Segways

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:25:50 +0100, Peter Keller wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:40:06 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:39:00 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:23:12 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:03:48 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:09:12 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:





Something along the lines of I cannot vote for any party whose list
contains the name of a despicable corrupt hypocrite.

"List"? I assume you mean party members?

Unfortunately I live in a place where the content of the parliament is
determined by the percentage of the total vote each party receives.
Each party draws up a "list" which contains their candidates in the
order to which they will be allocated seats according to how many votes
the *party* receives. The voters do not vote directly for any
candidate in the list vote, just for the party.

You mean proportional representation? Which is fairer than first past
the post.

In theory yes. In practice it is horrible.
There is some despicable **** on the list who would not have a hope if he
stood personally in a real electorate, but who keeps scraping into
Parliament on the list!
Thos head party honchos who draw up the lists have a lot to answer for.

I think more about the party's policies than the individual's. They pretty much have the same ideas in the same party.

--
After Christmas vacation, an elementary school teacher was asking her students how they celebrated Christmas.
When she got to Sammy, whose father ran a local toy store, she said, "Sammy, since you're Jewish, I guess your family didn't celebrate Christmas."
Sammy replied, "Oh yes, we did. We all held hands and danced around the cash register singing, 'What A Friend We Have In Jesus.'

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:25:50 +0100, Peter Keller wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:40:06 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:39:00 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:23:12 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:03:48 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:09:12 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:





Something along the lines of I cannot vote for any party whose list
contains the name of a despicable corrupt hypocrite.

"List"? I assume you mean party members?

Unfortunately I live in a place where the content of the parliament is
determined by the percentage of the total vote each party receives.
Each party draws up a "list" which contains their candidates in the
order to which they will be allocated seats according to how many votes
the *party* receives. The voters do not vote directly for any
candidate in the list vote, just for the party.

You mean proportional representation? Which is fairer than first past
the post.

In theory yes. In practice it is horrible.
There is some despicable **** on the list who would not have a hope if he
stood personally in a real electorate, but who keeps scraping into
Parliament on the list!
Thos head party honchos who draw up the lists have a lot to answer for.

So where do you live then? I thought the only proportional representations was the EU elections?

--
What's a birth control pill?
The OTHER thing a woman can put in her mouth to keep from becoming pregnant.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:22:10 +0100, Peter Keller wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:20:24 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 11:37, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:17:27 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 09:33, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:57:06 +0100, Bod wrote:





I do.
I go to the polling booth and have my say.
That is in my mind much better than not going to the polling booth at
all.
My "vote" may not count for a party or a candidate, but it is still
a vote.

It is NOT a vote. It'll be binned and not count for anything.

If everybody did it, something would have to be done.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

So you just sit back and let corrupt **** happen?
At least I would have some say.
The fact that it is disregarded and "thrown into the bin" is evidence of
corrupt ****.

Indeed.

--
What's a birth control pill?
The OTHER thing a woman can put in her mouth to keep from becoming pregnant.

On 20/07/2014 00:57, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:20:24 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 11:37, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:17:27 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 09:33, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:57:06 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 18/07/2014 10:07, Peter Keller wrote:



"Not bothering to vote is thoroughly cowardly and certainly does not
help"
You've just said that you *don't* vote.
Which means that you've totally contradicted your what you just said.

I do.
I go to the polling booth and have my say.
That is in my mind much better than not going to the polling booth at
all.
My "vote" may not count for a party or a candidate, but it is still a
vote.

It is NOT a vote. It'll be binned and not count for anything.

If everybody did it, something would have to be done.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

What do you think would happen if nobody voted at all?

Reality tells me that would never happen. You're just waffling.

On 20/07/2014 09:22, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:20:24 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 11:37, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:17:27 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 09:33, Peter Keller wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:57:06 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 18/07/2014 10:07, Peter Keller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:48:56 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:14:54 +0100, Peter Keller

wrote:



There is a high percentage of not bothering to vote. But I'm not
sure if that helps.

Not bothering to vote is thoroughly cowardly and certainly does not
help. I have no time for those who cop out and do not do their
democratic duty.
At least I go to the polling booth and have my say.


"Not bothering to vote is thoroughly cowardly and certainly does not
help"
You've just said that you *don't* vote.
Which means that you've totally contradicted your what you just
said.

I do.
I go to the polling booth and have my say.
That is in my mind much better than not going to the polling booth at
all.
My "vote" may not count for a party or a candidate, but it is still
a vote.

It is NOT a vote. It'll be binned and not count for anything.

If everybody did it, something would have to be done.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

So you just sit back and let corrupt **** happen?
At least I would have some say.
The fact that it is disregarded and "thrown into the bin" is evidence of
corrupt ****.

I have my say by *voting*.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:49:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 20/07/2014 09:22, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:20:24 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 11:37, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:17:27 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 09:33, Peter Keller wrote:



It is NOT a vote. It'll be binned and not count for anything.

If everybody did it, something would have to be done.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

So you just sit back and let corrupt **** happen?
At least I would have some say.
The fact that it is disregarded and "thrown into the bin" is evidence of
corrupt ****.

I have my say by *voting*.

But if there are no parties you agree with?

--
A fat girl served me in McDonald's at lunchtime. She said "sorry about the wait". I said, "Don't worry, you'll find a way to lose it eventually"

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:46:57 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 20/07/2014 00:57, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:20:24 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 11:37, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:17:27 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 09:33, Peter Keller wrote:





It is NOT a vote. It'll be binned and not count for anything.

If everybody did it, something would have to be done.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

What do you think would happen if nobody voted at all?

Reality tells me that would never happen. You're just waffling.

It would never happen because there aren't enough sensible people. And anyway, how many do you think don't vote? It's a very high proportion.

--
A Muslim was sitting next to Paddy on a plane.
Paddy ordered a whisky.
The stewardess asked the Muslim if he'd like a drink.
He replied in disgust "I'd rather be raped by a dozen whores than let liquor touch my lips!"
Paddy handed his drink back and said
"Me too, I didn't know we had a choice!"

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:41:58 +0100, Peter Keller wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:23:48 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:06:10 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:08:20 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:17:10 +0100, Peter Keller
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:49:59 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:







Of course. But I would know that I have tried.
I just cannot vote for a party whose list contains the name of some
despicable corrupt hypocrite.
And not going to the polling booth is not an option neither.

All parties have corrupt people in them.

Exactly. Nothing wrong in publicising that is there?

I'm not so sure it's possible for a human to be a politician without
being corrupt. People who do not corrupt are not interested in
politics.

That is true.
The best solution is for a cast-iron constitution guaranteeing the
general population their defined rights and responsibilities, a
benevolent dictator to oversee the running of the country, and
independent executive and judicial systems.
Unfortunately a "benevolent dictator" is an oxymoron.

What we need is a political system where major decisions are done by referendum.

--
Take some good advice: Never try to baptize your cat.

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:31:07 +0100, Peter Keller wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:00:04 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:40:44 +0100, Nick wrote:

On 18/07/2014 10:22, Uncle Peter wrote:


There should be a "none of the above" at the bottom, so people can
easily express their dissatisfaction with the available parties.


Again that would serve little purpose.

If 90% of people said "none of the above", then something could be done.

It would be interesting to see how an option to reject all candidates
and require a new election with new candidates would work.

The problem is that in practice we are effectively only allowed to
elect candidates selected by local party organizations. Organizations
which are often dominated by a small number of well organized
individuals whose interests are very different to the general
electorate.

I thought anyone could run?

If you can afford the £500 candidate deposit.

That's most people.

--
"You know that your landing gear is up and locked when it takes full power to taxi to the terminal."

On 20/07/2014 20:36, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:49:23 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 20/07/2014 09:22, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 18:20:24 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 11:37, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:17:27 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 19/07/2014 09:33, Peter Keller wrote:



It is NOT a vote. It'll be binned and not count for anything.

If everybody did it, something would have to be done.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

So you just sit back and let corrupt **** happen?
At least I would have some say.
The fact that it is disregarded and "thrown into the bin" is evidence of
corrupt ****.

I have my say by *voting*.

But if there are no parties you agree with?

Then I'd vote for the party that's nearest to my preferred policies.