Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Lots of :eek: on Twitter and elsewhere, but remember folks, you read it here first!
(or rather "there" at the end of the last Brexit thread 
)CelticRambler wrote:Based on his recent rulings (and only that - I'm no expert on HoC procedures), this is my slightly revised prediction of what'll happen next:
- Bercow says no 3rd vote unless the motion is signficantly amended
- Kyle-Wilson amendment is tabled as just such an significant change (fits with Kyle saying he'd wait till the time was right)
but amended itself to specify that
-- the subsequent people's vote should be "this deal or no Brexit" on the grounds that parliament has voted no-deal off the table; and
-- if the EU will not grant an extension to allow such a vote, that Article 50 be revoked (calls the bluff of the ERG's friends in Europe)
- WA passes with a reasonable majority (ERG and DUP voting against)
- EU grants only a long extension on the grounds that the UK won't have enough time to organise EP elections if people vote for no Brexit.
This is by no means a green light for a no-deal Brexit - it's a warning to TM that it's time she stopped talking to the headbangers and reached out to the other parties. Given the very short time remaining, Kyle-Wilson is still the best hope for getting TM out of the hole she's dug, because without that - or something very similar - she has nothing to offer the EU.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tell that to Lionel Jospin.
<snip>
What it usually does is to give voters a protest vote without actually giving the "protest" party much chance of getting into power.
<snip>
I think it's more like giving the voters a second chance, a sort of "Are you really sure this is what you want to do?" kind of vote. FPTP doesn't do that, for good or ill.Donald Trump wrote: »You can vote for a minority candidate in the first round free in the knowledge that you will still have a vote that counts towards the actual selection. In the UK, there is no point voting for the minority candidate because your vote likely won't count towards the actual final decision. In the French system it will (assuming you vote again)
Having had to live with the results of French elections for fifteen years, I wholeheartedly disagree.
The defining characteristic of FPTP is that the electorate votes against their least favourite candidate, and returns a candidate who does not have the support of the majority. Most non-French media concentrate on the result of the second round and then promptly forget about French politics until the next election, so it's easy to think that someone like Chirac, Sarkozy or Hollande got off to a good start with a victory based on a 50-65% share of the vote.
In practice, all those "protest" votes are a very real manifestation of the wishes of the electorate, and the second round has become a farce. As the Jospin example showed, the there can be as little as less than 0.5% of a gap between the second and third-placed candidates, and between them, the first two can share a total of less than 55% of the total. So no sooner has the winner taken office than they're faced with a barrage of criticism from the 60-75% that didn't vote for them. That's not a protest, that's disenfranchisement, FPTP-style. There's absolutely nothing STV-ish about the process: in round two, you get to vote on someone else's first preference, not your own second choice.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CelticRambler wrote: »Having had to live with the results of French elections for fifteen years, I wholeheartedly disagree. The defining characteristic of FPTP is that the electorate votes against their least favourite candidate, and returns a candidate who does not have the support of the majority. Most non-French media concentrate on the result of the second round and then promptly forget about French politics until the next election, so it's easy to think that someone like Chirac, Sarkozy or Hollande got off to a good start with a victory based on a 50-65% share of the vote.
In practice, all those "protest" votes are a very real manifestation of the wishes of the electorate, and the second round has become a farce. As the Jospin example showed, the there can be as little as less than 0.5% of a gap between the second and third-placed candidates, and between them, the first two can share a total of less than 55% of the total. So no sooner has the winner taken office than they're faced with a barrage of criticism from the 60-75% that didn't vote for them. That's not a protest, that's disenfranchisement, FPTP-style. There's absolutely nothing STV-ish about the process: in round two, you get to vote on someone else's first preference, not your own second choice.
At the risk of dragging off topic, do you not know how STV works?
If there were three candidates left with only 0.5% between second and third, under STV, assuming first has not reached quota, third would be eliminated anyway and his votes redistributed
FPTP is not restricted to 2 candidates.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »Having had to live with the results of French elections for fifteen years, I wholeheartedly disagree. The defining characteristic of FPTP is that the electorate votes against their least favourite candidate, and returns a candidate who does not have the support of the majority. Most non-French media concentrate on the result of the second round and then promptly forget about French politics until the next election, so it's easy to think that someone like Chirac, Sarkozy or Hollande got off to a good start with a victory based on a 50-65% share of the vote.
In practice, all those "protest" votes are a very real manifestation of the wishes of the electorate, and the second round has become a farce. As the Jospin example showed, the there can be as little as less than 0.5% of a gap between the second and third-placed candidates, and between them, the first two can share a total of less than 55% of the total. So no sooner has the winner taken office than they're faced with a barrage of criticism from the 60-75% that didn't vote for them. That's not a protest, that's disenfranchisement, FPTP-style. There's absolutely nothing STV-ish about the process: in round two, you get to vote on someone else's first preference, not your own second choice.
I don't understand your point here - unless they abstained in the second round, then they did of course vote for the second choice, just as much as someone votes for the second or third fourth choice in STV. They didn't have to vote for that person, and even if that person would have been their last choice in STV, then they chose at some point to vote for them.
You may as well say that STV is unfair because some people get their first pick elected while others don't even get their second, third or fourth.
Or that the people who get a second third or fourth pick elected have in fact been given an extra vote that an elector, none of whose chosen candidates got through, didn't get.
I'm not saying that's true, just that the notion that it's unfair that everyone gets to go back to have a second pick doesn't really stand up.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement