Gib election
Ken
on 11th October.
The turnout of voters was 81.35% of those eligible.
Whatever the result, it will have been a govt elected by the overwhelming
majority of the elctorate and therefore representative of the wishes of the
people.
Oh that it were so eslewhere, in which govts with large absolute majorities
in their Parliaments are elected by a minority of voters!
Once again the student teaches the master.
Ken
Jim Watt
wrote:
Indeed the guys from the UK electoral commissiom would like
to replicate it in other places
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com
zii kell
were allocated to the current party in power. Is this right?
Lynx
"Ken" <k...@k1at.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:femde...@news1.newsguy.com...
Interesting rationale. So, should 81.35% of votes turn our to be 41% for
party X and 40.35% for party Y, where would that leave your "absolute
majority"?
Ken
"zii kell" <huj22ml...@temporaryinbox.com> wrote in message
news:fenib2$tql$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>I heard that Bossano lost because 20% of the votes did not count and
> were allocated to the current party in power. Is this right?
Any vote which is a spoilt paper - marking more crosses than one is entitled
to, ambiguity as to where the cross lies, etc. - is discarded. That had all
the spoilt papers been in favour of the GSLP they may have won is another
matter, but spoilt apapers are NOT allocated to ANY party.
Ken
Ken
"Lynx" <Ly...@broad.com> wrote in message
news:dSIPi.117$cR5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
It's a far better deal than the last UK elections! As I recall, there was
something like a 25% turnout, and the party in power managed to get 42% of
THOSE votes! Or perhaps the other way around. At least in Gib you need to
get a majority of votes cast. In the UK you get in with a minority vote from
an under-represented electorate. 25% of 42% is 11% of the total electorate.
Ken
Jim Watt
No thats nonsense
Indeed parliament has been dissolved and no party is
in power ...
Lynx
>
> It's a far better deal than the last UK elections! As I recall, there was
> something like a 25% turnout, and the party in power managed to get 42% of
> THOSE votes! Or perhaps the other way around. At least in Gib you need to
> get a majority of votes cast. In the UK you get in with a minority vote
> from an under-represented electorate. 25% of 42% is 11% of the total
> electorate.
Why such apathy? Could it be most Poms are expats, rather than living at
home?
Ken
That's an aspect I hadn't considered, but true - every day there are more
and more people living in the UK who, while eligible to vote by dint of
residence, do not actually integrate at all into UK society. They live,
dress, eat, behave in every way as if they were still in the country of
their birth Q. If it was so good there that all about it must be preserved,
why ever leave? If they partake of nothing much that is of this place, and
for a large part elections are not experiences common to the original home,
it is not surprising that these folk might not turn out to vote here either.
However there is the further perception that your vote in the UK is utterly
irrelevant. I know mine is. Here I vote for ONE parliamentary seat out of
around 650 on a "first past the post" system. If I vote for the bloke who
gets in, it's with a margin of a few thousand so my vote didn't really count
for anything. If the bloke I vote for does not get in, my vote is wasted as
there is no means (for example, proportional representation) where the
profile of votes is taken into account. In any case, with each constituency
being of around 25000 voters, one vote in one of around 650 constituencies
doesn't alter any profile very much at all.
In a large country, each voter is asked to be a worker ant in a huge
collective. While we should all ask "whay can I do for my country" rather
than "what can my country do for me" it remains the case that we are selfish
animals, and if we can't see a personal benefit in what we do, we cease
doing it.
Contrast Gib where the number of votes collected between 1st and 2nd is a
small difference. You get to nominate a number of candidates - in effect,
you are asked to nominate the government - not just an MP. In the event that
your favourites did not make it to government, at least your votes count as
to who makes upo the opposition. It is in effect a very small number of
votes which are "wasted", among those candidates who were not in the top 20
and made it into Parliament.
In any case, I don't know who my MP is! I get publicity around the time of
an election, and I hear nothing from them for another 5 years. What does
he/she get up to? Where can he/she be contacted? What use is he/she when
contacted anyway? A small player in a very large pond, whose big fish are
more interested in being in the G8 and visitng Brussels. If the National
parliament seems remote, how more so the Continental one!
In Gib OTOH just abnout everyone knows who their representatives are. You
meet them on Main Street. You see them - and can join them - for a cup of
coffee and toast along any of the many places along Main St. and talk with
them about just about anything. I know I have, and I don't even get the
cahnce to vote for them! The politicians are mor ein touch with the people
they represent, and vice versa.
K
zii kell
Thursday and now I know it was untrue. z.
Lynx
>
> That's an aspect I hadn't considered, but true - every day there are more
> and more people living in the UK who, while eligible to vote by dint of
> residence, do not actually integrate at all into UK society. They live,
> dress, eat, behave in every way as if they were still in the country of
We've got the same dregs here. Need say no more.
> However there is the further perception that your vote in the UK is
> utterly irrelevant. I know mine is. Here I vote for ONE parliamentary seat
> out of around 650 on a "first past the post" system. If I vote for the
> bloke who gets in, it's with a margin of a few thousand so my vote didn't
> really count for anything. If the bloke I vote for does not get in, my
> vote is wasted as there is no means (for example, proportional
> representation) where the profile of votes is taken into account. In any
> case, with each constituency being of around 25000 voters, one vote in one
> of around 650 constituencies doesn't alter any profile very much at all.
Proportional representation?! You get to vote and on top of that you also
want democracy?!
> Contrast Gib where the number of votes collected between 1st and 2nd is a
> small difference. You get to nominate a number of candidates - in effect,
> you are asked to nominate the government - not just an MP. In the event
> that your favourites did not make it to government, at least your votes
> count as to who makes upo the opposition. It is in effect a very small
> number of votes which are "wasted", among those candidates who were not in
> the top 20 and made it into Parliament.
Gib's more like a local gov election, and these type of elections take place
all over the western world democracies. Please, no comparisons?
Ken
>> small difference. You get to nominate a number of candidates - in effect,
>> you are asked to nominate the government - not just an MP. In the event
>> that your favourites did not make it to government, at least your votes
>> count as to who makes upo the opposition. It is in effect a very small
>> number of votes which are "wasted", among those candidates who were not
>> in the top 20 and made it into Parliament.
>
> Gib's more like a local gov election, and these type of elections take
> place all over the western world democracies. Please, no comparisons?
Gib's election is for Gib the sum of the national and the local elsewhere. I
for one like the stuff of elections in Gib because for one, you have poitics
relatively divorced from the Sp question. As all aprties are v much agreed
on the issues there is nothing to separate them, and nothing to argue about.
They can then get on with the day-to-day matters of importance to folk.
Ken