Un-United Kingdom

[jesus_wept]

And still it didn't get that close. which mean 40% of your populace In Scotland is apposed to being under British rule..

The Scottish are British so, even if they voted for independence, the Scottish would still be "under British rule".

[Aractus]

Voting is indeed a civic duty and a small price to pay for the people who died to give us that right. However, if it were made compulsory, I think I would much rather spoil the ballot paper than be forced into voting.

Pfft, no you wouldn't. Would you also deliberately create a hung jury if forced to serve on one?

The USA's system is one of the weakest forms of "democracy". It is a system that generates a winning candidate primarily based on how much money they spend on their campaign. The campaigns are run to "get their supports to the polling booths", not to convert people to their argument or for that matter win the political argument.

If you want the public to be represented you need everyone - or as many as possible - to vote. If 45% of people show up to vote that means that public opinion is not represented in the polls - all the polls represent is the number of people who showed up to vote to support their parties or candidates, and as mentioned that number is calculated directly on the money spent by the campaign to get their supporters to the ballot box. It doesn't tell you anything about the actual support for the candidate or the party, ergo it's not a true democracy. Example - if Party A gets 50% of their supporters to vote while Party B gets only 40% of their supporters to vote, which one wins? That question is impossible to answer without knowing how many supporters there are for each party in the first place, so for instance if Party A has 40,000 supporters but Party B has 45,000 supporters then Party A would win the election, regardless of the fact that they didn't have as many supporters.

The single factor that is the main determinant of the voter turnout is whether voting is optional or compulsory. On the vote to registration ratio by country for 1945-2001 for parliamentary elections Australia ranked 1st out of 169 countries, the USA ranked 120th behind almost every other first world country there is (source: see pp. 4-5).

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Seems almost more like a debate over FPTP and PR.

[Hoopington]

[quote='Drich' pid='754948' dateline='1411157302']
I think the should allow an unbiased country recount the votes.. Otherwise their will always be lingering questions.

Your input here is staggering....... I wonder how the US would have reacted to that suggestion in 2000?

well mr poopington, in 2000 we were having a scheduled presidential election, and infact has several third party recounts here in the great state of Fl. And, this just for a normal scheduled election. Imagine what steps we would have to take if the confederate states wished to seperate from the union.

I would say it would be handed over to a third party, because neither side would trust the other with the count.

It was a 10% difference, so not that close. The SNP even has the advantage of changing the law on voting age, allowing 16 years olds to vote on the issue, their best performing demographic.

And still it didn't get that close.

which mean 40% of your populace In Scotland is apposed to being under British rule.. Don't look now mr.poopington but countries have been divided even driven to civil war with numbers far less than what turned out to vote independence.
How many times has 'Britain' fought this fight? How many times has it lost?

Honestly, if you're not bothered getting your news from any reliable sources, stick to subjects you know.

Like... Stirring the English pot? Like coming up with cleaver takes on screen names? (Mr Poopington ?)

OK, so...let me just clarify.... in Florida you did have several "third Party " recounts, I know....but, and this is the very important part in relation to your original point, they weren't done by anybodty outside the US were they?

Just think about that for a second, now, what was your original point?

"Opposed to being under British Rule" - Now, you're starting to sound like Mr Salmond (I'm sure, being the expert in all this, you know who that is), voting for independence in a referendum is quite different from opposing British Rule now isn't it? Come on now Drich, I'm sure you can spot the difference.

I'll just point to all those protests after the vote count, that huge mob of people venting their frustration at being under colonial rule...

Wait a minute..... there weren't any. Not one.

Civil war is on it's way...

Incidentally, my screen name is a private joke, "hoop" is another word for the arse hole...and I fail to see how it has any relevance.

You ignorance on this subject is astounding.

[Cyberman]

@Aractus:

Pfft, yes I would. I've spoiled ballot papers in the past when I've disagreed with the choice of candidates and what they represent. It's a legitimate form of protest that doesn't require the surrendering of one's right to vote.