Reply to: The Mayor of Doncaster

[TykeMerc]

Yeah, on a piss taking thread, Get a grip

I never said he should be not allowed to do anything I said with a turnout that low you cannot say he has a mandate, that's all.

A low turnout isn't at all uncommon in all UK elections be they Parliamentary, Local, EU or Mayoral, in first past the post (excluding EU and Devolved obviously) systems it's not unusual to get 40% of the vote and be a clear winner when only 40% of the electorate voted. That's 16% of the actual electorate.
It's far from unusual for a Westminster parliamentary government to be elected with a sizable majority with a similar mandate. I certainly don't see the new Mayor of Doncaster as lacking a mandate as he was properly elected under our current fptp excuse for a democracy.

[Doggy Styles]

If you choose not to vote, then complain at the result, you are too thick to be allowed to vote in the first place.

[PM-Junkie]

This thread is reinforcing my opinions on pm's and agents.



You couldn't make it up.

Not rising to the bait any more, sorry. As trolls go, you are pretty pathetic.

[leeperry]

Nobody can be this dumb.

This thread is reinforcing my opinions on pm's and agents.

You are that dumb I am amazed you ever learned to breath.

You couldn't make it up.

[PM-Junkie]

The fact that you have to dream up these imaginary scenarios instead of discussing what actually happened in this case says it all about your argument.

It's breathe you moron.

You are clearly a troll. Nobody can be this dumb.

[threaded]

Well, here I am in Sunny Doncaster. As soon as I got off the plane I got that whiff of good old England, y'know that eau d'backed-up toilet mixed with a hint of stale curry, and thought to myself that I should keep smiling, it's a 'holiday'.

threaded in "holiday in Cambodia" mode

[leeperry]

Answer his question. Let's try to make it even more simple for you. If 100% of the electorate vote, and one person gets 11.75% of the vote and the other 88.25% of the vote is spread evenly between say, 10 people, so each gets 8.825% of the vote.....by your "logic" the guy that gets 11.75% of the vote wouldn't have a mandate because more people voted for other candidates.

The fact that you have to dream up these imaginary scenarios instead of discussing what actually happened in this case says it all about your argument.

You are that dumb I am amazed you ever learned to breath.

It's breathe you moron.

[PM-Junkie]

I am, you're the idiot who started with the stupid point scoring when he couldn't hack it and I look like a fool?
You think 11.75% is a mandate?. You're an idiot.

Answer his question. Let's try to make it even more simple for you. If 100% of the electorate vote, and one person gets 11.75% of the vote and the other 88.25% of the vote is spread evenly between say, 10 people, so each gets 8.825% of the vote.....by your "logic" the guy that gets 11.75% of the vote wouldn't have a mandate because more people voted for other candidates.

You are that dumb I am amazed you ever learned to breath.

[Amiga500]

I am, you're the idiot who started with the stupid point scoring when he couldn't hack it and I look like a fool?
You think 11.75% is a mandate?. You're an idiot.

Who tried to hack the point scoring system? Scandalous!

[leeperry]

You are making yourself look a complete fool.

I am, you're the idiot who started with the stupid point scoring when he couldn't hack it and I look like a fool?

Come on then put a figure on it. Either he has a mandate to implement policies or he doesnt which is it?

You think 11.75% is a mandate?. You're an idiot.

[The Lone Gunman]

I never said he didn't recieve the majority of the votes, I pointed out that he didn't recieve the votes of the majority of the electorate, in fact he only recieved a small percentage of the votes of the electorate. How many people out of the people who are able to vote who actually did vote for the guy does mean something and it means I don't take this guy as seriously I would someone who had recieved more than 11.75% of the votes.
It is an equally valid claim, but the only thing you can say for certain is that they did not vote for this guy.

Grow up. I'm free to point out how cr*p it is that someone can get elected on 11.75% of the electorate, I can't believe people are supporting that.

You sem to think that non voters count in some way. They dont. At best they can be regarded as not caring, but in no way can they be regarded as against any candidate.

This guy would have more of a mandate than if there had been a massive turnout because the odds are that the majority winner would have a majority of votes against them. Let me give you na example. 5 parties 100% turnout. 4 parties get 19.5% each the 5 gets 22% and therefore wins. In this case 78 percent actualy voted against the winner, but the winner would still have the majority mandate.

Why is it that you seem to think we are all out of step with you?

[DodgyAgent]

Yeah, on a piss taking thread, Get a grip

I never said he should be not allowed to do anything I said with a turnout that low you cannot say he has a mandate, that's all.

You are making yourself look a complete fool.

Come on then put a figure on it. Either he has a mandate to implement policies or he doesnt which is it?

[leeperry]

Have you always been this thick or have you had to work at it? He received the majority of the votes. Therefore he was elected. It really is a very simple concept, but clearly it flies way over your head.

I never said he didn't recieve the majority of the votes, I pointed out that he didn't recieve the votes of the majority of the electorate, in fact he only recieved a small percentage of the votes of the electorate. How many people out of the people who are able to vote who actually did vote for the guy does mean something and it means I don't take this guy as seriously I would someone who had recieved more than 11.75% of the votes.

The people who did not vote are irrelevant because they chose not to vote. You cannot go second guessing how people "would" have voted (in your opinion) because an equally valid claim would be that they would have voted for the guy who won anyway. If they wanted to be relevant then they should have voted. Another really simple concept and another one that flies way over your head.

It is an equally valid claim, but the only thing you can say for certain is that they did not vote for this guy.

That is the way things are done here. If the voters of this country choose to beat the politicians over the head to change the system, as seems to be the case, that is up to the people who vote. If you or I don't like the system then we are more than welcome to bugger off and live in a country that has a system that we do approve of. As is anyone else.

Grow up. I'm free to point out how cr*p it is that someone can get elected on 11.75% of the electorate, I can't believe people are supporting that.

[PM-Junkie]

What Bulls**t is this?. All you can say is that he represents 11.75% of the people in Doncaster?.



What happened in this election is the voters of the main parties stayed away due to the expenses scandal (the council is majority labour) and the nutters who vote for the minority parties had greater sway. the fact that he got elected with 11.75% of the electorate voting for him bears this out.

Have you always been this thick or have you had to work at it? He received the majority of the votes. Therefore he was elected. It really is a very simple concept, but clearly it flies way over your head.

The people who did not vote are irrelevant because they chose not to vote. You cannot go second guessing how people "would" have voted (in your opinion) because an equally valid claim would be that they would have voted for the guy who won anyway. If they wanted to be relevant then they should have voted. Another really simple concept and another one that flies way over your head.

That is the way things are done here. If the voters of this country choose to beat the politicians over the head to change the system, as seems to be the case, that is up to the people who vote. If you or I don't like the system then we are more than welcome to bugger off and live in a country that has a system that we do approve of. As is anyone else.

[leeperry]

Remarkable. So you know exactly what 88.25% of the people of Doncaster think do you? Know them all personally do you? How do you know that the views expressed by 11.75% of the people of Doncaster isn't exactly the same as the view of everyone who didn't vote, and that the other 88.25% just couldn't be bothered to go out and vote? Because it doesn't tally with the way you think??

What Bulls**t is this?. All you can say is that he represents 11.75% of the people in Doncaster?.

You are confusing those who voted with the whole electorate. Those who didn't vote are by definition happy to allow the choice to be made by those who did.

What happened in this election is the voters of the main parties stayed away due to the expenses scandal (the council is majority labour) and the nutters who vote for the minority parties had greater sway. the fact that he got elected with 11.75% of the electorate voting for him bears this out.