How the USA gets rid of Trump

[Platypus]

I'm in the US right now and unsurprisingly the Trump victory has come up in conversation more than a few times. "What does Europe think about it?" so I ask them what they think about it. Two points,

(1) Rather like our safe seats, there are states where republicans don't bother voting because the democrats outnumber them and always win, e.g. California. This of course results in turnout looking low, and also gives the effect of the "loser" winning the "popular" vote, as has happened in this case. It's been put to me that you can't draw any conclusions about the turnout or popular vote because of this effect. EDITED as even more poorly expressed before

(2) I've met several women who voted for Trump. Their view is that so long as he's not grabbing their pussy, then who cares. It doesn't mean he'll be a bad president.

So, Liberals, go F yourselves. He's popular, he won. End of. There's a lot of optimism about his presidency and a lot of people glad that he kicked out the establishment elite.

[Mordac]

MPs are seldom that accountable nowadays anyway. Most of those with any real influence spend most of their time in the Westminster village anyway.
As for the "big beasts", their influence would be restricted because they would seldom have big enough majorities in the House to bludgeon through many policies that were not roundly accepted across the political spectrum.

Well, to be fair, Vince Cable (former MP) came round to my house twice prior to the last GE. Under PR, I doubt most of us would even get to find out who our MP was, and fewer would even care. PR is a big fail, the only major party that supports PR is the LibDooms, and that should tell you everything you need to know.

[pjclarke]

Rather like our safe seats, there are states where republicans don't bother voting because the democrats outnumber them and always win, e.g. California. This of course results in turnout looking low, and also gives the effect of the "loser" winning the "popular" vote

And of course, there are no safe Republican states where the opposite is true.

as he's not grabbing their pussy, then who cares

Not you, clearly. The conservative viewpoint in a nutshell.

So, Liberals, go F yourselves. He's popular, he won. End of

Did you get a receipt from the charm school? I think you're due a refund. He won, but is less popular than Clinton by over 1 million votes. This is not a recipe for a placid country.

By 2040, the USA will have the demographics that California has now, so enjoy the next 4 years, because very soon the country will be telling the Republicans to retire and self-fornicate.

[Platypus]

And of course, there are no safe Republican states where the opposite is true.

Not you, clearly. The conservative viewpoint in a nutshell.

Did you get a receipt from the charm school? I think you're due a refund. He won, but is less popular than Clinton by over 1 million votes. This is not a recipe for a placid country.

By 2040, the USA will have the demographics that California has now, so enjoy the next 4 years, because very soon the country will be telling the Republicans to retire and self-fornicate.

Erm did you miss the part where I said that these are the views I have heard from actual Americans? Not my own views.

- Yes of course the opposite is also true
- "Not me clearly" well I was pretty shocked to hear that POV stated
- Popularity... do you understand FPTP and electoral colleges?

If you can't read, pls don't bother replying. Thanks.

[SueEllen]

Yes we did. AV, which was neither one thing or the other. A fudged middle-ground half-arsed option. Hardly surprising it was poo-pooed.

AV is used for London Mayoral elections and NI Assembly elections, while the London Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections use AMS as they have more seats. The idea of both systems is to ensure that each constituency has at least one named person representing them. So if you don't like that named person you don't vote for them. (With AMS you can still vote for the party but you get a different candidate elected.)

The European Parliament elections use straight PR with a closed list and no one knows who the f*** their MEPs are. They are basically party loyalists who are rewarded by being put first or second on the list and are unaccountable to the general public.

Named people actually have to make a personal effort to get people to vote for them there as with PR you can send anyone from the party out.

Also if the government of the day is also their party, under PR MPs have no incentive to protest against local things like hospital closures or airport expansion as they aren't personally accountable to their constituents.

Back in 2011 they both were. Not sure anyone other than the sitting Tory Government would still be all in favour of it. Doesn't look like it will work out so well for Labour in future.

AV suits smaller parties.

Lots of seats are won with around 30-40% of the vote in FPTP. With AV you would have to get over 50% of the vote the first time otherwise second preference votes would be taken into account.

If we had AV for the 2015 elections UKIP and the Greens would have had some more MPs.

This would have upset Labour and the Tories, which is why they campaigned against it as it makes more seats marginal.

It may have also upset the Lib Dems but they wouldn't have known that at the time they proposed the system. For example in the London Mayoral and Assembly elections the 3rd placed party was the Greens.

Not sure that argument really stacks up. That would only ever be the case over topics that were relatively contentious and safeguards could be built in to mitigate this.

Mordac has answered that.

[shaunbhoy]

Named people actually have to make a personal effort to get people to vote for them there as with PR you can send anyone from the party out.

But once an MP has been "named" for a constituency then they become accountable for it. If they don't perform then at the next GE they are out.
Besides, in most constituencies that are not marginal, there is very little need for those campaigning to put too much personal effort in. All they need to do is turn up wearing the right coloured rosette.

Also if the government of the day is also their party, under PR MPs have no incentive to protest against local things like hospital closures or airport expansion as they aren't personally accountable to their constituents.

What nonsense. Of course they do, just as they do under the current system.

AV suits smaller parties.

Lots of seats are won with around 30-40% of the vote in FPTP. With AV you would have to get over 50% of the vote the first time otherwise second preference votes would be taken into account.

If we had AV for the 2015 elections UKIP and the Greens would have had some more MPs.

I never mentioned AV, I proposed PR. And in any case, if for example 15% of people vote for the Greens or UKIP, what is so wrong with them getting that much of a say in policy?

This would have upset Labour and the Tories, which is why they campaigned against it as it makes more seats marginal.

Oh well that puts a whole new light on it. Can't go upsetting the status quo, because THAT is obviously so clearly democratic!

[vetran]

liked this one:

Congratulations to Marijuana for winning more states than Hillary .

[pjclarke]

Erm did you miss the part where I said that these are the views I have heard from actual Americans? Not my own views.

- Yes of course the opposite is also true
- "Not me clearly" well I was pretty shocked to hear that POV stated
- Popularity... do you understand FPTP and electoral colleges?

If you can't read, pls don't bother replying. Thanks.

Clearly I owe you an apology which I offer. However if you look up there's a little button for marking text as quoted .....

[VectraMan]

But once an MP has been "named" for a constituency then they become accountable for it. If they don't perform then at the next GE they are out.
Besides, in most constituencies that are not marginal, there is very little need for those campaigning to put too much personal effort in. All they need to do is turn up wearing the right coloured rosette.

WHS. People vote for the party, not the individual. One problem with the current system is if you're a staunch Labourist and you have a Tory MP then you're hardly going to go to them or ask them to look into any issue. So essentially many if not most people are unrepresented. A better scheme would be to have multiple MPs covering larger regions in the proportion of the vote so at least you can go to the MP who you feel better represents your views. Or have MPs elected separately to the leader and government.

[SueEllen]

WHS. People vote for the party, not the individual. One problem with the current system is if you're a staunch Labourist and you have a Tory MP then you're hardly going to go to them or ask them to look into any issue. So essentially many if not most people are unrepresented. A better scheme would be to have multiple MPs covering larger regions in the proportion of the vote so at least you can go to the MP who you feel better represents your views. Or have MPs elected separately to the leader and government.

Not everyone does as otherwise independents wouldn't get elected.

Also anyone who knows how the system works knows that if you have an issue e.g. with immigration, NHS regardless of the political party of your MP you go to them.