Cutting Off Their Nose To Spite Their...
News4 mins ago
Bretix Vote Demographics
I asked this on another thread but for the life of me I can't find it so will post it as a separate q. If it has been answered elsewhere please let me know.
Did we vote in the referendum as individuals, counties, constituency, separate nations (England sCotland etc)?
I thought we voted as individuals. If that is the case then how can any MP, whether at Westminster or any of the devolved governments, vote against triggering a50?
Surely even their conscience or what they believe is in the best interest of the country doesn't count for toffee??!
Did we vote in the referendum as individuals, counties, constituency, separate nations (England sCotland etc)?
I thought we voted as individuals. If that is the case then how can any MP, whether at Westminster or any of the devolved governments, vote against triggering a50?
Surely even their conscience or what they believe is in the best interest of the country doesn't count for toffee??!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
they have a system similar to FPTP, essentially each state has a number of college votes and if you win a state you win all the votes for that state. The winner is the first over the line with 270 college votes. Of course Mikey/QM you know that but you are playing semantics with the figures. I can do that too, did you know that only 41% of the Scottish electorate vote to remain in the EU?
The good old "percentage of the vote" err "argument"
In 1979, the National Front got 0.6% of the electoral vote.
On that basis, they should've had 3 or 4 parliamentary candidates. The argument that bemoans Hillary Clinton not being President, also bemoans the National Front not having had parliamentary MPs.
One can't have it both ways.
In 1979, the National Front got 0.6% of the electoral vote.
On that basis, they should've had 3 or 4 parliamentary candidates. The argument that bemoans Hillary Clinton not being President, also bemoans the National Front not having had parliamentary MPs.
One can't have it both ways.
JJ....you are comparing two very different voting systems.
We don't have an Electoral College, because we don't need one. Nor do we have any kind of PR when it comes to Westminster.
There is an argument to make for having PR, but one of the versions of it was soundly defeated by the British public, the last time we were asked in a Referendum.
We don't have an Electoral College, because we don't need one. Nor do we have any kind of PR when it comes to Westminster.
There is an argument to make for having PR, but one of the versions of it was soundly defeated by the British public, the last time we were asked in a Referendum.
I know how the US system works, TTT, and the fact remains that millions more people voted for Clinton than did for Trump...it's indisputable.
As I've pointed out to you more than once in the past, the word, 'democracy' comes from Greek words meaning "the strength of the people". Making that statement is in no way "playing semantics"; it's a linguistic fact. Not only that but it's a fact that you [i]yourself[i[ constantly invoke in support of the Brexit vote result!
I agree with you that the Brexit referendum, just like the Scottish independence referendum, WAS democratic...ie all the people's votes were counted and the 'dispute' was won by the viewpoint which garnered most of these.
This manifestly did NOT happen in the USA recently, because of their electoral college system, so you're the one playing semantics every time you claim Trump won democratically.
As I've pointed out to you more than once in the past, the word, 'democracy' comes from Greek words meaning "the strength of the people". Making that statement is in no way "playing semantics"; it's a linguistic fact. Not only that but it's a fact that you [i]yourself[i[ constantly invoke in support of the Brexit vote result!
I agree with you that the Brexit referendum, just like the Scottish independence referendum, WAS democratic...ie all the people's votes were counted and the 'dispute' was won by the viewpoint which garnered most of these.
This manifestly did NOT happen in the USA recently, because of their electoral college system, so you're the one playing semantics every time you claim Trump won democratically.
I'm not playing semantics, I'm pointing out that the total number of votes is irrelevant for the 1000th time. To people like you who insist on whining about the total votes. The US can change their system if they want, they choose not to. It's pointless harping on about ifs and buts based on arithmetic when that is not the system they use.
TTT.....Its highly relevant if a less popular candidate wins.
Trump, like any other President, has to govern with the will of the people, and in this incidence, he is going to find it difficult. He has already had a Court order against him, and I can't see that sort of thing diminishing over time.
Just wait unto his plans to despoil the environment take a grip !
Trump, like any other President, has to govern with the will of the people, and in this incidence, he is going to find it difficult. He has already had a Court order against him, and I can't see that sort of thing diminishing over time.
Just wait unto his plans to despoil the environment take a grip !
when you have won a certain amount of seats you have won the election. For seats read college votes. They allocate them in groups but the government emerges when a winning post is passed the same way as our result is arrived at. The final structure of government to completely different of course but the method's compare quite well and we can pick irrelevant statistics too.
“My own MP was a very strong Remainer, but his constituency voted to Leave.”
I keep on asking, but nobody answers. How do you know his constituency voted to Leave?
“But I have seen the votes counted in towns, cities and constituencies,…”
No you haven’t, Mikey. What you have seen are “estimates”. If you look at the results you will see they only provided down as far as “local areas”. For example, the results for Wales were split into 22 such areas. There are 40 Parliamentary constituencies in Wales and a good many more cities and towns. So it is not possible to determine how a particular constituency or town voted. Here are the only official results available:
http://
“What is it that puts the EU referendum into a different category, dictating action in a black or white fashion based on a 4% difference between the two responses ?”
It’s this (taken from the then-governments scare pamphlet issued to all households prior to the referendum):
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
Could not have been clearer. There were no provisos. Nothing said “provided the result is a two-thirds majority”. Nothing said “provided more than xx% of the electorate bother to vote”. Nothing said "provided enough MPs agree to your choice". Nothing else was said. That is why the referendum result is in a (totally) different category to a General Election result.
Comparison with the US Presidential election is specious. As has been explained, that vote depends on the “Electoral College”. The referendum does not. It was a simple binary choice with the highest number of votes prevailing (see above).
I keep on asking, but nobody answers. How do you know his constituency voted to Leave?
“But I have seen the votes counted in towns, cities and constituencies,…”
No you haven’t, Mikey. What you have seen are “estimates”. If you look at the results you will see they only provided down as far as “local areas”. For example, the results for Wales were split into 22 such areas. There are 40 Parliamentary constituencies in Wales and a good many more cities and towns. So it is not possible to determine how a particular constituency or town voted. Here are the only official results available:
http://
“What is it that puts the EU referendum into a different category, dictating action in a black or white fashion based on a 4% difference between the two responses ?”
It’s this (taken from the then-governments scare pamphlet issued to all households prior to the referendum):
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
Could not have been clearer. There were no provisos. Nothing said “provided the result is a two-thirds majority”. Nothing said “provided more than xx% of the electorate bother to vote”. Nothing said "provided enough MPs agree to your choice". Nothing else was said. That is why the referendum result is in a (totally) different category to a General Election result.
Comparison with the US Presidential election is specious. As has been explained, that vote depends on the “Electoral College”. The referendum does not. It was a simple binary choice with the highest number of votes prevailing (see above).
New Judge,
// Labour chiefs in Tameside said a 'shockwave' had been sent to the party's leadership after the borough voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU.
More than sixty percent of voters opted to leave for Brexit, with under forty percent voting for Remain, in what became a comfortable victory for the Leave campaign.
Despite Labour's dominance, MPs and councillors said the area had always been historically euro sceptic.
However they admitted they would have to do some soul searching to determine why so many core voters defied the official party line in the historic vote.
A total of 61.6% (67,829) voted in favour of leaving the union, with just 38.9% (43,118) opting to stay in after the votes were counted at Dukinfield town hall. //
// Labour chiefs in Tameside said a 'shockwave' had been sent to the party's leadership after the borough voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU.
More than sixty percent of voters opted to leave for Brexit, with under forty percent voting for Remain, in what became a comfortable victory for the Leave campaign.
Despite Labour's dominance, MPs and councillors said the area had always been historically euro sceptic.
However they admitted they would have to do some soul searching to determine why so many core voters defied the official party line in the historic vote.
A total of 61.6% (67,829) voted in favour of leaving the union, with just 38.9% (43,118) opting to stay in after the votes were counted at Dukinfield town hall. //
"Labour chiefs in Tameside said a 'shockwave' had been sent to the party's leadership after the borough voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU."
Quite true. The referendum results for Tameside were published individually as a "Local Area". But Tameside is not a Parliamentary constituency. It is just a part of the Denton and Reddish constituency. This is made up of The Metropolitan Borough of Tameside, the wards of Audenshaw, Denton North East, Denton South, Denton West, and Dukinfield, and the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport and the wards of Reddish North and Reddish South.
So once again, how does the MP for Denton and Reddish know how his constituents voted (bearing in mind that the remainder of the constituency does not equate to one or more of the other local areas)? He can take an educated guess, I agree. But he doesn't know for sure.
Quite true. The referendum results for Tameside were published individually as a "Local Area". But Tameside is not a Parliamentary constituency. It is just a part of the Denton and Reddish constituency. This is made up of The Metropolitan Borough of Tameside, the wards of Audenshaw, Denton North East, Denton South, Denton West, and Dukinfield, and the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport and the wards of Reddish North and Reddish South.
So once again, how does the MP for Denton and Reddish know how his constituents voted (bearing in mind that the remainder of the constituency does not equate to one or more of the other local areas)? He can take an educated guess, I agree. But he doesn't know for sure.
“NJ....no, but he can have a good estimate can't he ?”
Yes he can Mikey, I quite agree. (Though quite how good is debateable and will vary from area to area).
But all through this Brexit farrago there have been calls by some for MPs to vote on the A50 Bill "as their constituents voted in the referendum". But they can't because they don't know how their constituents voted. In some areas it is fairly obvious how individual constituencies might have fared. In others it is not so clear. The referendum never envisaged results being needed on a constituency basis. Unless there is to be a re-run of the referendum and the results declared on a constituency basis, calls for MPs to vote as their constituents did is pointless.
However, there is a wider principle involved. The decision to remain or leave was devolved to the electorate and they made their choice. I don’t know why MPs should be so averse to “rubber stamping” that choice. They have been accustomed to rubber stamping EU legislation into UK law in increasing volumes for the past 45 years. Very often that legislation was passed into UK law even when the UK’s MEPs almost in their entirety voted against it in Brussels (or Strasbourg, depending where their expenses took them to at the time). Never once was it suggested the MPs consult their constituents on those matters because the decisions had been passed to the MEPs. Well this decision was passed to a far more representative constituency – the UK electorate. The very least the MPs can do is to respect that decision. Yes I know the SC court ruling means MPs have to agree to the move. But that doesn't alter the principle.
Yes he can Mikey, I quite agree. (Though quite how good is debateable and will vary from area to area).
But all through this Brexit farrago there have been calls by some for MPs to vote on the A50 Bill "as their constituents voted in the referendum". But they can't because they don't know how their constituents voted. In some areas it is fairly obvious how individual constituencies might have fared. In others it is not so clear. The referendum never envisaged results being needed on a constituency basis. Unless there is to be a re-run of the referendum and the results declared on a constituency basis, calls for MPs to vote as their constituents did is pointless.
However, there is a wider principle involved. The decision to remain or leave was devolved to the electorate and they made their choice. I don’t know why MPs should be so averse to “rubber stamping” that choice. They have been accustomed to rubber stamping EU legislation into UK law in increasing volumes for the past 45 years. Very often that legislation was passed into UK law even when the UK’s MEPs almost in their entirety voted against it in Brussels (or Strasbourg, depending where their expenses took them to at the time). Never once was it suggested the MPs consult their constituents on those matters because the decisions had been passed to the MEPs. Well this decision was passed to a far more representative constituency – the UK electorate. The very least the MPs can do is to respect that decision. Yes I know the SC court ruling means MPs have to agree to the move. But that doesn't alter the principle.
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Crosswords25 mins ago
Funerals - Wait Times For Cremation
Body & Soul30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.