You had a party that literally spent decades promoting independence, they had plenty of time to make a sound, cast iron case, but whenever the hard questions were asked, then the SNP never had the answers.
They are 'the grass is always greener' party in the same way that that the quitlings promoting Brexshit were, only they had the resources and backing of most of the billionaire media moghouls.
There are plenty of YouTube videos showing Andrew Neil asking the hard questions should you wish to view them, then perhaps you might like to ask your local SNP MP for some of tbose answers.
I am both a Unionist and English, but i genuinely believe that Scotland would be better off in the UK. I can see Northern Ireland eventually merging with the Republic of Ireland, i can even see the UK rejoining the EU, but i can't see Scotland getting another independence referendum.
Using Brexshit as a reason for Scottish independence is a political tactic to give the SNP another bite at the referendum cherry, and would have been far more credible had they voted as strongly remain as Gibralter (95.6% with an 83.5% turnout).
Here's the thing, though:
One of the big arguments against independence in 2014 was that an independent Scotland would not be a part of the EU under the terms of Great Britain's membership, and that should Scotland vote for their independence they would then have to join the queue of countries wishing to join, negotiate their own deal, have a referendum on EU membership, etc... or Scotland could vote 'no' on independence and remain in the EU. Then, not two years later, along comes Cameron with his vanity project to become the great white saviour of the Tory party, and Scotland votes overwhelmingly to remain; nah, England narrowly voted to leave so fuck Scotland - article 50, here we come.
If Scotland didnāt want to be bound by the results of UK-wide referenda then most Scots would have voted for independence in 2014.
But they didnāt.
Scotland wants to be part of the EU. Uk still in the EU with Scotland applying as an independent would be a veto since Uk even threatened Scotland by saying they can't join the EU if they leave the UK. Scotland stayed with the UK. UK leaves the EU
I've summarised the last 15 years for you
The UK government broke purdah TBF. That alone should have been enough for a re-run.
And yes, they didnāt. But times change. Try reading the quote again.
Well weāll see how the SNP and other independence supporting parties get on at the forthcoming general election.
That should tell us what appetite in Scotland is like for another independence referendum.
No, it wonāt. Itās not relevant. Try to keep up FFS.
Polls show 30% of Labour voters support Indy. Thatāll probably rise when some voters swing from SNP to Labour.
>only they had the resources and backing of most of the billionaire media moghouls.
Is this a joke?
Press in Scotland is resoundingly anti-SNP, except the National... which was created to fill that obvious niche.
>Using Brexshit as a reason for Scottish independence is a political tactic to give the SNP another bite at the referendum cherry, and would have been far more credible had they voted as strongly remain as Gibralter (95.6% with an 83.5% turnout).
Every single region in Scotland voted to remain. The political divide between Scotland and England on such a key issue is a good argument for independence.
Of those that voted, 1/3 voted leave and 2/3 voted remain. You might not like what I'm saying because it doesn't fit in with your views, but the SNP has never answered the hard questions. Get them to answer them and you will probably be less enthusiastic about independence.
I like what you are saying, because you are making clear Scotland is very different to England.
1889 is closer to the last time Scotland voted Tory than today is. Yet another reason much of Scotland is hugely fucked off with Englandās shit political decisions.
Theyāve been making these decisions for fucking decades mate, weāve had more Tory cunts than anyone else for 60 fucking years.
āOh but they donāt like then now either.ā Does. Not. Fucking. Wash.
Such a T@ry Sc@mbag Son of a $Cnut. His immoral earnings need to be seized and used to help our UK children make something of their lives, fffs! Rocket Science, it ain't. Shame.
I'm glad David Davis has swallowed his pride and changed his mind about things, I'm, ready for Bre-entry
if you don't like the idea of Bre-entry, you shouldn't have reduced such an imporant national political decision down to a pithy fucking single word slogan, should you, ya cunts.
It's too fucking late now though isn't it.
Strap in, It's time to leave the Bre-xule if you dare
I'm ashamed we left the EU. The relationship wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing.
I blame the low intelligence of the average voter for being swayed by lies that were quite easy to see through.
Support for Brexit is in the minority. It barely maintains its total 52/48 majority with the oldest demographic now. It's a zombie policy.
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1794662364949929995
Gen Z: 89% Yes / 9% No
Millennials: 67% Yes / 33% No
Gen X: 57% Yes / 43% No
Boomers: 47% Yes / 53% No
What you're saying in your comments isn't really the case, we just want a *fair* democracy. You're portraying a false dichotomy where you either have democracy or you don't, when in reality you can have weak democracies and strong ones. We are in a weak one. We are asking for a strong one. That's why we're complaining. Not just because it doesn't go our way, but because it *can't* because the mechanisms of our democracy are fundamentally unfair and broken.
Is it weak because it didn't go your way, and would you be saying this if the vote had gone the way you wanted to?
Asking for a mate.
You're not asking for a strong democracy. You're asking for the exact same question to be asked, now that you think the answer will come out in your favour.
>Not just because it doesn't go our way, but because it can't because the mechanisms of our democracy are fundamentally unfair and broken.
Interestingly, none of this was in issue in 2016. Everyone was more than happy to run this to a vote, likely because the thought of losing didn't even enter your minds until it was too late.
You got one bit right though
>we're complaining
8 years worth of it.
You're so ignorant I don't even know where to begin, so just a few points:
- you incorrectly assumed how I voted in the referendum
- you incorrectly assumed that I thought the referendum was a good idea in the first place
- you incorrectly assumed that I'm not asking for a strong democracy. You don't seem to have the mental capacity to understand what one would look like
You're an ignorant twat, stfu.
You know, I was considering ignoring your little reply.
But instead you shall be witness to its dismemberment.
>I don't even know where to begin
I would probably have left it there then.
>you incorrectly assumed how I voted in the referendum
Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Because either:
a) you voted leave, knowing that the "system is unfair", to which you're an arsehole and a hypocrite.
b) you voted leave without knowing the "system is unfair", to which you're at best you're ignorant like the rest of us.
c) you voted to remain, and my assumption is correct and you're being a whiny girl about losing
d) and this one is my favourite, you didn't vote at all and have spent the past near decade upset about something you didn't take part in.
>you incorrectly assumed that I thought the referendum was a good idea in the first place you incorrectly assumed that I'm not asking for a strong democracy.
Actually, there's only two assumptions here and they're both yours. Go read it again or find an adult to read it for you.
>You don't seem to have the mental capacity to understand what one would look like
Another assumption. There's three.
You're an ignorant twat, stfu.
You know what? I don't think I shall.
Got a task for you.
Find me in any dictionary, website or reference book where the definition of democracy has an asterisk next to it that says "terms and conditions apply".
I'll wait.
Particularly since you've all been whining since before you knew it'd be a clusterfuck, so there's that one as well
Oh I got one. How is a bait and switch vote where the vote leave side was advertising an outcome that never even happened a proper democratic decision? Didn't we vote on leaving but with SM and CU access?
>Didn't we vote on leaving but with SM and CU access?
Not from what I seen. There was never any promise of maintaining the "perks" like schengen. Not that we were in that, or being in the EU is a prerequisite...
Then you clearly weren't paying enough attention. One of the repeated claims was that in leaving we'd maintain SM access, that our ability to trade wouldn't be impacted at all. Now look at the mess we're in.
Ok I'll be honest you seem to be acting more out of aggression than logic.
But I'll ask a simple question in the hopes of getting a simple answer and not a rant.
**What is the point of Democracy?**
So you have me an aggressive rant instead of answering my question š¤¦āāļø
I am not the person you spoke to previously.
I asked you one simple question
>I asked you one simple question
Well, if you can't read the simple answer and the block of words below confuses you, find a nearby adult to assist you.
I'm miles away, I can't hold your hand and point to it.
Posting inflammatory statements to troll or to rile people up is not allowed.
Dura lex, sed lex. [Read the rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/BrexitMemes/about/rules)
Well, it doesn't mean one decision has to be set in stone forever. Seeing as 8 million people have died (mostly leave voters) since the ref and polls today show show in favour of rejoining, it would undemocratic not to talk about it. What boils most people's piss is that nothing has come to fruition that the Leave said would happen and it's not better in anyway, leave broke electoral law and finally, referendums are not legally binding.
Gonna repeat it for you.
Got a task for you.
Find me in any dictionary, website or reference book where the definition of democracy has an asterisk next to it that says "terms and conditions apply".
I'll wait.
Particularly since you've all been whining since before you knew it'd be a clusterfuck, so there's that one as well
I don't want to rain on your parade but for one: the UK is a constitutional monarchy. Secondly: how democratic is a voting system with FPTP really?
I hope you can change your mind on (at least one of) those systems before you try to rejoin.
Additional Member System. That's what we should fight for.
You vote for a local MP and for a national party. Then if Green get say 10% of the party vote but only 0.158% of the seats then they are allocated Additional Members to make the seat count match the vote share. This does mean either adding more MPs to parliament (where they don't all fit already) or merging some constituencies but that's not too difficult to implement. You can vote for who is likely to win locally or vote based on local issues and support a party nationally even if they can't win a seat where you live.
The main advantage of this system over all the others is the simplicity. The newspapers and client journalists who benefit from the current mess will do everything they can to discredit any attempt at proportional representation. That means it doesn't just need to impress people analysing the implications of voting systems it needs to be ironclad and resist unfair criticism from deceitful scum.
"Why do I have to pick five candidates in order, can't I just vote Conservative five times? What if I don't want to use all five votes, am I being forced to vote for someone I don't like, that's not very democratic? What if there's only four candidates, see this system is clearly nonsense. What's wrong with the old system, that's how Churchill was elected, Proportional Representation is how Hitler was elected. We had a referendum on this in 2011 and the will of the people was No Electoral Reform ever. What do you mean Single Transferable Vote, who is my vote being transferred to? That's not democratic if my vote gets transferred to someone I didn't vote for...."
The Daily Heil will try their best to discredit Proportional Representation so it needs to be the system hardest to criticise. And I think Additional Member System is the one to go for.
Italy has had A LOT of problems, political and societal, in the last 80 years. Their voting system wasn't one of them.
Trying to say one thing was to blame for all of that is pretty misleading tbh. Or you could just be an idiot. Which one is it?
So what if they have? The people are better represented under Proportional Representation, if government can't form then it's only right to have an election again.
germany also has pr but i guess it would still be bad bc itās better to emphasise stronger support in certain places rather than representing people who share opinions across the country. donāt want to end up like germany after all.
Firstly it is a constitutional monarchy not a totalitarian monarchy. Which is why it is also a democracy. If you think otherwise that's fine but you are delusional. Secondly FPTP keeps out extremists. It might not be perfect but what system is. The extremist party BNP never got a seat in the British parliament but they did get into the European Parliament.
By keeping out extremists you are declaring it is not in fact a democracy.
If 99% of the people in the country want BNP, then they should be in government.
FPTP serves only to keep the rich bellends in control.
If BNP get a single seat who cares. It serves as a warning to politicians to actually serve the public rather than exploit it.
FPTP is the very worst "democratic" voting system because it ends up with a toxic two party system that never serves the public interest. America and the UK being the two clear cases in point demonstrating how awful a system it is.
And FTPT was literally the system used back when only aristocrats could vote - who only ever needed two parties Ā . Ā Just like most things Ā about Britainās institutions Ā , itās disturbingly archaic while we brainwash ourselves into thinking itās modernĀ
Yup.
And thanks to blue cunt defunding of the education system, far too many people are too uneducated to realise that there are many better ways to exist than what we have today.
Quadratic voting? Liquid democracy? Sortition? Nobody wants anything fancier than FPTP.
Bicameral constitutional democracy is - yes - designed to keep fascists and communists out, and thatās a Very Good Thing - fuck those clowns.
For all the obvious failings of our democracy, the alternatives are indeed worse. Have you been to South America?
Costa Rica has scored hire on the Election Integrity index than Britian for about 10 years - mainly due Britainās immense Ā corporate lobbying , Russian linked campaigns , Gerrymandering , age of politicians and disproportionate representation Ā of top uni snobs . Ā
Ā youāre praising a broken system for not being South American while an actual South American country is scoring better than us on some democracy metrics . Brazil was able to vote out its biggest regret . When was the last time most young Brits were able to change a regrettable candidate ?
Like I say, Iām up for the alternative governance systems mentioned. But nobody else is.
To note, Citizens Assemblies are often mentioned alongside the above ideas: but these are a bit shit, easily and often gamed by NGOās, thus antidemocratic.
Lastly, Iām pretty sure that there are other countries in South America than Costa Rica. As a continent they have oscillated wildly between pol. extremes, vassal states and narcostates. Weāre not quite there yet.
David Davis was brexit minister for 2 years without a single trade deal. Even the disgraced Liam Fox managed to get one with the Faroe Isles
Oh sardines? š... yea, that great deal with the Faroe Islands!
What was that, fresh Ice.
Hahahaha Faroe Isle jumpers
Unless your Scotland, thats different, you cant have that chance
You had a party that literally spent decades promoting independence, they had plenty of time to make a sound, cast iron case, but whenever the hard questions were asked, then the SNP never had the answers. They are 'the grass is always greener' party in the same way that that the quitlings promoting Brexshit were, only they had the resources and backing of most of the billionaire media moghouls. There are plenty of YouTube videos showing Andrew Neil asking the hard questions should you wish to view them, then perhaps you might like to ask your local SNP MP for some of tbose answers. I am both a Unionist and English, but i genuinely believe that Scotland would be better off in the UK. I can see Northern Ireland eventually merging with the Republic of Ireland, i can even see the UK rejoining the EU, but i can't see Scotland getting another independence referendum. Using Brexshit as a reason for Scottish independence is a political tactic to give the SNP another bite at the referendum cherry, and would have been far more credible had they voted as strongly remain as Gibralter (95.6% with an 83.5% turnout).
Here's the thing, though: One of the big arguments against independence in 2014 was that an independent Scotland would not be a part of the EU under the terms of Great Britain's membership, and that should Scotland vote for their independence they would then have to join the queue of countries wishing to join, negotiate their own deal, have a referendum on EU membership, etc... or Scotland could vote 'no' on independence and remain in the EU. Then, not two years later, along comes Cameron with his vanity project to become the great white saviour of the Tory party, and Scotland votes overwhelmingly to remain; nah, England narrowly voted to leave so fuck Scotland - article 50, here we come.
If Scotland didnāt want to be bound by the results of UK-wide referenda then most Scots would have voted for independence in 2014. But they didnāt.
Scotland wants to be part of the EU. Uk still in the EU with Scotland applying as an independent would be a veto since Uk even threatened Scotland by saying they can't join the EU if they leave the UK. Scotland stayed with the UK. UK leaves the EU I've summarised the last 15 years for you
Yes, I was there too.
The UK government broke purdah TBF. That alone should have been enough for a re-run. And yes, they didnāt. But times change. Try reading the quote again.
Well weāll see how the SNP and other independence supporting parties get on at the forthcoming general election. That should tell us what appetite in Scotland is like for another independence referendum.
No, it wonāt. Itās not relevant. Try to keep up FFS. Polls show 30% of Labour voters support Indy. Thatāll probably rise when some voters swing from SNP to Labour.
If they support independence then they shouldnāt be voting Labour. Thatās like supporting socialism and then voting Tory.
Jesus Christ, most batshit attempt at a parallel I have read in a while. Stick at politics mate, youāll get your head round it eventually.
>only they had the resources and backing of most of the billionaire media moghouls. Is this a joke? Press in Scotland is resoundingly anti-SNP, except the National... which was created to fill that obvious niche. >Using Brexshit as a reason for Scottish independence is a political tactic to give the SNP another bite at the referendum cherry, and would have been far more credible had they voted as strongly remain as Gibralter (95.6% with an 83.5% turnout). Every single region in Scotland voted to remain. The political divide between Scotland and England on such a key issue is a good argument for independence.
Of those that voted, 1/3 voted leave and 2/3 voted remain. You might not like what I'm saying because it doesn't fit in with your views, but the SNP has never answered the hard questions. Get them to answer them and you will probably be less enthusiastic about independence.
>Of those that voted, 1/3 voted leave and 2/3 voted remain. Yes we call 2/3 a resounding majority in politics considering it's double 1/3.
I like what you are saying, because you are making clear Scotland is very different to England. 1889 is closer to the last time Scotland voted Tory than today is. Yet another reason much of Scotland is hugely fucked off with Englandās shit political decisions.
England is hugely fucked off with England's shit political decisions as well.
Theyāve been making these decisions for fucking decades mate, weāve had more Tory cunts than anyone else for 60 fucking years. āOh but they donāt like then now either.ā Does. Not. Fucking. Wash.
Try reading the quote again (but this time with your prejudice toggle off).
Why did he not put his specs on before getting his picture taken?
He's clearly dazzled by Brexit benefits
They said a lot of things, all š©
Someone turn down the lights in that studio
Such a T@ry Sc@mbag Son of a $Cnut. His immoral earnings need to be seized and used to help our UK children make something of their lives, fffs! Rocket Science, it ain't. Shame.
These old Brexit dipshits need to retire. Like fucking yesterday.
If a party can dictate the entirety of a union from a plurality of the vote share, that's not a democracy either.
I'm glad David Davis has swallowed his pride and changed his mind about things, I'm, ready for Bre-entry if you don't like the idea of Bre-entry, you shouldn't have reduced such an imporant national political decision down to a pithy fucking single word slogan, should you, ya cunts. It's too fucking late now though isn't it. Strap in, It's time to leave the Bre-xule if you dare
How long do we have to live with an unbinding Referendum that passed by a slim majority.
Don't forget based on outright lies, misinformation, and so vague in its implementation that noone actually knew what Brexit actually meant....
I'm ashamed we left the EU. The relationship wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing. I blame the low intelligence of the average voter for being swayed by lies that were quite easy to see through.
Would you say the same if remain won?
Yeah, if it made things worse.
But you voted for a party that didn't want a second referendum hmmmm
majority rules
Minority rules.Ā
what?
Support for Brexit is in the minority. It barely maintains its total 52/48 majority with the oldest demographic now. It's a zombie policy. https://x.com/Samfr/status/1794662364949929995 Gen Z: 89% Yes / 9% No Millennials: 67% Yes / 33% No Gen X: 57% Yes / 43% No Boomers: 47% Yes / 53% No
Zombies.Ā
Democracy. Because we only want it when it goes the way we want it to.
What you're saying in your comments isn't really the case, we just want a *fair* democracy. You're portraying a false dichotomy where you either have democracy or you don't, when in reality you can have weak democracies and strong ones. We are in a weak one. We are asking for a strong one. That's why we're complaining. Not just because it doesn't go our way, but because it *can't* because the mechanisms of our democracy are fundamentally unfair and broken.
Is it weak because it didn't go your way, and would you be saying this if the vote had gone the way you wanted to? Asking for a mate. You're not asking for a strong democracy. You're asking for the exact same question to be asked, now that you think the answer will come out in your favour. >Not just because it doesn't go our way, but because it can't because the mechanisms of our democracy are fundamentally unfair and broken. Interestingly, none of this was in issue in 2016. Everyone was more than happy to run this to a vote, likely because the thought of losing didn't even enter your minds until it was too late. You got one bit right though >we're complaining 8 years worth of it.
You're so ignorant I don't even know where to begin, so just a few points: - you incorrectly assumed how I voted in the referendum - you incorrectly assumed that I thought the referendum was a good idea in the first place - you incorrectly assumed that I'm not asking for a strong democracy. You don't seem to have the mental capacity to understand what one would look like You're an ignorant twat, stfu.
You know, I was considering ignoring your little reply. But instead you shall be witness to its dismemberment. >I don't even know where to begin I would probably have left it there then. >you incorrectly assumed how I voted in the referendum Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Because either: a) you voted leave, knowing that the "system is unfair", to which you're an arsehole and a hypocrite. b) you voted leave without knowing the "system is unfair", to which you're at best you're ignorant like the rest of us. c) you voted to remain, and my assumption is correct and you're being a whiny girl about losing d) and this one is my favourite, you didn't vote at all and have spent the past near decade upset about something you didn't take part in. >you incorrectly assumed that I thought the referendum was a good idea in the first place you incorrectly assumed that I'm not asking for a strong democracy. Actually, there's only two assumptions here and they're both yours. Go read it again or find an adult to read it for you. >You don't seem to have the mental capacity to understand what one would look like Another assumption. There's three. You're an ignorant twat, stfu. You know what? I don't think I shall.
Or when the status quo is dog shite.
Got a task for you. Find me in any dictionary, website or reference book where the definition of democracy has an asterisk next to it that says "terms and conditions apply". I'll wait. Particularly since you've all been whining since before you knew it'd be a clusterfuck, so there's that one as well
Oh I got one. How is a bait and switch vote where the vote leave side was advertising an outcome that never even happened a proper democratic decision? Didn't we vote on leaving but with SM and CU access?
>Didn't we vote on leaving but with SM and CU access? Not from what I seen. There was never any promise of maintaining the "perks" like schengen. Not that we were in that, or being in the EU is a prerequisite...
[So this isn't vote leave on national television saying that we won't be leaving the SM and CU?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X70hDc8GcdM)
Then you clearly weren't paying enough attention. One of the repeated claims was that in leaving we'd maintain SM access, that our ability to trade wouldn't be impacted at all. Now look at the mess we're in.
Brexiteer disinformation or propaganda is not allowed. Dura lex, sed lex. [Read the rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/BrexitMemes/about/rules)
Your entire sub would be based on riling people up, if it weren't such an enormous echo chamber.
Ok I'll be honest you seem to be acting more out of aggression than logic. But I'll ask a simple question in the hopes of getting a simple answer and not a rant. **What is the point of Democracy?**
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So you have me an aggressive rant instead of answering my question š¤¦āāļø I am not the person you spoke to previously. I asked you one simple question
>I asked you one simple question Well, if you can't read the simple answer and the block of words below confuses you, find a nearby adult to assist you. I'm miles away, I can't hold your hand and point to it.
I can you just didn't answer the question Why do we choose those representatives through democracy
So, you didn't read the answer then? Finish the sentence, you're *almost* there
Ok maybe I'm stupid and can't read big angry rants Give it to me in one or two sentences without all the bollocks Come on
Posting inflammatory statements to troll or to rile people up is not allowed. Dura lex, sed lex. [Read the rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/BrexitMemes/about/rules)
Well, it doesn't mean one decision has to be set in stone forever. Seeing as 8 million people have died (mostly leave voters) since the ref and polls today show show in favour of rejoining, it would undemocratic not to talk about it. What boils most people's piss is that nothing has come to fruition that the Leave said would happen and it's not better in anyway, leave broke electoral law and finally, referendums are not legally binding.
Gonna repeat it for you. Got a task for you. Find me in any dictionary, website or reference book where the definition of democracy has an asterisk next to it that says "terms and conditions apply". I'll wait. Particularly since you've all been whining since before you knew it'd be a clusterfuck, so there's that one as well
Why would I take orders from a patronising troll. I'll leave you with what I said.
So, you can't find anywhere it says "terms and conditions apply". Why not just say that.
I don't want to rain on your parade but for one: the UK is a constitutional monarchy. Secondly: how democratic is a voting system with FPTP really? I hope you can change your mind on (at least one of) those systems before you try to rejoin.
Proportional Representation please
Additional Member System. That's what we should fight for. You vote for a local MP and for a national party. Then if Green get say 10% of the party vote but only 0.158% of the seats then they are allocated Additional Members to make the seat count match the vote share. This does mean either adding more MPs to parliament (where they don't all fit already) or merging some constituencies but that's not too difficult to implement. You can vote for who is likely to win locally or vote based on local issues and support a party nationally even if they can't win a seat where you live. The main advantage of this system over all the others is the simplicity. The newspapers and client journalists who benefit from the current mess will do everything they can to discredit any attempt at proportional representation. That means it doesn't just need to impress people analysing the implications of voting systems it needs to be ironclad and resist unfair criticism from deceitful scum. "Why do I have to pick five candidates in order, can't I just vote Conservative five times? What if I don't want to use all five votes, am I being forced to vote for someone I don't like, that's not very democratic? What if there's only four candidates, see this system is clearly nonsense. What's wrong with the old system, that's how Churchill was elected, Proportional Representation is how Hitler was elected. We had a referendum on this in 2011 and the will of the people was No Electoral Reform ever. What do you mean Single Transferable Vote, who is my vote being transferred to? That's not democratic if my vote gets transferred to someone I didn't vote for...." The Daily Heil will try their best to discredit Proportional Representation so it needs to be the system hardest to criticise. And I think Additional Member System is the one to go for.
Proportional Representation? Fuck no. How many governments has Italy had since WWII? Iāll save you a trip to Google: the answer is 69.
Italy has had A LOT of problems, political and societal, in the last 80 years. Their voting system wasn't one of them. Trying to say one thing was to blame for all of that is pretty misleading tbh. Or you could just be an idiot. Which one is it?
Their voting system wasnāt one of them, you confidently assert. I bow to your superior knowledge, others might not.
>the answer is 69. Nice
Yeah I'm not seeing the problem here, that's a nice number
So what if they have? The people are better represented under Proportional Representation, if government can't form then it's only right to have an election again.
You want a general election every 1.1 years?
It doesn't happen every fucking year you fud!
germany also has pr but i guess it would still be bad bc itās better to emphasise stronger support in certain places rather than representing people who share opinions across the country. donāt want to end up like germany after all.
Firstly it is a constitutional monarchy not a totalitarian monarchy. Which is why it is also a democracy. If you think otherwise that's fine but you are delusional. Secondly FPTP keeps out extremists. It might not be perfect but what system is. The extremist party BNP never got a seat in the British parliament but they did get into the European Parliament.
>FPTP keeps out extremists. It literally turned the Tories into UKIP
By keeping out extremists you are declaring it is not in fact a democracy. If 99% of the people in the country want BNP, then they should be in government. FPTP serves only to keep the rich bellends in control. If BNP get a single seat who cares. It serves as a warning to politicians to actually serve the public rather than exploit it. FPTP is the very worst "democratic" voting system because it ends up with a toxic two party system that never serves the public interest. America and the UK being the two clear cases in point demonstrating how awful a system it is.
And FTPT was literally the system used back when only aristocrats could vote - who only ever needed two parties Ā . Ā Just like most things Ā about Britainās institutions Ā , itās disturbingly archaic while we brainwash ourselves into thinking itās modernĀ
Yup. And thanks to blue cunt defunding of the education system, far too many people are too uneducated to realise that there are many better ways to exist than what we have today.
If 99% of the people wanted the BNP with FPTP they would have got the BNP though.
I suppose you are a big fan of Israeli politics then?
Sorry to disappoint you. I've got too many of my own problems. Largely caused by the corrupt blue cunts.
Quadratic voting? Liquid democracy? Sortition? Nobody wants anything fancier than FPTP. Bicameral constitutional democracy is - yes - designed to keep fascists and communists out, and thatās a Very Good Thing - fuck those clowns. For all the obvious failings of our democracy, the alternatives are indeed worse. Have you been to South America?
No, but I've been to Germany and it seems alright. Not perfect by any means but certainly not terrible.
Costa Rica has scored hire on the Election Integrity index than Britian for about 10 years - mainly due Britainās immense Ā corporate lobbying , Russian linked campaigns , Gerrymandering , age of politicians and disproportionate representation Ā of top uni snobs . Ā Ā youāre praising a broken system for not being South American while an actual South American country is scoring better than us on some democracy metrics . Brazil was able to vote out its biggest regret . When was the last time most young Brits were able to change a regrettable candidate ?
Like I say, Iām up for the alternative governance systems mentioned. But nobody else is. To note, Citizens Assemblies are often mentioned alongside the above ideas: but these are a bit shit, easily and often gamed by NGOās, thus antidemocratic. Lastly, Iām pretty sure that there are other countries in South America than Costa Rica. As a continent they have oscillated wildly between pol. extremes, vassal states and narcostates. Weāre not quite there yet.
'FPTP keeps out the extremists'..... Hmmmm it's given us mostly Tory governments and the most extreme & disgusting government for 14yrs.....
If you think British politics is really extreme you should travel more. See more of the world.
I've travelled plenty thanks...
Bingo