|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:This is a problem for a lot of ships actually. Tides and coastal geography are a bitch. Like what if the Dutch sail up the Medway when the tide's a bit high? Disaster.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
What would happen if next election, Labour got a plurality of votes but the Tories still retained more seats?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:What would happen if next election, Labour got a plurality of votes but the Tories still retained more seats? from what i understand the uk doesn't share the usa's insanely stupid everything voting system so it hasn't really come up
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 10:40
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:What would happen if next election, Labour got a plurality of votes but the Tories still retained more seats? The Tories would form (or try to form if they didn't have a clear majority) the next government. It's entirely based on the number of seats. Same principle as popular vote/electoral college (although not exactly the same). I think that's what you're asking, I may have parsed the question wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:from what i understand the uk doesn't share the usa's insanely stupid everything voting system so it hasn't really come up our voting system is really loving stupid. generally about a million people who live in marginal constituencies decide who's in charge
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
Ya i know but it's still possible to win a plurality and not gain the most seats
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 10:57
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:Ya i know but it's still possible to win a plurality and not gain the most seats Yes. Churchill did this (the gained the most seats bit), not sure if it's happened since. Edit: quote:General Elections, 1929 The last "in England" one isn't really the same thing though. Gravy Jones has issued a correction as of 11:06 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
BarronsArtGallery posted:What would happen if next election, Labour got a plurality of votes but the Tories still retained more seats?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Jose posted:our voting system is really loving stupid. generally about a million people who live in marginal constituencies decide who's in charge ah well i guess the usa had to get it from somewhere
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:ah well i guess the usa had to get it from somewhere Does it not work the same way in Canada since you guys have a FPTP parliamentary system as well?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:ah well i guess the usa had to get it from somewhere The US voting system is way more stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:Does it not work the same way in Canada since you guys have a FPTP parliamentary system as well? Yes. Although in comparison to the US gerrymandering is much less of a thing, outside of the Prairies at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Yes, at least under Britain's stupid electoral system parties other than the big two can actually get on the ballot paper. The yank system of writing in for third party candidates is extremely stupid and anti-democratic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Yes, at least under Britain's stupid electoral system parties other than the big two can actually get on the ballot paper. The yank system of writing in for third party candidates is extremely stupid and anti-democratic. British parliamentary constituencies are only like 40-60,000 people, whereas American congressional districts can be 500,000-1 million people - and we have fewer legislative seats than the UK on top of that. Having small constituencies makes it a lot easier for alternative parties to campaign in, because you can actually physically reach people instead of thinking that tv ad buys matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:19
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:British parliamentary constituencies are only like 40-60,000 people, whereas American congressional districts can be 500,000-1 million people - and we have fewer legislative seats than the UK on top of that. Having small constituencies makes it a lot easier for alternative parties to campaign in, because you can actually physically reach people instead of thinking that tv ad buys matter. can you imagine imagine how much of a nightmare the house would be if there were 4,350 representatives instead of 435
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:can you imagine imagine how much of a nightmare the house would be if there were 4,350 representatives instead of 435 us should go with new hampshire and have a rep per 3,000 people. 107,000 reps battling it out in a massive stadium-capitol
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
consumed by normies posted:us should go with new hampshire and have a rep per 3,000 people. 107,000 reps battling it out in a massive stadium-capitol
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
consumed by normies posted:us should go with new hampshire and have a rep per 3,000 people. 107,000 reps battling it out in a massive stadium-capitol 107,000 reps enter, only one leaves
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
World War Mammories posted:107,000 reps enter, only one leaves And that's how we elect president Dwayne Johnson for life
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:And that's how we elect president Dwayne Johnson for life
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
If Tories got less votes but more seats than labour then their seat lead would almost certainly be lower than it is now and it's unlikely they'd successfully form a government even with DUP support. Labour might if they can strike a sort of progressive alliance deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Mainwaring posted:If Tories got less votes but more seats than labour then their seat lead would almost certainly be lower than it is now
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The US voting system is way more stupid. Also I'm pretty sure this election was swung by some absurdly small number of votes in a handful of constituencies. Like literally under a thousand votes over the entire country deprived the government of a proper majority so is that really better? idk
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
it was about 2500 but thats not much better
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
consumed by normies posted:us should go with new hampshire and have a rep per 3,000 people. 107,000 reps battling it out in a massive stadium-capitol And Dan Snyder gets a new football stadium out of the deal, its a win-win Also, they should hold chariot races in there, for even more Byzantine vibes
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:They don't have a seat lead atm, and if they had more seats they would have a majority so I'm not sure wtf you are talking about m8 he means 'seat lead' over the next largest party (labour). in the event that labour somehow got ratfucked by FPTP so that conservatives came second in popular vote but first in seats. my interpretation of that scenario is that it would lead to an extremely unstable minority government with either labour or the tories supported by confidence and supply deals with two of the DUP, SNP and Lib dems. labour would have the advantage due to its ideological proximity with the snp and the lib dems not wanting to touch the tories with a 10 foot pole after what happened last time. the tories would somehow have to rope both the lib dems and DUP into supporting them
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Seems legit https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/879771816943788032
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
shouldn't they be considering 'Jeremy'
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:shouldn't they be considering 'Jeremy' they weren't top gear fans
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
wanna pinch that babie's cheeks
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:shouldn't they be considering 'Jeremy' That's the other half.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
i can never remember which british papers are tabloids is it all of them
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Main tabloids are the Sun, the Mail, the Mirror, and the Express.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
absolute baby
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Main tabloids are the Sun, the Mail, the Mirror, and the Express. What is the Sunday Sport then, because that's my paper of record 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
deadgoon posted:i can never remember which british papers are tabloids the sun's front page graphic for election day had the caption "Toss Him in the Cor-Bin"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Venuz Patrol posted:the sun's front page graphic for election day had the caption "Toss Him in the Cor-Bin" i loved the long list of his 'qualities' down the side like 'puppet of unions', 'marxist extremist', and 'enemy of business' then 30% of sun readers voted labour anyway lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Byolante posted:What is the Sunday Sport then, because that's my paper of record The only publication anyone with sense could trust 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
namesake posted:That's the other half.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:15
|
|
