|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 17, 2017 19:50:57 GMT
Possibly, but then the formation of the government and the winning of an election are different things. As an example, it is possible for the party political complexion of a government to change without an election. Who would have won the preceding election if that scenario occurs and you use who forms the government as the criteria for who wins elections?Mid-term shifts don't really have any bearing on the previous general election, and certainly in the psephological annals of the UK any by-election shifts are ignored in favour of noting changes in relation to the previous general. Even if a party does get toppled from power part-way through a parliamentary term, it still doesn't erase their previous sucesses from the record. Regardless, at the end of the day, unless a party gets an outright majority of seats (50% + a seat), I would caution against saying things like "party X won the election in the year whatever", but if it is absolutely necessary to make such statements (it isn't) then I think that "who forms the government" is the least-worst possible criterion. Fair enough. I totally disagree with you on your last paragraph, but there is nothing wrong with a bit of disagreement from time to time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 20:50:45 GMT
When you've won most votes you've won the plurality but unless you can form a majority that's no good to you. In 1951 Labour got 48.8 and Conservatives 48.0 but the Conservatives won a maj.
The Democrats have now won the plurality in 4 elections where the Republicans gained a maj of electoral votes. Winning by large margins in California while losing out marginally in Florida, Michigan, etc. is no good to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 17, 2017 23:15:34 GMT
A better question would be 'what if the voting age was still 21'. We all know the lowering was inevitable, that's not the point. Nothing is inevitable and many things may be reversed. |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 17, 2017 23:17:21 GMT
A better question would be 'what if the voting age was still 21'. We all know the lowering was inevitable, that's not the point. and many things may be reversed. Death? |
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,905 
Member is Online
|
Post by spqr on Oct 17, 2017 23:18:29 GMT
Nothing is inevitable and many things may be reversed. Death? ... and taxes? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 17, 2017 23:21:35 GMT
Nothing is inevitable and many things may be reversed. Death? Experience suggests it to be extremely likely........but not inevitable. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,536
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 18, 2017 0:08:14 GMT
It would have been a very good thing. Even better if raised to 35. i was against it at the time. According to "Red Ellen", in the 1920s there was serious consideration of equalising the voting age at 25 rather than allowing full female suffrage at 21. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 18, 2017 17:57:56 GMT
Nothing is inevitable and many things may be reversed. Death? Avoided entirely by Enoch and Elijah. Reversed by Jesus.  |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Oct 18, 2017 20:11:36 GMT
When you've won most votes you've won the plurality but unless you can form a majority that's no good to you. In 1951 Labour got 48.8 and Conservatives 48.0 but the Conservatives won a maj. The Democrats have now won the plurality in 4 elections where the Republicans gained a maj of electoral votes. Winning by large margins in California while losing out marginally in Florida, Michigan, etc. is no good to you. It's interesting how both the US and UK right have not been very successful in an electoral sense since the end of the Cold War. The Republicans have only won the popular vote once while the Tories have yet to win a working majority. |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 18, 2017 20:42:12 GMT
When you've won most votes you've won the plurality but unless you can form a majority that's no good to you. In 1951 Labour got 48.8 and Conservatives 48.0 but the Conservatives won a maj. The Democrats have now won the plurality in 4 elections where the Republicans gained a maj of electoral votes. Winning by large margins in California while losing out marginally in Florida, Michigan, etc. is no good to you. It's interesting how both the US and UK right have not been very successful in an electoral sense since the end of the Cold War. The Republicans have only won the popular vote once while the Tories have yet to win a working majority. But you're not comparing like with like - you're cherry-picking your facts to support your claim. You can either compare the popular vote or majorities, you can't use majorities for this side of the Atlantic and popular vote for the other side of the Atlantic. If you use popular vote then the Tories have won the popular vote in 4 general elections since the end of the Cold War (compared with 3 for Labour). For majorities, the Republicans have won the Electoral College 3 times since the end of the Cold War (as against 4 for the Democrats) and both parties have won majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives quite often as well (I'm not sure of the actual number). |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Oct 18, 2017 20:52:05 GMT
It's interesting how both the US and UK right have not been very successful in an electoral sense since the end of the Cold War. The Republicans have only won the popular vote once while the Tories have yet to win a working majority. But you're not comparing like with like - you're cherry-picking your facts to support your claim. You can either compare the popular vote or majorities, you can't use majorities for this side of the Atlantic and popular vote for the other side of the Atlantic. If you use popular vote then the Tories have won the popular vote in 4 general elections since the end of the Cold War (compared with 3 for Labour). For majorities, the Republicans have won the Electoral College 3 times since the end of the Cold War (as against 4 for the Democrats) and both parties have won majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives quite often as well (I'm not sure of the actual number). It was just intended as a 'random electoral fact', really. The Republicans, interestingly, do have a bit of a stranglehold on the Congress now, having controlled the House from 1995-2007 and 2011-present (they'd been out of control for forty consecutive years prior to the 1994 'Revolution'). The Senate has been a bit more balanced I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Oct 18, 2017 21:55:15 GMT
I joined the Liberal Party in March 1979 on turning 18. If I hadn't had the vote for the 1979 election, I might have delayed my interest in politics until I was 21. Therefore I would not have got involved in student politics. I would probably have got a better degree and been a better chess player!
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 19, 2017 12:49:26 GMT
I joined the Liberal Party in March 1979 on turning 18. If I hadn't had the vote for the 1979 election, I might have delayed my interest in politics until I was 21. Therefore I would not have got involved in student politics. I would probably have got a better degree and been a better chess player! You see what I mean now? Let's go for 35. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 19, 2017 14:12:49 GMT
No, let's remove it from people with second homes in Italy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghyl Tarvoke on Oct 19, 2017 22:30:10 GMT
Tuition Fees would be at American levels and the political and culture atmosphere in Universities would be a lot more toxic than they already are (which is saying a lot). And that's even mentioning the 21-35 bracket.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 20, 2017 21:09:36 GMT
No, let's remove it from people with second homes in Italy. Oozing envy from every pore he slimed his way across the floor! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 14:27:04 GMT
When you've won most votes you've won the plurality but unless you can form a majority that's no good to you. In 1951 Labour got 48.8 and Conservatives 48.0 but the Conservatives won a maj. The Democrats have now won the plurality in 4 elections where the Republicans gained a maj of electoral votes. Winning by large margins in California while losing out marginally in Florida, Michigan, etc. is no good to you. It's interesting how both the US and UK right have not been very successful in an electoral sense since the end of the Cold War. The Republicans have only won the popular vote once while the Tories have yet to win a working majority. The Conservatives had a working majority from 2015 to 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Oct 22, 2017 14:39:36 GMT
It's interesting how both the US and UK right have not been very successful in an electoral sense since the end of the Cold War. The Republicans have only won the popular vote once while the Tories have yet to win a working majority. The Conservatives had a working majority from 2015 to 2017. And from 1990-1994 and then from 1995-1997. But I've already explained why the post of pragmaticidealist was flawed - because he wasn't comparing like with like. |
|
|
|
Post by ccoleman on Oct 28, 2017 22:38:35 GMT
'What if people who voted a way I don't like were not allowed to vote' would be an interesting thread, would it not? I imagine carlton would have a field day with that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 29, 2017 9:56:04 GMT
'What if people who voted a way I don't like were not allowed to vote' would be an interesting thread, would it not? I imagine carlton would have a field day with that one. Not at all. I am happy with people voting Conservative and Labour as long as a few more vote Conservative and as few as possible vote for the silly third parties. |
|
