The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[altus 540]

1 hour ago, spilldig said:

That must be why Boris is there then, because the minority voted him in.

Yes, that's the way our first past the post electoral system works. There has not been a government elected with 50% or more of the vote that wasn't a coalition of parties since Irish independence in 1922.

[trastrick 866]

11 hours ago, altus said:

Yes, that's the way our first past the post electoral system works. There has not been a government elected with 50% or more of the vote that wasn't a coalition of parties since Irish independence in 1922.

Indeed!

 

I recall Bill Clinton elected with only 43% of the popular vote.

Edited February 23, 2022 by trastrick

[spilldig 188]

11 hours ago, altus said:

Yes, that's the way our first past the post electoral system works. There has not been a government elected with 50% or more of the vote that wasn't a coalition of parties since Irish independence in 1922.

Yes indeed and I suppose it  will be split even more as time goes on with more and more political parties on the scene.

[altus 540]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

Indeed!

 

I recall Bill Clinton elected with only 43% of the popular vote.

At least he did get more votes than anyone else. Strange you can remember that far back but not to the more recent election when Trump won despite Hillary getting more votes than him. That's a much better demonstration of the problems with first past the post systems.

[francypants 441]

Thought this was supposed to be The Royal Family thread !

 

[hackey lad 3,968]

1 minute ago, francypants said:

Thought this was supposed to be The Royal Family thread !

 

[trastrick 866]

43 minutes ago, altus said:

At least he did get more votes than anyone else. Strange you can remember that far back but not to the more recent election when Trump won despite Hillary getting more votes than him. That's a much better demonstration of the problems with first past the post systems.

Huh?

 

Now why would you falsely claim I can't remember that "Trump won despite Hillary getting more votes than him"?

 

 

[Padders 2,863]

15 minutes ago, francypants said:

Thought this was supposed to be The Royal Family thread !

 

Lerrum get on with it,

I'm sick to the back teeth of the disparaging, slurs, and insults directed at my ancesters.

None so brave on here as "SIR RAYMONDO de PADDERS."

[poppet2 13]

Royal protection officer talks of the selfishness of Prince Andrew.  2.49 mins

 

[altus 540]

On 23/02/2022 at 11:45, trastrick said:

Huh?

 

Now why would you falsely claim I can't remember that "Trump won despite Hillary getting more votes than him"?

Sorry, I should have put sarcasm tags around it. I know you'll have remembered it, I was highlighting the fact you used a poor example of your point because the obviously better example would mean you saying something negative about Trump.

 

Anyway, back on topic. If Liz dies because Charlie gave her covid does that count as regicide? I know bumping off the incumbent was a traditionally acceptable way of triggering a succession but what's the legal situation on that these days?

[trastrick 866]

49 minutes ago, altus said:

Sorry, I should have put sarcasm tags around it. I know you'll have remembered it, I was highlighting the fact you used a poor example of your point because the obviously better example would mean you saying something negative about Trump.

 

Anyway, back on topic. If Liz dies because Charlie gave her covid does that count as regicide? I know bumping off the incumbent was a traditionally acceptable way of triggering a succession but what's the legal situation on that these days?

You're wrong again. 

 

Trump got 47% of the popular vote in losing the election. Which is more than Clinton got (43%) when he won. I'd say that can be considered a positive for Trump, not a negative.

 

My point was that the popular vote is not how Presidents are elected.

 

Pundits blame Hillary for chasing the popular vote in guaranteed States like New York and California, when should should have been in flyover States like Wisconsin and the Mid West and South.

 

Trump went after every Electoral College vote, no matter how few were available. It worked.

 

[altus 540]

47 minutes ago, trastrick said:

You're wrong again. 

 

Trump got 47% of the popular vote in losing the election. Which is more than Clinton got (43%) when he won. I'd say that can be considered a positive for Trump, not a negative.

When Clinton won in 1992, Ross Perot took 18.9% of the vote. Trump didn't face a significant third candidate soaking up nearly 20% of the vote in either of the elections he stood in, so your comparing Trump's numbers against Clinton's isn't a fair comparison. Trump wouldn't even have got 40% of the vote if there'd been a Perot like candidate in the elections he stood in. That is particularly the case as Perot presented himself as the political outsider, just like Trump, and would certainly have appealed more to Trump voters than either Hillary or Biden ones.

 

Quote

My point was that the popular vote is not how Presidents are elected.

 

Pundits blame Hillary for chasing the popular vote in guaranteed States like New York and California, when should should have been in flyover States like Wisconsin and the Mid West and South.

 

Trump went after every Electoral College vote, no matter how few were available. It worked.

The US version of first past the post is even worse than the UK one. At least in this country there are approximately the same number of voters per representative. In the US some states have about 4 times as many voters per representative than others.