Your country needs YOU! (to vote)

[wu_trax]

this is the european election, meaning its not a majority vote, but relativ. this means you can vote whatever party you want and it will get its share of power (if the european parilament actually would have power that is).
if you would be talking about a majority system like in the us, i would agree with you.
in that case i wouldnt see much sence in voting for a small party that perfectly represents your point of view either. if you vote for a small party in such a system you could aswell not vote at all. (that system has other advatages though)

[Deffeh]

what

libs

most pro european

i know you all like that shit.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

this is the european election, meaning its not a majority vote, but relativ. this means you can vote whatever party you want and it will get its share of power (if the european parilament actually would have power that is).
if you would be talking about a majority system like in the us, i would agree with you.

A system of proportional representation doesn't really change the fundamental dynamic though, does it? A minor party might get a few seats, but they still won't have any power except in the possibly unlikely event that no party has a majority and they join a coalition.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

well its a question of whether you want principles or power. Its quite difficult to have both

I don't want the state to have power over people. The main source of power (ultimately) is perceived legitimacy of the government.

The more people who vote, the more legitimate elections (and thus government) are seen as.

personally, if i prefer one group to have power to another, whether i believe in their position or not.

What? Why are you desperate for other people to have power? Are you a masochist or something?

youre just going to be a raving revolutionary for the rest of your life.

Here's hoping.

[Jammers]

I've been looking forward to this day ever since 1992, when I discovered that there was such a thing as Elections, which struck me as being the most brilliant idea ever. Back then, I got a day off school, and watched my mother go into some secret building to do something I didn't quite understand at the time. Unfortunatly, I may never know what goes on in that secret building, partly because it's been demolished, and partly because there are no polling stations any more. I now need to walk almost twice as far to the post box as I would to the polling booth. Needless to say I am not pleased by this.
Anyway, I decided to vote for one of the anti-Europe parties, and I shall hereby outline the process by which I eliminated them:
BNP - A bit too extreme for my liking. Their advert was quite funny though.
Conservative - I'm not entirely convinced they can be relied upon to oppose Europe when the time comes.
Respect - I'm not an economist, but I reckon almost doubling the minimum wage overnight will lead to some kind of hyperinflation. Plus they opposed the war, which counts extra against them.
Neil Herron - One of the Metric Martyrs. A true patriot, who deserves a medal of some sort. Unfortunatly he is only one man, and he's from Sunderland.
Which left the UK Independance Party. And that's who I voted for (or I will tommorow when I go to post my voting thingy.) Ideally I would have voted for the English Democrat Party, but unfortunatly they aren't running any candidates in my region, so I can't.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

A system of proportional representation doesn't really change the fundamental dynamic though, does it? A minor party might get a few seats, but they still won't have any power except in the possibly unlikely event that no party has a majority and they join a coalition.

that isnt all that unlikely, you only need 4-5 parties and noone will get a majority.
besides, they cant have much power if they are a small party (its democarcy, so why should a small party run the country?), but at least they have some seats so that people can notice what they have to say. if they make good policy theyll probably get more seats in the next election.)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

A system of proportional representation doesn't really change the fundamental dynamic though, does it? A minor party might get a few seats, but they still won't have any power except in the possibly unlikely event that no party has a majority and they join a coalition.

Hmmm, I'm not sure about this. Britain is generally cited as a strong two-party system (only candidates from Labour or Conservative have any real chance of gaining a parliamentary majority) but if we switched to a pure PR system then we'd hardly ever have a party with a majority.

In our last two elections, which were both "landslides" for Labour, they obtained well under 50% of the popular vote.

[SYMM]

Plus, with the European parliament, groups like the BNP can (and are planning to) join up with their right-wing european counterparts (National Front etc.) to form a "Group" big enough to receive official funding and whatnot (meaning next time, they can have 'better' campaigns etc.)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by SYMM

Plus, with the European parliament, groups like the BNP can (and are planning to) join up with their right-wing european counterparts (National Front etc.) to form a "Group" big enough to receive official funding and whatnot (meaning next time, they can have 'better' campaigns etc.)

If they represent a certain proportion of European's opinions, is that really a problem / bad thing?

(this is a seperate question of whether political parties should receive state funding anyway)

[wu_trax]

i think its quite funny that all those ultra-right-wing, nationalistic parties work together. if they all unite under le pen or whatever that french guys name is, surly they cant be that nationalistic anymore, can they?

[ChubbyChecker]

I'm pretty sure the BNP don't have any candidates for the European elections. They definitely don't hold any seats at the moment.

[LHC]

They have candidates in my area.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i think its quite funny that all those ultra-right-wing, nationalistic parties work together. if they all unite under le pen or whatever that french guys name is, surly they cant be that nationalistic anymore, can they?

There's a couple of things here.

One, I doubt many ultra nationalists want to put themselves under the leadership of people from another nation. However, this doesn't mean they can't co-operate to achieve shared objectives. If racists weren't so stupid, they could easily cooperate with Muslim hardliners (say) to ban mixed marriages between Christians and Muslims. English racists and French racists might want to co-operate on minimising immigration into Europe from the third world.

Secondly, you're defining "the nation" as the nation state. Some racists view some kind of pan-European nation (formed of "white" nations). Some on the hardline right in Britain campaign in the East End of London while simultaneously admiring Hitler (a man whose forces bombed the East End continuously during the war). It's not clear basically.

[Marilyn Manson]

Piers Merchant is standing as a UKIP candidate in The North East. I could hardly believe it. His name was right there on the ballot paper; it was like meeting an old friend. It was the balmly days of 1997 again.

Mabye Dace should try that. Shag a teenage 'nightclub hostess', disapear from public life for the best part of a decade, then re-emerge as a candidate for a fringe party in a European election.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Jammers

BNP - A bit too extreme for my liking.

I love that phrase, "a bit", as if being a party of racist holocaust denying thugs in suits is just pushing the boundaries of bad taste a tad.

Originally Posted by Jammers

Neil Herron - One of the Metric Martyrs. A true patriot,

How is bakrupting yourself over a political issue in the courts, and gaining absolutely no advantage in the process, a greatly patriotic act?

If real patriotism was built upon that kind of stupidity, then the country would indeed be in trouble.

He would have done better to actually have realised that his was a political cause, not a legal case in the first place, and he would have managed to have been significantly better off in terms of personal wealth and happiness.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If they represent a certain proportion of European's opinions, is that really a problem / bad thing?

And you don't find the fact that they do represent a certain proportion of European opinion at all worrying? This is the premise on which we are all working, you see.

Sometimes I wonder if you had been a German KPD member or some such thing in 1933 you would have simply shrugged your shoulders amd said "Well, it's the people's choice."

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

And you don't find the fact that they do represent a certain proportion of European opinion at all worrying? This is the premise on which we are all working, you see.

Of course it's worrying. However the point related to funding. If you are going to support state funding of political parties, it seems a bit dodgy to say "We'll give funding to all the parties I personally like".

Also, it's perverse to blame the electoral system for accurately reflecting the views of the electorate. The BNP (and their ilk) are massively under-represented in parliament (and local councils).

Sometimes I wonder if you had been a German KPD member or some such thing in 1933 you would have simply shrugged your shoulders amd said "Well, it's the people's choice."

Nah, I'd have probably advocated street fighting them way before '33.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Of course it's worrying. However the point related to funding. If you are going to support state funding of political parties, it seems a bit dodgy to say "We'll give funding to all the parties I personally like".

It think his point was more focused around the inherent shitiness of the far right being able to grow big and permanent enough to actually form into a coherent grouping in the European Parliament. I didn't actually catch him advocating banning funding to them, although I have been drinking.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Nah, I'd have probably advocated street fighting them way before '33.

Bollocks to that, thank you very much.

I'd have just gone to Czechslovakia or Sweden. (Sweden with any luck.)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

A system of proportional representation doesn't really change the fundamental dynamic though, does it? A minor party might get a few seats, but they still won't have any power except in the possibly unlikely event that no party has a majority and they join a coalition.

What?

The electoral system is one of the fundamental lynch-pins of what, for a better term we might call the type of democratic model in a state. (In the faculty we make a the distinction between 'Consensus' and 'Westminster' models, but I shant bore you with that.)

Minor parties can go from being seatless nothings with no real national representation or prominence under majoritarian systems to being virtual arbiters of government under PR, where coalitions become the norm. Likewise, this tendency towards pluralism, bartering and compromise effects other areas too, such as economic and social planning, national policy, with stuff like corporatism, etc, regional politics, everything.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Bollocks to that, thank you very much.

I'd have just gone to Czechslovakia or Sweden. (Sweden with any luck.)

'Only one thing could have stopped our movement--if our adversaries had understood its principle and, from the first day, smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement'
-- Adolf Hitler (possibly made up by someone)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

'Only one thing could have stopped our movement--if our adversaries had understood its principle and, from the first day, smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement'
-- Adolf Hitler (possibly made up by someone)

Up until the late 20's, The Nazis were nothing. As late as May 1928, they recieved all of twelve seats.

They almost relied totally on the depression to propel them into any sort of national attention; I don't believe this is an over-statement.

I completely reject the idea that there was some sort of inevitability about Nazism that could only have been countered by violent repression. If true, consistent stability had been delivered to Germany after the war, then extremism would have died on it's feet. (As it practically did during the good years of economic progress in the mid to late 20's when fellows like Stresemann were in charge.)

Even later in the day, there were a multitude of things that could have been done that would have ensured Hitler never came to power.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

If true, consistent stability had been delivered to Germany after the war

As easy as that, eh?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

As easy as that, eh?

Well, not easy exactly, but not exactly fabulously beyond the realms of the possible. If Hindenburg hadn't been elected in 1925, you wouldn't have had the old Imperial elites in such a strong position, if The KPD had, instead of defying all logic, allied with against the Nazis, instead of spending most of the period from 1925-1933 calling The SPD "Social Fascists" on the basis of Commintern suggestion, if Versailles had been just a tad more sensible instead of vengeful in order to satisfy French revanchism, etc.

Obviously, all this is coloured by hindsight, but nor were they weren't exactly stunningly elusive and absurd suggestions at the time.

In esscense, a tremendous deal could have been reasonanbly done that wasn't.

[Chrism]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

A major problem with PR is that it's nearly always against the government of the day's electoral interests to introduce it. No surprise then that Blair shelved the Jenkins report's recommendations on reform of general elections.

No great loss, the Jenkin's reforms were a bad idea from anyone but Jenkins viewpoint.

[Chrism]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

So, who will you vote for in next week's European elections?

I think I'll be all conscientious this time around and vote for these guys which isn't a wasted vote as this link shows.

Go read some of the European Parliament contributions made by the Greens. Some of these people are fully paid-up members of the tinfoil hat brigade.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Chrism

No great loss, the Jenkin's reforms were a bad idea from anyone but Jenkins viewpoint.

Why?

[Jammers]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

How is bakrupting yourself over a political issue in the courts, and gaining absolutely no advantage in the process, a greatly patriotic act?

If real patriotism was built upon that kind of stupidity, then the country would indeed be in trouble.

He would have done better to actually have realised that his was a political cause, not a legal case in the first place, and he would have managed to have been significantly better off in terms of personal wealth and happiness.

He was convicted of committing a crime, and he appealed against his conviction. It was just as much a legal issue as it was a political one. Admittedly the legal basis for his appeal wasn't very good since the courts had already ruled that EU law is superior to UK law, but he gained publicity, so there was some advantage to be had.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Jammers

He was convicted of committing a crime, and he appealed against his conviction.

But the legal basis for his case, which is to say, that European law has no standing in Britain, had already been settled. In fact, the principle of EU law having precedence over member states had been settled decades ago, and unambiguously so. Any half-decent lawyer could have told him this at a stroke.

Thus I can only conclude he had some very dodgy lawyers, and/or he simply didn't give a shit that he was going to bankrupt himself, and went ahead with it anyway.

In either case, he was bonkers.