Robert Mugabe received a greater share of the vote quite fairly, probably Saddam would have too. We do not have a democraticaly elected government, and they don't even canvas our opinions or pay attention to what the people want. Surely we should all refuse to cooperate and have nothing to do with this government as they represent only a small minority of the electorate, and themselves!
2006-09-17 11:09:03 · 7 answers · asked by Lostinspace 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
The bigger question is "how many people can actually be bothered to vote". Knowing full well that any elected government, regardless of policy, will still fail to deliver on the majority of promises made pre election. When has any government made your life better?.
2006-09-17 11:13:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dave313 is incorrect. Under the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system of Proportional Representation as used in elections for Elected Mayors (where they exist) people still vote for a candidate. They mark the candidates in order of preference, with 1 being their first choice, 2 their second choice, etc. The top two candidates progress to the next round, with the second choice votes of those eliminated candidates being added to the remaining candidates until one candidate has 50.1% of the vote (at least).
To claim that Mugabe received a greater share of the vote "quite fairly" is silly. He banned opposition candidates from standing in many parts of the country, and murdered, intimidated and imprisoned most opposition candidates. Independent observers from the US, European Union and other organisations were unanimous in their opinion that the elections were not fair.
Of course Saddam received a greater share oft he vote than Labour: he was the only candidate allowed to stand!
2006-09-19 09:50:37 · answer #2 · answered by Timothy M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitler only got 33% under proportional representation, if you have more than 2 candidates there will always be the fact that the winner may get less than half the votes, however anything other than first past the post means you cannot vote for the individual, P.R means the party win the seats and appoint their people to fill them, Hitler had more seats than mates lined up to fill them. also independents have no chance of office.
Flawed as it is our system is as good as it gets.
2006-09-17 11:26:09 · answer #3 · answered by "Call me Dave" 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Robert Mugabe won fairly! If you call intimidation, murder, destruction of ballot boxes and imprisoning the opposition fair! As for Blair and his cronies, unfortunately we do not have proportional representation, neither do the English have their own assembly, had we have done so the story would have been very different!
2006-09-17 11:23:03 · answer #4 · answered by Grannygrump 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The situation is worse if you include those who did not vote at all. Only 21% voted for the Labour government, 79% did not. Non-partisan (i.e. abolition of political parties) proportional representation would be better.
2006-09-17 11:26:12 · answer #5 · answered by Darrell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
MUGABE won fairly? Jesus Christ, the guys winning margins tend to outnumber his own population.
Not that I'm a Labour supporter mind you, oh God no.
2006-09-17 11:16:40 · answer #6 · answered by chris_ninety1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which "vote" are we talking about here?
2006-09-17 11:11:38 · answer #7 · answered by Lavender 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋