Our new Prime Minster (health insurance, university, safety)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two wrongs do not make a right. You do not get it. The system that allows 0.15% of the population to elect the leader of 67 million people, is still a joke.
You realize that we never elect the leader.
We vote for a candidate. The party with the most elected members forms a government. The most senior party member of that majority is the candidate for Prime Minister and eligible for approval from HRH The Queen.
If you want a general election 66% of the House of Commons needs to vote for it. Which might work if BoJo supports it, but if he does not, you're probably screwed.
I fully understand the positives and negatives. That is clear and you know that.
I know no such thing that you know thevpositivescand negatives, from our prior interactions you always seem pretty obsessively black or white and will die on any hill over minor criticisms.
I do know that proportional representation decouples electors from the elected, reducing accountability.
I also know that politically it's highly expedient to adopt populist policies to gain and retain power.
Neither is positive.
Further unrestrained democracy is in the words of Benjamin Franklin two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. The US Constitution is inherently undemocratic, many charters on human rights, working conditions, equal rights are inherently undemocratic too.
You really dont want democracy, and I doubt you really want real proportional representation, you may want idealized examples of both, but we live in a practical world, and there cannot be idealized examples, since it relies entirely on the altruism of the elected, and the elected are no different from you or I, you wouldn't make me leader of the UK government, why would you make anyone else leader?
I do know that proportional representation decouples electors from the elected, reducing accountability.
It does exactly the opposite. Look at the Youtube vid I posted. That shows you the appalling system the British have, where a minority can have 100% control - look at the damage Thatcher did, yet most of the electorate did not want her there - made by an American.
Benjamin Franklin? He was a land owner and land speculator. Also only ever had two years at school. Hardly anyone who would want full democracy.
It does exactly the opposite. Look at the Youtube vid I posted. That shows you the appalling system the British have, where a minority can have 100% control - look at the damage Thatcher did, yet most of the electorate did not want her there - made by an American.
Benjamin Franklin? He was a land owner and land speculator. Also only ever had two years at school. Hardly anyone who would want full democracy.
Well clearly he was a sub-human, being a land owner and speculator. It too own land, and speculate (stocks, bonds, currencies). I'm clearly a sub-human too. Or the more probable observation is I worked hard, achieved success, invested wisely.
Franklin invented the lightning conductor, glass harmonica, Franklin Stove (which used air ducting to disperse heat), bifocals and the flexible urinary catheter, winning the Royal Societies Copely medal in the process in 1753, was a printer and Newspaper Editor, influenced Thomas Robert Malthus (I'm sure you've heard of Malthusian Theory, as it influenced Keynes) with his observations in "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.". All on two years of school you say? How we could all aspire to such heights of achievement on a mere 730 days of formal education.
You might want to reconsider slamming someone's education achievements when their actual objective achievements exceed the majority of not just people but successful people.
I'll also add Pythagorus had no formal education, you want to take a shot at him too?
If you dont want full democracy then by what measure do you claim the current electoral process in more undemocratic than any other method?
I'm thinking you've drunk someone's kool-aid and not really thought it through.
Johnson said he was against HS2, high-speed rail. He said he will commission a review. Sort of sensible. If it is to be built he said he would start from the north building it towards the south. The southern section has already started construction. Duh!
His record, and professional people who have experience of him, is clear he should not be entertained.
The British people should do what the Americans are doing with Trump.
That is least the 2nd reference to Trump by you and I wonder why, as they seem like very different people. I do not know enough about Boris Johnson to speak intelligently, but other than being from each countries respective conservative party, I do not see the similarity.
BTW - I am not sure what you mean by collectively saying the way "Americans are doing with Trump". Half the country dislikes him, the other half likes him.
The majority of the media is against him, but they are typically against any moderate/conservative, as the majority of them are ideologically liberal.
Now if you are suggesting Brits act (against Boris) like the minority Yanks who are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), again be careful what you wish for.
Brits generally seem more refined and respectful as a generalization, and would likely not want to be seen as some kook who has gone off the deep end.
Some in the once proud and respected Democratic party now act insane because Trump is in their blood. They have gone from an occasional left leaning tendency, to full blown insanity.
Most of the ones running for the 2020 Democratic nomination are proposing things that no respectable Democrat would have, just a short decade ago.
President Bill Clinton would be consider hardcore conservative compared to the ones running today on the Democratic side.
So I seriously doubt you would want part of your country to start suffering from the same malady the Americans presently are, who are infected with TDS.
It does exactly the opposite. Look at the Youtube vid I posted. That shows you the appalling system the British have, where a minority can have 100% control - look at the damage Thatcher did, yet most of the electorate did not want her there - made by an American.
Benjamin Franklin? He was a land owner and land speculator. Also only ever had two years at school. Hardly anyone who would want full democracy.
I know your post was directed to Gungnir and I assume he watched your video, as I certainly did.
While not making any comment on it, I now suspect having read a few more of your posts that you do not care for the conservative ideology that leaders on either side of the pond express.
What is your initial reaction when I mention Reagan or Bush?
Bill Clinton for his day was a moderate that leaned left and was very popular (despite his personal failings), but today is considered a conservative by comparison by the left who suffers from TDS (see my last post).
Regardless, Franklin was considered brilliant and a polymath, so saying he was under-educated seems a strange swing to take at him. But even if you wish to discount his view, most all the Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to a straight up democracy.
`
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.