Originally posted by saffron60:
Originally posted by Atobe:
''Are you a comedian genious, or
something ?
You have conveniently left out the fact that in the UK, there were
57 Political Parties that participated
in the
UK Election 2005.''
You also conveniently left out the fact that there's only 3 major
political parties that will ever stand the chance of being elected
into the government. They are labour, conservative and liberal
democrates. These 3 parties will always get the majority of votes
in the UK elections. i went to the wikipedia website and i found
that the 57 political parties were the parties which had more than
500 votes, you left out those which had less votes than that. (Next
time, don't be so careless!!!!) There's actually more than that,
probably over a 100 parties that participated in the 2005 UK
elections.
Even when there's more than 100 political parties involved, it
doesn't make a diference because the majority of the votes will go
to the 3 parties.
I try not to be rude to you, but
somehow you seem to be begging for the maximum grand slam that I
normally reserve for OM - considering that he is supposed to be one
cut above most of us with his self-acclaimed PhD, but display a
hopeless cognitive sense of the plights of average
Singaporeans.
What have you to offer but simple stubborn stupidity that borders
on the realm of idiocy ?
In another thread, I said that "for a while I thought stupidissmart
is dumber than OM, now it seems that you have taken the cake and
eat it too" - it seems that you are fulfilling this point to a
'T'.
Even OM had walked away, but you seem to have taken the cudgel on
his behalf - it shows how dumb you can be even with numbers, let
alone economic theories and concepts.
You are probably the only person to give any whim of a chance to
the Liberal Democrats to form the next Government - as seen from
their performance over the last twenty years of UK Politics.
Whether it is 2 or 3 UK political parties, was that the crux of the
matter, or was it the fact that in the UK Elections - 57 political
parties have diluted or spread the numbers of vote, which would
otherwise have helped the major parties to a different election
outcome ?
Those insignificant parties have drawn away important votes that
would have bolstered those 3 major contenders; especially when
there are more then two parties contesting in every UK
constituencies.
Compared to Singapore, despite having an almost one-to-one party
contests - the incumbent Singapore Ruling Party could not
outperform the result of the UK Labor Party - even when it had
total control of the broadcast and print medias, PLUS the capacity
to gerrymeandering with political boundaries to dilute known areas
that support the Other Parties..
''Compared to the
restrictive Singapore's political environment, the Political
Parties in UK enjoy far greater liberties and media accessibilities
to reach out to the 27,110,727 participating in the election - from
a UK
population of 60,209,500.
This 27,110,727 eligible voters form 45 per cent participation of
the UK population.''
That's true and that's why you have all sorts of political parties
in the elections like Official monster raving loony party, legalize
cannabis alliance, rainbow dream ticket, etc. I say, having more
than 100 political parties is pretty groovy eh? Just because there's so many political parties, it
doesn't mean you want to vote for them, that is how the Brits
think, but i don't know about you.
I also found on another website that had the political parties
which participated in the 2001 UK elections, there's parties such
as (these are some of the ones with more interesting names):
Defend The Welfare State Against Blairism
Fancy Dress Party
New Millenium Bean
Rock& Roll Loony Party
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/e01/parties2001.htm
The majority of Brits have more sense than to vote for all sorts of
funny parties just because they exist.
Despite not being able to cope
with economic theories and concepts, you seem to be unable to cope
with numbers as well.
If you had looked at the
UK Election Results 2005 - (right to the bottom of the site) -
you will probably see the number of votes that the lesser parties
have taken away from the 3 major UK political parties. Even when
those votes did not even amount to 0.0% of the votes, it numbered
from 500 plus to 9000 plus.
The total votes for the 3 front running parties amounted to
24,316,595 out of a total of 27,110,727; and the number of votes
that went to those 'funny' parties amounted to 2,794,132.
Now will you reconsider your false statement that "the majority of the Brits have more sense
than to vote for all sorts of funny parties just because they
exist" ?
Seeing your track record, you are hell bent to salvage your
deflated saffron scent that only you can - and want to -
appreciate.
''Is it not a shame that
with a population of only 4,500,000 - Singapore only saw a
participation from only 1,222,884 actual voters - which is only 27
per cent participation of the population ?
Is it not a bigger embarrassment that even with total control of
the broadcast and print media, as well as gerrymeandering with
political boundaries, and use of State facilities - the incumbent
Ruling Party in Singapore could only manage 35% of the votes; while
Labor in UK took 32.3% of the votes in a far more liberal political
environment ?''
As mentioned earlier, the UK elections were pretty much dominated
by the 3 political parties, so for labour to win with 1/3 of the
votes seems fair enough. Don't mean to nit pick, but it's actually
35.3% not 32.3% You don't sound like you know much about british
politics, i would sit this one out if i were you.
Not that you are great with
numbers, but your expertise at nit picking had actually helped to
identify that I had actually quoted the 32.3% from the Conservative
Party, and erroneously attribute it to Labor.
You seem pretty much anxious to score points, but you had better be
up to your mark.
