They sure are worried about her...

[Loki]

We're talking about legal immigrants here...

[Hazir]

So, the Dutch domino didn't fall.

[Khendraja'aro]

Didn't even win that much.

[RandBlade]

Good.

[Steely Glint]

So, the Dutch domino didn't fall.

May Trump mark the high water mark for fascists with stupid haircuts coming to power in western countries.

Also, may being compared to an unpleasant stain on the side of a bath tub be Trump's historical legacy.

[Lewkowski]

I didn't pay attention to Dutch elections but if I understand correctly the center-right candidate beat the far right guy? Gee never thought I'd see the board generally glad a right wing politician won.

[RandBlade]

From what I can see sounds about right.

Though under the crazy Dutch electoral system now that the pesky part of seeing what the voters think is out of the way comes the real part of determining which parties form the government.

[Loki]

I didn't pay attention to Dutch elections but if I understand correctly the center-right candidate beat the far right guy? Gee never thought I'd see the board generally glad a right wing politician won.

You'd probably call the guy a communist if you knew his economic policies.

[Flixy]

I didn't pay attention to Dutch elections but if I understand correctly the center-right candidate beat the far right guy? Gee never thought I'd see the board generally glad a right wing politician won.

Keep in mind that, for example, mandatory health insurance from private insurers who are not allowed to take pre excusing conditions into account (premiums are the same for anyone) is the right-wing option here

All over the concern was more about the rise of populism and anti EU feelings - those both did not do well.

[Flixy]

From what I can see sounds about right.

Though under the crazy Dutch electoral system now that the pesky part of seeing what the voters think is out of the way comes the real part of determining which parties form the government.

On the bright side we don't have a government that got only one third of all votes. Plus with your system i think labour wouldn't have self imploded here, I'm sure you find that part amusing.

You'd probably call the guy a communist if you knew his economic policies.

Not such a great argument now you have a self proclaimed Marxist in the white house

[RandBlade]

On the bright side we don't have a government that got only one third of all votes. Plus with your system i think labour wouldn't have self imploded here, I'm sure you find that part amusing.

Yeah you get a government that got no votes instead.

[Aimless]

Pretty sure almost no-one voted for a combined Republican-Democrat government either.

[RandBlade]

They don't have one

[Aimless]

Sure they do, it just looks like they don't because it's dysfunctional

[Hazir]

Yeah you get a government that got no votes instead.

Leave it to the Brit to not recognize a system with the checks on the executive actually functioning.

[Flixy]

Yeah you get a government that got no votes instead.

Err yes it is voted for by at least 50% of all votes.

Unless you want to add qualifiers but in that case you also have an unelected government since cameron resigned.

[Loki]

On the bright side we don't have a government that got only one third of all votes. Plus with your system i think labour wouldn't have self imploded here, I'm sure you find that part amusing.

Not such a great argument now you have a self proclaimed Marxist in the white house

Hard to argue with that. Fox is in love with any Marxist who's anti-Democrat.

[RandBlade]

Err yes it is voted for by at least 50% of all votes.

Unless you want to add qualifiers but in that case you also have an unelected government since cameron resigned.

We never voted for Cameron. Cameron was not on my ballot paper. I put the X next to my MPs name which also had the Conservative Party logo and name next to it. We have a Conservative Party government, which is the party I vote for and the party which a plurality of this country voted for by a margin of millions of votes.

Lets say you end up with a coalition of say: VVD, DD6, CDA and CU which together make up 76 out of 150 seats I believe. How many voters will have voted for those four parties to form the government?

[Hazir]

We never voted for Cameron. Cameron was not on my ballot paper. I put the X next to my MPs name which also had the Conservative Party logo and name next to it. We have a Conservative Party government, which is the party I vote for and the party which a plurality of this country voted for by a margin of millions of votes.

Lets say you end up with a coalition of say: VVD, DD6, CDA and CU which together make up 76 out of 150 seats I believe. How many voters will have voted for those four parties to form the government?

That would be a coalition representing between 50 and 51% of the electorate. Not a plurality but a majority. And what's more, the coalition also has to have a majority in the Senate which then again would also represent a majority of the electorate is a stacked election. It forces every leader to look well beyond the narrow interests of his own voters. Which coincides with the idea that these people represent the nation, not just a sub-group of the nation.

[Loki]

We never voted for Cameron. Cameron was not on my ballot paper. I put the X next to my MPs name which also had the Conservative Party logo and name next to it. We have a Conservative Party government, which is the party I vote for and the party which a plurality of this country voted for by a margin of millions of votes.

Lets say you end up with a coalition of say: VVD, DD6, CDA and CU which together make up 76 out of 150 seats I believe. How many voters will have voted for those four parties to form the government?

Voters expect certain parties to work together with ours. They also vote for parties to make the best possible bargain on their behalf.

[RandBlade]

That would be a coalition representing between 50 and 51% of the electorate. Not a plurality but a majority. And what's more, the coalition also has to have a majority in the Senate which then again would also represent a majority of the electorate is a stacked election. It forces every leader to look well beyond the narrow interests of his own voters. Which coincides with the idea that these people represent the nation, not just a sub-group of the nation.

It will be a Coalition representing Parties that were voted for by 50 to 51 per cent but it wouldn't be a Coalition representing that much. If the coalition were to represent 51% of voters it would have to have been formed before the election and stood as a Coalition seeking that endorsement.

[Hazir]

It will be a Coalition representing Parties that were voted for by 50 to 51 per cent but it wouldn't be a Coalition representing that much. If the coalition were to represent 51% of voters it would have to have been formed before the election and stood as a Coalition seeking that endorsement.

Given that the voter is aware of the system in which he casts his vote that does not create a democratic deficit. Unlike in your system where a mere plurality can govern with a total disregard for the desires of the majority.

[RandBlade]

Given that the voter is aware of the system in which he casts his vote that does not create a democratic deficit. Unlike in your system where a mere plurality can govern with a total disregard for the desires of the majority.

Ok so the votes have been counted please tell me which Parties the public have by a majority elected to run the country?

[Aimless]

Um. Please consider re-reading the last line of the bit you quoted.

[Flixy]

Ok so the votes have been counted please tell me which Parties the public have by a majority elected to run the country?

Any combination that has the support of at least 50% of parliament.

Look, you vote for a party that batches your view and advocates those views and tries to pass their party program. No party ever does everything they promise ing their campaign (not even in the UK), you vote for then to try and pass those things but within the political reality. When you vote for a candidate you vote for them to make decisions on your behalf (represent you), not to do exactly and busy what was in their program. So I don't see a problem when the party i voted for dropping some of their points during negotiations to be in the government - they will as part of a government push for views I support and that's better than being in the opposition where they have hardly any influence on the government.

Now I'm open for criticism - I like the positive aspects that the government is forced to compromise and find solutions that are supported by representatives of at least half the population rather than one party being able to push everything through even though they represent only a third of the population. I recognise downsides like a less decisive government, it will almost naturally be slower and have to compromise. But undemocratic? I don't think so.

[RandBlade]

Any combination that has the support of at least 50% of parliament.

Look, you vote for a party that batches your view and advocates those views and tries to pass their party program. No party ever does everything they promise ing their campaign (not even in the UK), you vote for then to try and pass those things but within the political reality. When you vote for a candidate you vote for them to make decisions on your behalf (represent you), not to do exactly and busy what was in their program. So I don't see a problem when the party i voted for dropping some of their points during negotiations to be in the government - they will as part of a government push for views I support and that's better than being in the opposition where they have hardly any influence on the government.

Now I'm open for criticism - I like the positive aspects that the government is forced to compromise and find solutions that are supported by representatives of at least half the population rather than one party being able to push everything through even though they represent only a third of the population. I recognise downsides like a less decisive government, it will almost naturally be slower and have to compromise. But undemocratic? I don't think so.

So politicians get to decide who won the election then rather than voters?

I like Government's being held to account. It sounds like a joke but "Compromise" to me is a dirty word whereby Politicians get to dumps their promises while claiming the moral high ground. Abandoning your pledges isn't compromise it is a betrayal. Just this past week there has been uproar here over a tax rise in the budget that broke one of the government's manifesto promises. Because it broke a promise the rise has been scrapped to honour the manifesto. Had we had a Coalition government this could have been wrapped up as one of your so called compromises instead.

You seek unaccountable compromises after the people have voted and are out of the way. We seek for our parties to be coalitions in themselves and for the compromises to have been formed before the election. That's why our losing party got nearly a 50% higher share of the vote than your winning one. Our winning one got nearly double the vote share that your winning one did.

I'd rather compromises are made honestly with the voters than disingenuously between career politicians with the voters cut out.

[Hazir]

So politicians get to decide who won the election then rather than voters?

I like Government's being held to account. It sounds like a joke but "Compromise" to me is a dirty word whereby Politicians get to dumps their promises while claiming the moral high ground. Abandoning your pledges isn't compromise it is a betrayal. Just this past week there has been uproar here over a tax rise in the budget that broke one of the government's manifesto promises. Because it broke a promise the rise has been scrapped to honour the manifesto. Had we had a Coalition government this could have been wrapped up as one of your so called compromises instead.

You seek unaccountable compromises after the people have voted and are out of the way. We seek for our parties to be coalitions in themselves and for the compromises to have been formed before the election. That's why our losing party got nearly a 50% higher share of the vote than your winning one. Our winning one got nearly double the vote share that your winning one did.

I'd rather compromises are made honestly with the voters than disingenuously between career politicians with the voters cut out.

Politicians representing the majority of the voters get to decide who governs yes. Unlike in your system where politicians representing a mere plurality of the voters decide who gets to govern. A government that then has those policians in a death grip over policies. In our system there is no such death grip; parties that have entered a coalition can also leave it again on the basis of their core values. The process of making deals is fully out in the open as it is debated in Parliament. Including the deal that kicks off a coalition government. The only people overhere who don't like it are people who think that politics should be about the majority ramming through its will. Like you.

[Khendraja'aro]

And, of course, "compromise" is once again a dirty word to Rand. He's arguing for a Tyranny of the Majority, after all.

Which, weirdly enough, isn't that great when it comes to preventing secessionistic issues. Who'd have thought that running roughshod over minorities might cause just a tiny bit of discontent with said minorities?

[Hazir]

And, of course, "compromise" is once again a dirty word to Rand. He's arguing for a Tyranny of the Majority, after all. Which, weirdly enough, isn't that great when it comes to preventing secessionistic issues.

Actually, not even the Tyranny of the Majority, it's more the Diktat of the Plurality he believes in.

[RandBlade]

And, of course, "compromise" is once again a dirty word to Rand. He's arguing for a Tyranny of the Majority, after all.

Which, weirdly enough, isn't that great when it comes to preventing secessionistic issues. Who'd have thought that running roughshod over minorities might cause just a tiny bit of discontent with said minorities?

Im arguing for accountability and the voters deciding who governs rather than dirty deals.

Furthermore considering I just wrote that "Compromise" is a dirty word and gave a rational explanation for why the fact you repeated that back demonstrates nothing other than parrot like ability. If you think compromise isn't a dirty word argue why.