Comments by "Golden Croc" (@GoldenCroc) on "Suella Braverman Sacked as UK Home Secretary, David Cameron In as Foreign Secretary" video.

@Haris1 1 and 2: Yep aware of that too, and there are many foibles depending on country, but as a general rule for the purposes of keeping theses posts relatively short, the "must have above 50% to be safe" is close enough. If it wasnt clear enough, I am not from the UK, but another european country. I have heard the same/similar-ish "excuses to the "we were never asked" for decades now in my native language. I have sadly, you might say, grown a bit cynical of the publics ability to do more than talk, no matter what country. Sweeping changes are led from the top, is my conclusion from studying history and pragmatics of every country I have come across...UK is seemingly in no way different. Just look at the OP, which is presumably on the "dissident" side, yet has no ability to realise how the political system of his country even works, never mind what to do about it. Theres just too few of "us" with true insights vs them and their resources to hope for the public changing their voting patterns enough.... such is my conclusion, sorry to say.
3
It does work, if you vote correctly. Uk population (among most others) seems unable to do that
3
@Haris1 Sweden. Cheers mate.
2
But they were elected, within the confines of your political system? Do people not know what they are voting for?
2
@Aristocratic_Utensil I am sorry, I am a bit confused, what specifically about democracy is it that you think doesnt work? And how do you define "democracy"? To me, it seems like they have gotten exactly what they voted for. Unless you are arguing for the general public being to ignorant to be allowed voting, in which case I really might be inclined to agree somewhat....
2
You were asked, within the confines of your political system. There seems to be very little ambition to change that system from most of the people saying "we were never asked"... Agenda or ignorance?
1
@Haris1 Why are they voting for that uniparty then? Doesnt seem like they are overly fussed if they vote against it?
1
@Haris1 I take it you meant "electoral" system? Its not about third party "chances", its not a lottery. If enough people vote for them, they will win. But people dont, so it wont happen. Ergo, either you live in a literal dictatorship, and the exclamation "we were never asked" doesnt make sense, because, well, duh. Thats how dictatorships work. Or admit the general public is too ignorant/intellectually lazy to vote for anything but status quo even though they could change it. In which case the "we were never asked" only highlights their own mental shortcomings and it could rightly be argued the elite is in the right depriving them of influence since they obviously dont know or care what they even vote for in the first place. In short: They were asked. Perhaps they didnt understand/didnt want to understand the question though. But thats on them, as adults, I think.
1
@idnintel They were voted in. Within the framwork of how you democratic system works. If they have issues with that, I suggest the public at large should take an interest to change it. We have seen scant little of this thus far. But as of yet, they were indeed legally correctly voted in by the public.
1
@Haris1 Well thats in effect how the democratic system in most western nations work. Even if you get seats, you are never assured influence until you can secure whatever slim majority of votes (50.1%+ etc). People will just have to learn to vote in their own interest to a higher degree, rather than idle, boiler plate "this is how we always did it" mindset. Failing this, perhaps it can be argued the population at large had their chance for democratic change but squandered it, and thus everything that happens afterwards is as it should be.
1
@Haris1 I know, I was hoping that me writing "in effect" at the beginning would have shown how the systems gives the same effect in practice even with proportional representation. Lets say you get 49 percent for your party, and the next largest one a measly 5%. Easy win for your party right? But its not, if other parties form a coalition, enough of them to get above the 50%. This is what happened numerous times and many voters in those countries cant understand. "But it was the largest party and they got 0 influence? This isnt democracy". But it is, according to the rules. ,"In effect" / in practice, the results are therfore similar when voting for anti establishment, but them failing to gather enough votes (a majority). In short: The general public should put their money where their mouth is, instead of hoping someone else is going to do their work for them.
1
@Aristocratic_Utensil Ok, lets say thats true. But how is that related to "this" then? What happened here was perfectly democratic, after all.
1
@Aristocratic_Utensil Very well, but I am asking you to specify why? A single reason will do, please.
1
@Aristocratic_Utensil It absolutely can have all of the above, but lets say we are talking about a place which doesnt: How does that differ from the basis of any other political system? They dont neeed to have them either, after all.
1