BoJo banished - Liz Truss down. Is Rishi next for the toaster? **threadbans in OP**

That is the vagaries of their system. Didn't Hilary win the popular vote? Similar there. Weren't SF the biggest party here?

However, all outcomes were democratic in accordance with the democratically agreed electoral systems.

At one level I fully agree (if we had had a FPTP system last time out, we could have got a single party SF government on 33% of the vote and that would be an abomination), but at another I disagree.

A country decides democratically what form of democracy it chooses to elect leaders. Sometimes, it opts for broad representation as in our system with multi-seat STV, sometimes it opts for geographical equality as in the US, and sometimes it opts for increasing the likelihood of single party government as in FPTP. Often there are good (or bad) historical reasons for these systems, but they are the democratically agreed methods of selecting leaders, so the outcome is democratically acceptable. So when Hilary Clinton wins the popular vote, but her vote isn't geographically diverse enough to get a majority of the electoral college, that is a democratic outcome.

Notwithstanding the origins, which I said could be good or bad, each country can decide at any point in time to change its electoral system through the democratic process. We have already had two referenda in that regard.

You don't have to like a system of democratic selection to accept the democratic outcome of it. The rules are the rules. For example, the contrast between Hilary Clinton's acceptance of the democratic outcome in 2016 versus the Trump reaction to losing the vote demonstrates it as clearly as possible. Respect for the systems of democracy and the democratic ways to change them are fundamental to being a democracy. Otherwise you risk being a 1930s Germany which is the big reason to fear Trump.

As for the Tories, their own selection system for leaders is going to bite them badly, and they will lose the next election. Truss may not even be leader by then as her own parliamentary party may have turned on her.

Well, FTPT was one of many systems used over the years in the UK, the Bloc Vote was another, there was even STV for a limited number of seats.

All of them changed through the democratic process into the system they have today.

We live in representative democracies in the West, not pure democracies, so in a sense you are correct, that rules aren't inherently democratic, however, they do have to be selected democratically. You could argue that any law passed by a government that didn't have a majority of all voters (not just all votes) is inherently undemocratic, but the right not to vote is also a democratic one.

I wonder how many of our governments have had the support of the majority of voters, and not just the majority of those who voted. Some of the referenda with large majorities and reasonable turnouts would have a majority, but not a lot else. Are they therefore democratic?

I never said the public chose FPTP.

I said:

"A country decides democratically what form of democracy it chooses to elect leaders."

That there have been changes over the years to how the UK selects MPs - 1950 was the first election I think with universal FPTP - demonstrates that this has been changed democratically through the democratic institutions.

The abolitionist just called Elizabeth "the rock modern Britain was built on" 🤣

There are arguments for and against both types of democratic election.

The tyranny of the majority (of very large minority) is a weakness of FPTP, we have seen that in the UK on occasions, but STV also has its problems. If you look at Israel for example where very small minority parties have held the balance of power thanks to STV and death has resulted from Israeli aggression.

At least use the right figures. The greens got 7.1% in 2020. I think you are using the figures from the previous election.

They sort of did, in that they voted against bringing in Proportional Representation in the 2011 referendum.

Although the referendum was a sop to the Lib Dems that went into coalition with the Tories in 2010, and the Tories spent a fortune campaigning for NO.

No, you're right. I was lazily using PR as a catch all for "not FPTP". They didn't vote for FPTP but they voted against "not FPTP". Perhaps if the alternative had been better - and better campaigned for - things would have been different.

The whole thing was a fix using a bad version of AV to shut up the PR campaigners.

Cameron only ever used referenda as a sly way to shut up dissenters and the last one bit him in the a$$

Ya but was it not a watered down version of what the LibDems really wanted ?

I'd say that Liz is delighted that Queen Liz is brown bread now. The UK's media will be in bulk trying to outdo themselves on the mourning coverage for the next two weeks. Takes an awful lot of media attention off of her.

The problem is though at times like this people really evaluate the media performance of leaders at that's a huge weak point for her.

Compare her first speech outside no.10 to the likes of Blair who was seen to have really vocalized the feelings of the nation when Diana. She came across as a cold, bored robot and it won't play well with all the tearful home counties traditionalists. I'de say even Corbyn could show more compassion than she mustered.

It's an absolute open goal to win hearts but she doesn't have the skill to do it.