General Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Quick Search

Single word search

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Another political question....

ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Luciacw

Luciacw Report 9 Dec 2005 20:34

Do you think we should have proportional representation? :-)

David

David Report 9 Dec 2005 20:37

No. But I think we should have a second run off poll, if no one gets more than 50%. D

Luciacw

Luciacw Report 9 Dec 2005 20:39

Why not? :-)

InspectorGreenPen

InspectorGreenPen Report 9 Dec 2005 20:46

Good in theory, but not always in practice as coalition govenments are inevitable. Look at the wrangling that goes on in countries like Germany & Israel. Some would say it keeps decision making towards the centre and is therfore a good thing, but rarely makes for strong and decisive government. Also there is the cost to take into account when coalitions inevitably fall apart and new elections are forever being called. PS Politics isn't one of your subject is it?

Luciacw

Luciacw Report 9 Dec 2005 20:53

Peter, I can understand your argument. I suppose P.R does mean that there is a government that no one voted for. My argument for P.R is that we should not have a government that doesn't properly represent what people want e.g. 64% voted against Labour in the last election, and the Lib Dems got 22.6% of the vote but only 9.5% of seats (I like the Lib Dems) btw Politics is not a subject I study but I do Modern Studies which has politics in it, Lucia :-)

InspectorGreenPen

InspectorGreenPen Report 9 Dec 2005 21:00

Lucia I'm slightly on the fence on this one - there are several ways it can be implemented, some better than others. I agree though why should Blair's lot get in with a minority of the vote. Perhaps we also need to do something more about those who don't even bother to vote in the first place My dad always told me that a vote was too precious to throw away, and I always remember that. I have voted at every general election since I was 18, and every local elction bar one, which was when we were in the middle of moving house. That's 36 years of voting...! Good luck with your exams.

David

David Report 9 Dec 2005 21:02

If we had a run-off election as the French do, then no candidate would get elected without 50% of the vote, or more. With PR there is more likelyhood that extremist parties would get MPs elected. I also think that we should vote for individual candidates, to represent us, not parties to rule us. David

David

David Report 9 Dec 2005 21:17

Peter Well said. I think we should all vote, even if we write across the paper, 'None of these' or in the Euro elections, 'Come out of her my people,' Incidentally I make a point of voting in the Euro elections just as they are closing and as the teller pages down looking for our names, I notice that there are usually less than 10% of the names ticked, and one village has 50 out of 400 voting, yet when the results come out we have over about 30% turnout. Is this because other areas have a higher turnout, or that the vote is on Thursday, and the count is on Sunday, allowing time for jiggery pokery? Dave

David

David Report 9 Dec 2005 21:27

Peter Well said. I think we should all vote, even if we write across the paper, 'None of these' or in the Euro elections, 'Come out of her my people,' Incidentally I make a point of voting in the Euro elections just as they are closing and as the teller pages down looking for our names, I notice that there are usually less than 10% of the names ticked, and one village has 50 out of 400 voting, yet when the results come out we have over about 30% turnout. Is this because other areas have a higher turnout, or that the vote is on Thursday, and the count is on Sunday, allowing time for jiggery pokery? Dave

Luciacw

Luciacw Report 14 Dec 2005 18:56

Does anyone else have an opinion? :-)

Harry

Harry Report 14 Dec 2005 19:09

We already have wishy washy politics. PR would make it worse in that nothing could get done. If MPs would vote honestly then I wouldn,t mind but with PR they would gang up to bring a government down. Good idea in principle but not with modern practice. Happy days

Unknown

Unknown Report 14 Dec 2005 19:25

I have always voted because I learned what a struggle it was for women to get the vote. But with each election I increasingly wonder why I bother. I have always lived in areas that are overwhelmingly conservative (except the local councils) so whatever I vote, the Tory candidate will get in. On the other hand, the idea that one person can represent thousands of people who all have different ideas about politics, religion, education, economics, public finance, crime &c., is absurd. Each change of government makes everyone think a new era has arrived, but people who welcomed Mrs Thatcher were glad to see the back of her, and I think the country feels much the same about Tony Blair now. nell