All things Labour Party

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What on earth are you on about. Unless you have one representative per voter there will always be voters whose vote doesn’t translate into their  candidate winning whatever system you use.
 

Every vote means something, not just the ones that the winning candidate gets. 

Maybe he wants the way brexit was voted for, but he lost that one too 😁

[sadoldgit]

6 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What on earth are you on about. Unless you have one representative per voter there will always be voters whose vote doesn’t translate into their  candidate winning whatever system you use.
 

Every vote means something, not just the ones that the winning candidate gets. 
 

If I’m the only bloke voting for Fred dustbin lid Jones, how does my vote mean something under PR and not under FPTP 

I know that you are not completely stupid (at least when you are not stoned) but then perhaps you could explain to us all how the number of votes per party against the number of seats per party translates into something that is a fair reflection of the way the nation votes.

[Lord Duckhunter]

32 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I know that you are not completely stupid (at least when you are not stoned) but then perhaps you could explain to us all how the number of votes per party against the number of seats per party translates into something that is a fair reflection of the way the nation votes.

That wasn’t what you said. Your exact words were “everyone’s vote should mean something”. Please explain how a vote for a losing candidate means something under PR, but not under FPTP

[badgerx16]

The problem with the PR/FPTP debate is that any referendum on the matter is in the gift of the party in power, who are never going to want to change the system that put them there. ( Which is why when the Lib Dems got into the coalition with the promise of a vote from DC, it was effectively rigged by only offering AV as the option ).

Edited 3 July, 2021 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That wasn’t what you said. Your exact words were “everyone’s vote should mean something”. Please explain how a vote for a losing candidate means something under PR, but not under FPTP

It really isn’t a difficult concept Duckie. Let’s take the Liberal Democrat’s in the last election. They polled 11.5% of the votes but only have 11 seats in Parliament. Under PR they would have 75 seats in Parliament. Therefore every single votes counts whereas under the current system it doesn’t. Get it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It really isn’t a difficult concept Duckie. Let’s take the Liberal Democrat’s in the last election. They polled 11.5% of the votes but only have 11 seats in Parliament. Under PR they would have 75 seats in Parliament. Therefore every single votes counts whereas under the current system it doesn’t. Get it?

you claimed under PR “every” vote will count. Whereas under FPTP they don’t. 
 

If 280 people vote for an independent in Poole, how do their votes count under PR? What is the difference between that &  them not getting the representative they want under FPTP?

Please explain, or maybe admit you were writing pony when you wrote that “every” vote counts under PR. 

 

 

 

Edited 4 July, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It really isn’t a difficult concept Duckie. Let’s take the Liberal Democrat’s in the last election. They polled 11.5% of the votes but only have 11 seats in Parliament. Under PR they would have 75 seats in Parliament. Therefore every single votes counts whereas under the current system it doesn’t. Get it?

That seems amazing!

What if 100 independent candidates all gained 0.6% of the vote. Would we have to create another 100 seats in Parliament or does you 'rounding' only extend to the 'bigger' parties?

[Tamesaint]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That seems amazing!

What if 100 independent candidates all gained 0.6% of the vote. Would we have to create another 100 seats in Parliament or does you 'rounding' only extend to the 'bigger' parties?

Sometimes I think that perhaps Weston isn't really that stupid. Sometimes I think that he makes a good point. Very occasionally I find myself agreeing with him.

Then he goes and makes posts like this one and I remember that he is pig thick stupid.

[whelk]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That seems amazing!

What if 100 independent candidates all gained 0.6% of the vote. Would we have to create another 100 seats in Parliament or does you 'rounding' only extend to the 'bigger' parties?

Have you ever thought of giving up the broom and becoming an electoral reform consultant?

[Chapel End]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That seems amazing!

What if 100 independent candidates all gained 0.6% of the vote. Would we have to create another 100 seats in Parliament or does you 'rounding' only extend to the 'bigger' parties?

 

56 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

Sometimes I think that perhaps Weston isn't really that stupid. Sometimes I think that he makes a good point. Very occasionally I find myself agreeing with him.

Then he goes and makes posts like this one and I remember that he is pig thick stupid.

Yep, utterly stupid...

[Lord Duckhunter]

The stupid post is the one that claimed under PR “everyone’s vote would mean something “ whereas under FPTP is doesn’t.

Neither he or the genius’ calling out Weston have explained how this is the case. 
 

So I’ll ask again. What is the difference between an independent candidate receiving 35 votes under PR and receiving 35 votes under FPTP. Being one of the 35 voters, why will my vote mean something under PR but not under FPTP. Because unless you follow Westons logic and create thousands of extra seats, that vote counts for nothing under either system. 

Edited 4 July, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That seems amazing!

What if 100 independent candidates all gained 0.6% of the vote. Would we have to create another 100 seats in Parliament or does you 'rounding' only extend to the 'bigger' parties?

Obviously you would need a certain percentage to get a seat, it's not rocket science.

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Obviously you would need a certain percentage to get a seat, it's not rocket science.

Correct.

“More” votes would mean something under PR. But that’s not what SOG was claiming. He was claiming that “every” vote would mean something. He then doubled down, claiming the same twice more, before accusing people who didn’t agree  that under PR “every vote counts”, of being “stoned”. 
 

 

Edited 4 July, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Correct.

“More” votes would mean something under PR. But that’s not what SOG was claiming. He was claiming that “every” vote would mean something. He then doubled down, claiming the same twice more, before accusing people who didn’t agree  that under PR “every vote counts”, of being “stoned”. 
 

 

There are PR systems that allow for local representation as well. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

21 minutes ago, aintforever said:

There are PR systems that allow for local representation as well. 

Interesting. Is there one where every single vote means something, because that was the claim.  

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Obviously you would need a certain percentage to get a seat, it's not rocket science.

You need to explain that to Soggy.  He's the one whose calculations include the rounding combined with the bold statement that 'every single vote counts', when, as you've rightly pointed out, unless the required percentage is achieved to gain a seat then ALL the votes cast for that candidate count for fuck all!

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Correct.

“More” votes would mean something under PR. But that’s not what SOG was claiming. He was claiming that “every” vote would mean something. He then doubled down, claiming the same twice more, before accusing people who didn’t agree  that under PR “every vote counts”, of being “stoned”. 
 

 

He gave 11.5% of the vote for Lib Dem as an illustration.  Maybe you could find a podcast about it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You need to explain that to Soggy.  He's the one whose calculations include the rounding combined with the bold statement that 'every single vote counts', when, as you've rightly pointed out, unless the required percentage is achieved to gain a seat then ALL the votes cast for that candidate count for fuck all!

I still think people are struggling to understand what the initial discussion was about  in their rush to discredit you.

You are correct, that was Soggy’s claim. It wasn’t that X % gets you X number of seats, his initial  claim was that every single vote means something, that no votes are wasted on a losing candidate. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

On 03/07/2021 at 10:26, sadoldgit said:

Absolutely. Everyone’s vote should mean something

. It’s a crap system and it has always been a crap system, no matter who wins.

“Everyone’s vote should mean something”. 
 

All that was asked is how this happens under a non crap system. 

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I still think people are struggling to understand what the initial discussion was about  in their rush to discredit you.

You are correct, that was Soggy’s claim. It wasn’t that X % gets you X number of seats, his initial  claim was that every single vote means something, that no votes are wasted on a losing candidate. 

It's a constant source of amusement!  A group of posters are always very keen to jump in and throw the 'thick cunt' moniker at me, all the while pulling their own pants down when it becomes clear they've not actually understood what is being discussed.  Tamesaint is a prime example!

[Antrimsaint]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

“Everyone’s vote should mean something”. 
 

All that was asked is how this happens under a non crap system. 

You really do live in here don’t you?

[CB Fry]

It's nice to get an admission on this forum from the supporters of FPTP that in that system every vote doesn't count.

[Antrimsaint]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It's a constant source of amusement!  A group of posters are always very keen to jump in and throw the 'thick cunt' moniker at me, all the while pulling their own pants down when it becomes clear they've not actually understood what is being discussed.  Tamesaint is a prime example!

If the shoe fits

[Tamesaint]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It's a constant source of amusement!  A group of posters are always very keen to jump in and throw the 'thick cunt' moniker at me, all the while pulling their own pants down when it becomes clear they've not actually understood what is being discussed.  Tamesaint is a prime example!

Cheers piggy!!

[CB Fry]

11 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It's a constant source of amusement!  A group of posters are always very keen to jump in and throw the 'thick cunt' moniker at me, all the while pulling their own pants down when it becomes clear they've not actually understood what is being discussed.  Tamesaint is a prime example!

Anyone going to the trouble of thinking this or posting this is, without question, a thick cunt.

5 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That seems amazing!

What if 100 independent candidates all gained 0.6% of the vote. Would we have to create another 100 seats in Parliament or does you 'rounding' only extend to the 'bigger' parties?

 

[Antrimsaint]

1 minute ago, CB Fry said:

Anyone going to the trouble of thinking this or posting this is, without question, a thick cunt.

 

Tend to agree. I’d like to know how the multiple conflicting thought processes going on inside his/her head resolve to come up with a coherent thought. It is a marathon not a sprint however and I hope I’m around when it happens.

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Interesting. Is there one where every single vote means something, because that was the claim.  

Anyone with half a brain knew what he meant. At least you dinosaurs are finally admitting that more votes would count if there was some sort of PR system.

Sad thing is, you know the current system is shit you just don't want it changed because it favours your own sad party allegiance. You could at least admit it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

51 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Anyone with half a brain knew what he meant. At least you dinosaurs are finally admitting that more votes would count if there was some sort of PR system.

Sad thing is, you know the current system is shit you just don't want it changed because it favours your own sad party allegiance. You could at least admit it.

What party allegiance is that then? 
 

The past 20 years I’ve voted for UKIP more than any other party. You know them, the party that probably suffered from FPTP more than any other in that time period. Thus proving your point is complete and utter pony. I support FPTP despite it costing seats to the party I’ve given my support to. Clearly, the complete opposite of what you claimed. Other than that, great point well made 😂😂

Edited 4 July, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What party allegiance is that then? 
 

The past 20 years I’ve voted for UKIP more than any other party. You know them, the party that probably suffered from FPTP more than any other in that time period. Thus proving your point is complete and utter pony. I support FPTP despite it costing seats to the party I’ve given my support to. Clearly, the complete opposite of what you claimed. Other than that, great point well made 😂😂

Yeah, because you don’t come on here and celebrate every time the Tories win, or post pointless little opinion poll graphs every time they are ahead.

[Turkish]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

Anyone with half a brain knew what he meant. At least you dinosaurs are finally admitting that more votes would count if there was some sort of PR system.

Sad thing is, you know the current system is shit you just don't want it changed because it favours your own sad party allegiance. You could at least admit it.

That rules you out then 

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, Antrimsaint said:

If the shoe fits

You turn into Cinderella?

[Antrimsaint]

3 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What party allegiance is that then? 
 

The past 20 years I’ve voted for UKIP more than any other party. You know them, the party that probably suffered from FPTP more than any other in that time period. Thus proving your point is complete and utter pony. I support FPTP despite it costing seats to the party I’ve given my support to. Clearly, the complete opposite of what you claimed. Other than that, great point well made 😂😂

Ukip, Christ. Says it all really. Fealty to the Oswald Moseley  of our times, or is that Tommy?.

Explains nearly everything. Such predictability. Can pretty much work out every opinion you’ve  ever had as its been fed to you by the National Front, BNP, EDL and UKIP.

you sad, deformed little man/woman. England is better than you

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Antrimsaint said:

Ukip, Christ. Says it all really. Fealty to the Oswald Moseley  of our times, or is that Tommy?.

Explains nearly everything. Such predictability. Can pretty much work out every opinion you’ve  ever had as its been fed to you by the National Front, BNP, EDL and UKIP.

you sad, deformed little man/woman. England is better than you

Look people can have different views without labelling them EDL etc. LD is not that person.

[Antrimsaint]

33 minutes ago, whelk said:

Look people can have different views without labelling them EDL etc. LD is not that person.

Doesn’t need help being labelled. Evidence of her posts and Racism land her fairly and squarely in that camp.

Edited 4 July, 2021 by Antrimsaint

[Antrimsaint]

Its astonishing to me that working people would advocate for  a nationalist party that works against their own interests.

Im sure Duckface paid the “membership” fee to that grifter Farage who then stood down candidates so Tories could win at the GE.

Classic ruling class divide and rule. What was it about the privileged city boy that you thought spoke for you Duckie?

Peasants then and peasants now. Ukip and all the rest are the stooges for the Tories, and always will be. 

[AlexLaw76]

5 minutes ago, Antrimsaint said:

Its astonishing to me that working people would advocate for  a nationalist party that works against their own interests.

Im sure Duckface paid the “membership” fee to that grifter Farage who then stood down candidates so Tories could win at the GE.

Classic ruling class divide and rule. What was it about the privileged city boy that you thought spoke for you Duckie?

Peasants then and peasants now. Ukip and all the rest are the stooges for the Tories, and always will be. 

you seem a tad obsessed with politics.

[Antrimsaint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

you seem a tad obsessed with politics.

I am, one of many interests. This is a thread about the Labour party and falls within the realm of politics.

please don’t make me be patronising to you too. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Antrimsaint said:

I am, one of many interests. This is a thread about the Labour party and falls within the realm of politics.

please don’t make me be patronising to you too. 

Do what you like, you daft old clogger

[Antrimsaint]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Do what you like, you daft old clogger

Lol, daft old clogger. I’ll  take that. Nice phrase. Might steal that one. 

[sadoldgit]

On 04/07/2021 at 11:02, Lord Duckhunter said:

Correct.

“More” votes would mean something under PR. But that’s not what SOG was claiming. He was claiming that “every” vote would mean something. He then doubled down, claiming the same twice more, before accusing people who didn’t agree  that under PR “every vote counts”, of being “stoned”. 
 

 

Of course it counts because every vote influences the number of seats that any given party wins. Another example for you, the Green Party have 1 seat under FPTP. Under PR they would have 12 seats. Surely even you can see there is a huge difference affecting the number of votes that actually mean something. You are just put out because your beloved Johnson would have a much smaller majority if everyone votes meant something.

I have always lived in safe Tory seats so no matter who I vote for my vote will not affect a change. Under PR my vote means that I contribute towards on opposition candidate getting a seat in Parliament, therefore under one system it doesn’t matter if I vote or not whereas under the other system my vote counts.

As I say, it really isn’t a difficult concept to grasp.

My original point was the every vote should count, which under the current system for the losing parties, they don’t.

If you were the supporter of a minority party I am sure that you would see that there is a massive difference between 12 seats and 1 seat. Go and try telling the Green Party members that their votes make any difference outside of Brighton.

Edited 5 July, 2021 by sadoldgit
Rectified mistake

[Lord Duckhunter]

Soggy, If the Monster raving loon party stand candidates in every seat and gain 702 votes across the country, under PR how many seats will they gain?

I presume it will be 0. Therefore, those 702 votes don’t mean anything (under your definition). I’m puzzled as to how you’re still arguing against the statement that PR doesn’t mean every vote counts, but more votes count. 

This is now the third time you’ve claimed that “every” vote means something, despite other supporters of PR clearly understanding that it’s not the case. I’ve accepted that more votes count under PR than FPTP, but you’re still arguing against that. Stating “of course” they all count. 

Have you found a new PR system, please clarify? 

 

Edited 5 July, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[sadoldgit]

11 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Soggy, If the Monster raving loon party stand candidates in every seat and gain 702 votes across the country, under PR how many seats will they gain?

I presume it will be 0. Therefore, those 702 votes don’t mean anything (under your definition). I’m puzzled as to how you’re still arguing against the statement that PR doesn’t mean every vote counts, but more votes count. 

This is now the third time you’ve claimed that “every” vote means something, despite other supporters of PR clearly understanding that it’s not the case. I’ve accepted that more votes count under PR than FPTP, but you’re still arguing against that. Stating “of course” they all count. 

Have you found a new PR system, please clarify? 

 

They do mean something. They mean that you are voting for a party that hasn’t got enough support to win a seat in Parliament which tells you something about where your vote is going and how much or little support is has. If you launch the Lord Duckhunter Xenophobic Alliance Party and you get one vote, that vote means something. It means there is no support for your policies so maybe you should either give up or change your policies.

Why do we have tactical voting? It is because people in certain areas can’t change the situation by voting for the party of their choice so they vote for another party instead. On what planet does that make any sense? With proportional representation every vote counts because you get the level of support in the H of C that the electorate votes for. If your party doesn’t poll enough votes for a seat that tells you something about what you are voting for, therefore it counts because it has a value, albeit it a negative one if you are the one who voted for the LDXA party.

If you are not a Tory in a safe Tory area you get absolutely nothing. If you voted for the LDXA Party your vote means something. It means that you and the party you voted for either need to rethink your values or to work harder to try and convince people to vote for you.

[Lord Duckhunter]

23 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

They do mean something. They mean that you are voting for a party that hasn’t got enough support to win a seat in Parliament 

So the same as FPTP then. 

Edited 5 July, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[Lord Duckhunter]

38 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

If you launch the Lord Duckhunter Xenophobic Alliance Party and you get one vote, that vote means something. It means there is no support for your policies so maybe you should either give up or change your policies.

Why do we have tactical voting? It is because people in certain areas can’t change the situation by voting for the party of their choice so they vote for another party instead. 

Why can’t the party of their choice follow the example of the LDXAP and give up or change their policies. 
 

If my one supporter decides I can’t win a seat, so votes for somebody else, is that not tactical voting? 

You seem to think that someone voting for a party that doesn’t get enough support under FPTP doesn’t mean anything, whereas under PR it does. This is clearly nonsense. The principle of what a “losing” vote becomes is exactly the same, the only thing that changes is the threshold at which a vote becomes a losing one. Under FPFT it’s not coming first in a constituency, under PR it’s not achieving the required level. There are votes that (in your words) don’t mean anything,in both systems. Thus proving your original point, was indeed pony. 

Edited 5 July, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[aintforever]

13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

So the same as FPTP then. 

Not really, because under FPTP how much your vote counts depends on where you happen to live.

[egg]

Jeez, can't believe you lot are still banging on about the minutiae of an electoral system that we don't have!! Nuts. 

[whelk]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Jeez, can't believe you lot are still banging on about the minutiae of an electoral system that we don't have!! Nuts. 

I am waiting for the LDXA party launch

[egg]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

I am waiting for the LDXA party launch

Don't tell me that I have to wade through all that ^^^ shit to understand what that means. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

14 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Not really, because under FPTP how much your vote counts depends on where you happen to live.

You don’t have to tell me, it’s your mate soggy who seems to be struggling with it. 
 

Perhaps you could tell him that under both systems there will be votes that don’t result in representation . There will be a lot less under PR, but there will be some. You can’t say that under FPTP there will be “meaningless” votes, whereas under PR there won’t.

Anyeay I’m off canvassing for my new party. 
 

 

[Antrimsaint]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You don’t have to tell me, it’s your mate soggy who seems to be struggling with it. 
 

Perhaps you could tell him that under both systems there will be votes that don’t result in representation . There will be a lot less under PR, but there will be some. You can’t say that under FPTP there will be “meaningless” votes, whereas under PR there won’t.

Anyeay I’m off canvassing for my new party. 
 

 

Your bants is legendary. You have the iq of a walnut