Changing fruitless ways

[timothyu]

No. He has been formally and permanently expelled from the conservative Party. It is a case of Conservatives being completely aware of the extreme right.

He is still a member of parliament and need not be subject to shunning as a matter of procedure. Debate is a part of parliamentary life. This is being purposely subdued, in effect, obliterating democracy..

 

[Whyayeman]

He is still a member of parliament and need not be subject to shunning as a matter of procedure. Debate is a part of parliamentary life. This is being purposely subdued, in effect, obliterating democracy..

He was not shunned as a matter of procedure. I don't know where you are getting this from, but you are quite wrong.

He is still an MP, and will be until Parliament is dissolved at the next General Election. He retains all the Parliamentary privileges and can speak in the House when called, vote, make points of order and so on.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Proportional representation is irrelevant for the US presidency. There is only one office so it can't be apportioned like a legislature could.

There are two options:

1. Organize into two national political coalitions and fight it out between their chosen candidates, or
2. Alter (by constitutional amendment) the manner of electing the President of the US to use direct balloting (no EC) nationwide and either an instant runoff or secondary runoff election to narrow the field and select from two final choices of the whole people.

 

[timothyu]

He is still an MP, and will be until Parliament is dissolved at the next General Election. He retains all the Parliamentary privileges and can speak in the House when called, vote, make points of order and so on.

Agreed, but when he spoke everyone left

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In order to accomplish something that regard, we'd had to get rid of the "first past the post" system of voting we have.

Under our current framework, it lends itself to trend toward a 2-party system where voting for "the lesser of two evils" is a necessity.

This video explains it pretty well.

However, actually making it happen would involve quite a procedural hurdle, and given that the two parties that are there have no interest in diminishing their own current advantages, good luck ever getting it changed.

 

[Whyayeman]

Agreed, but when he spoke everyone left

No, that is simply untrue. Where are you getting this from?

The Chamber must be quorate. Here is the relevant part of the current Standing Orders:

If it should appear that fewer than forty Members (including
the occupant of the chair and the tellers) have taken part in a
division, the business under consideration shall stand over until
the next sitting of the House and the next business shall be
taken.

 

[returntosender]

If Americans are so anxious to get rid of Biden or Trump, perhaps they should choose someone who's platform doesn't depend on the existence of one against the other, but the elimination of both. End the divisiveness and take back the nation rather than pretending to build back better or make it great as a political ploy. People are too easily swayed into thinking life is a team sport rather than one of unity. But of course sheep are more interested in playing their previous game even though both previous leaders were useless and achieved nothing in term but keep the followers loyal and wearing their respective hats rather than thinking for themselves and doing what serves the people best rather than politicians with a monetary agenda. Take back what is yours, not theirs, because one more term either previous way and it may be gone forever. Think independently and pull the rug out from under divisiveness and the politicians and corporations that depend upon it for survival..

scheerpost.com/2023/04/27/why-should-we-pay-attention-to-robert-f-kennedy-jr/

Better throw some candidates out there then.

 

[timothyu]

Better throw some candidates out there then.

You can lead a voter to the trough but you can't make them think.

 

[returntosender]

., .

You can lead a voter to the trough but you can't make them think.

Now you didn't just insult me did you, Timmy?

 

[Whyayeman]

Proportional representation is irrelevant for the US presidency. There is only one office so it can't be apportioned like a legislature could.

There are two options:

1. Organize into two national political coalitions and fight it out between their chosen candidates, or
2. Alter (by constitutional amendment) the manner of electing the President of the US to use direct balloting (no EC) nationwide and either an instant runoff or secondary runoff election to narrow the field and select from two final choices of the whole people.

Many countries have a third option. The Turkish presidential election last month is a case in point. There were three major candidates and the winning candidate was the one, Gerdogan, who got more than 50% of the poll. The third candidate was eliminated and a second round between the two remaining decided it. Many major elections have the Single Transferable Vote; the election form offers voters the opportunity to make first and second (or third or fourth) choices.

It is not really complicated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Many countries have a third option. The Turkish presidential election last month is a case in point. There were three major candidates and the winning candidate was the one, Gerdogan, who got more than 50% of the poll. The third candidate was eliminated and a second round between the two remaining decided it. Many major elections have the Single Transferable Vote; the election form offers voters the opportunity to make first and second (or third or fourth) choices.

It is not really complicated.

It's not complicated, but it's not a third option. It is contained within the "#2" item I listed (the general alternative to the current US electoral system).

 

[Whyayeman]

It's not complicated, but it's not a third option. It is contained within the "#2" item I listed (the general alternative to the current US electoral system).

Sorry! I should have read it more carefully.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Joe Biden's platform was always the Democratic one: LGBT rights, women's rights, end racism, increase Social Security benefits to everyone who is eligible for it, vastly improve health care for all Americans, make rich people play their fair share,;legalize marijuana, raise the federal minimum wage, and tighten gun control. Never in all of 2020 did he characterize himself as "the anti-Trump" and he is not doing that next year either.

Meanwhile, every single Republican presidential candidate who does not have a chance of winning is running just to be the anti-Trump. They are trying to take votes away from Trump to prevent him from winning the Republican nomination.

If you do not want people to base their votes on being "the anti-Trumper" you are asking all of us to vote for Donald Trump himself or Ron DeSantis, who is trying to be the next Trump. Anyone who votes for either of them is voting against Jesus.

 

[Whyayeman]

If you do not want people to base their votes on being "the anti-Trumper" you are asking all of us to vote for Donald Trump himself or Ron DeSantis, who is trying to be the next Trump. Anyone who votes for either of them is voting against Jesus.

I didn't realise Jesus was running for President.

He would be an interesting candidate, but unlikely to win. I think he might be in favour of gun control, and that would scupper his chances.