Re: MASSACRED ENGINEERING STUDENTS

In article <4626CD25.F1D1A7@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx says...


krw wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
MassiveProng wrote:
Eeyore Gave us:
James Beck wrote:

Really? Was it put on a referendum and voted on by the people?
If not it isn't DEMOCRACY.

I suppose elections aren't democratic either if the winning party doesn't get > > >50%+ of the
eligible electorate to vote for them.

Do please comment.

There is a serious problem with any vote that is right at the break
point ie 49% to 51%.

ARe you able to comprehend that assertion?

I'm more concerned at a political party claiming to have a 'mandate' when it polled > maybe 40% of the
vote in which maybe only 60% of those eligible turned up for.

If people can't be bothered to show up to vote perhaps their vote
isn't important. It's better they don't.

So we can have a government elected by less than a quarter of the electorate.

So? Fewer than that actually know what or who they're voting for.

The othjer part of the equation is that none of the political parties here reflect my opinions in any
meaningful way.

*** happens. The fact is that one always votes *against* candidates
since none ever is a perfect match for one's beliefs.

I was discussing this with as freind today and we both look like registering 'protest votes' if anything at
all.

Juvinile waste of time. You're simply one of the utopian nuts.

I really do think there should be a 'none of the above' box to tick. I'd be broadly in favour of government
by 'jury' so to speak in fact.

Think O.J. No thanks!

Everyone get a chance to be PM for an hour !

Juvinile.

--
Keith
.

Quantcast