterness sets in.

This happens with literally every organization of any size. Be it a company of 50 people or a megastate of hundreds of millions. You can see it in the UK where there are multiple elements in multiple areas that all feel cut off, dictated to, and controlled by London & Westminster, and that's at a *far* smaller scale. This is nothing new, and has been the case for hundreds of years and the cause of bloodshed...more than once. Hence why there was so much strife in Ireland throughout the 20th century, a strong SNP today, and rumblings in Wales and Cornwall.

While there is some very legitimate criticism of EU policy, structure, etc, any organization of its size is naturally going to have some level of disconnect and have many people that, no matter how well the EU is devolved/locally connected/etc, will never be pro-EU. Same with the US for much of its existence.

That's why you need to build it from the ground up. Like the American system which was designed pretty much from the early days.mive said this before, but the EU are trying to work backwards and it just doesn't work. The longer it goes on the less democratic it becomes. Eventually it will probably turn into a Franco-German alliance with friends due to the vast differn said between Germany and France and the rest of the EU. That's why America has the Electoral College so America isn't only ruled by 5 states out of 50.

You do realize that the EU is equally democratic and that votes are distributed based on population size in the European Parliament? With the European Commission based on 28 members each on picked by a respective member state? Everything in the EU is directly or indirectly chosen by us the voters. Same as the US.

Having a system based off population is not democratic in the slightest. Germany has more MEPs than the 10 smallest nation states. Germany is equal to a third of the total members of the EU.

As for the commission, that is 1 head of state. Just 1. In order to get anything to the commission you need 25% of the commission to support it. So how do you get the support of 6 other heads of state?

It just doesn't work, and that's only 2 parts of the system.

If the EU were to reduce the amount of MEPs so that each country had an equal amount, then we'd be getting somewhere. But when one country can brush off the concerns of 10 others, it isn't democratic.

Germany has more people than the last 10 countries combined. Germany actually has less votes than it should receive based on its population to balance things out. For example Luxembourg has 1/16th of the German vote while only having 1/160th of the German population. Smaller countries already have more votes compared to Germany. The same argument can however be made for the UK, why has the UK so many votes compared to the smaller states?

What are you talking about? The commission is 28 members and each member state submits one candidate. What do heads of state have to do with it?

You mean that a country with half a million people should have as many MEPs as a country with 80 million people? And you think the EU is undemocratic now? You do realize this makes the UK and the US undemocratic as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Riquende wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You do realize that the EU is equally democratic and that votes are distributed based on population size in the European Parliament? With the European Commission based on 28 members, each one picked by a respective member state? Everything in the EU is directly or indirectly chosen by us the voters. Same as the US.

No. Nobody in the UK knows that. We're all just taught about the faceless 'Eurocrats' banning our bendy bananas, giving our fish to the very same Vikings we kicked out of the Danelaw, and forcing Romanians to occupy all the council housing and both scrounge benefits and take all the jobs. And yet the largely-tabloid media somehow fails to enlighten us by explaining how these pompous panjandra managed to achieve their lofty positions. Weird eh?

Hilarious. We have some of the same people in the Wilders crowd.