BTFD obviously.

Well im not convinced i like STV, but i know if i did having AV first would be a step i wouldnt want to make as if it goes wrong in any way, even just the perception of it, STV will be dead for a generation.

As for saying AV would make a Lab/Lib coalition more likely, thats the very definition of disgusting given the Conservatives won the election by any measure imaginable. See "anything goes wrong". The public would not have put up with Labour keeping power last year and similar circumstances in the future mean they wont again.

Id be much more on board with this if we had an executive system like what America has where the President is selected independently and the PM position is pretty much the majority leader of the Senate.

Then again maybe im just resistant to change.

These stories remind me of Hoppe's analogy of begging your mugger to let you keep a few bucks to get home. How all poker players on this site are not libertarians by now I have no idea.

Wat. How is a government that has the support of the majority of the people disgusting? If Labour and the Lib Dems have similar views and can easily work together, why should we have a government that the majority of voters don't want? (Conservative).

You shouldn't think of the election as a game that you "win". It's a system used by the people to determine their representatives. Being the largest party is pretty irrelevant in that situation, aside from useless bragging rights. If the majority of people choose representatives who have a similar vision and can agree to pass legislation for it, that's perfectly fair. There's no magical rule that says representatives from different political parties can't agree or work together.

Btw, if you were to use the term "win", the only conceivable way of winning would be to get a majority of seats. Nobody "won".

I agree 100%, except 10 Downing Street is an executive office and it shouldnt be filled by someone from the party that got the third most votes because the second largest wants power bad enough to cut that deal with them.

If we are changing from FPTP we need to change other processes in how PMs are chosen which is one reason why im voting no when this eventually goes to a referendum. The thought that Gordon Brown could have held onto power last year is easily enough to sway my decision.

This is pretty lol worthy considering the latest budget compromise.

Third most votes would be unlikely. I see no reason why the second largest party shouldn't get it, if they're the largest party in government.

To be PM you'd have to have the support of the majority of MPs anyway, so I don't get what the problem is. When you vote, you're not directly voting for who gets into Downing Street. You're voting for who you want to represent you. I don't think LD/Labour voters would want their representatives to give the post to a Conservative MP.

take it to the redcoats forum!!!1

How did you Brits make voting so complicated? Whoever has the highest votes wins. Simple.

Don't like winner take all single districts? Use (%). If Tories get 40% of vote and labor gets 20%. Give Tories 40% of seats and Labor 20%. How is this so difficult?

We have that in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Single Transferable Vote). Westminster elections are stuck in the past and use "highest votes wins".

If you have STV no party will generally get 50% of the seats. Therefore to have a functioning government, parties come together to form a coalition government. The party who wins the most seats can end up not getting into government, if the two next largest parties have >50% of the seats and agree to form a coalition.

The two big parties aren't too keen on STV since it will cut their share of seats quite considerably. All governments would need to be coalitions since nobody would ever win 50% of the seats. AV is like a version of STV without the balls. Nobody really wants it, but a lot of people hate "highest votes wins".

Yes, i know our system isnt about direct voting for the PM. But it should be.

America has its own weird electoral college stuff, but in general they have a pretty good idea and given we are devolving power to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland it makes sense that we have a PM or President or whatever covering all of Britain directly elected as an indivual now and an English Parliament mirroring the Scottish Parliament to some degree.

Right now we have Scots voting for Scottish MPs, who sit in the British Parliament and vote on things that dont effect Scotland but do effect England. Lets not half arse it, lets truly reform the entire system, its long overdue.

Its problematic when 10 Downing Street has become much more like the White House during the New Labour government and so the election of the PM needs to be directly chosen by the people. FFS, our last PM wasnt voted for by anyone, not even his own political party.

FPTP helps mask these problems as it creates strong governments 90% of the time. Frances uses PR for its parliament elections, but it also has a Presidential position which makes sense.

Basically, its like if the President was chosen by a vote in the Senate.

Im not philosophically opposed to PR on principle, i just think tacking it onto our current political framework is going to be an exercise in pros and cons where most of the data is unknown and where the people plainly dont want the inevitable outcome which is coalition governments. As a nation we hated what happened when the Cons failed to gain a majority last year and we wont be happy with it happening every 4 years. It just aint British.

My dad said that options on the volatility index were trading at a pretty huge premium on Friday, I wonder if this is why.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ion+Central%29

I bold the understatement of the article.

DOJ used that money to prosecute Bonds instead obv

That's why we can be so proud of the republican party, ladies and gents. No matter what else is going on, they always make time to stick it to the gays.

Oh come on, not all GOPers are Larry Craig.

No matter how big you get, it's important to always remember (to step on) the little people.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/shep-smit...-get-any-more/

Shepard Smith dropping truth bombs all over the place. I am a little surprised, but very happy to see someone on TV support wikileaks.

The fact that 'could' is a possibility here is disgusting:

So you're mad theres a chance he isn't charged?

Arizona gov. vetoes presidential 'birther' bill

Brewer has served as AZs Secretary of State.

Quote:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday vetoed a bill that would have required President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship before their names could appear on the state's ballot.

The bill would have made Arizona the first state to pass such a requirement. Opponents had warned the bill would give another black eye to Arizona after last year's controversy over the state's illegal immigration enforcement law.

Brewer said in her veto letter that she was troubled that the bill empowered Arizona's secretary of state to judge the qualifications of all candidates when they file to run for office.

"I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions," said Brewer, who was secretary of state until she became governor in 2009.

"In addition, I never imagined being presented with a bill that could require candidates for president of the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth to submit their 'early baptismal circumcision certificates' among other records to the Arizona secretary of state," she said. "This is a bridge too far."

Yeah, this isn't the old west. What a foolish move on his part.

You know the line has been crossed when Jan "headless bodies in the desert" Brewer says you have gone to far.