John Cartmell wrote:
> In article <41a52244$0$43606$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
> Old Codger wrote:
>> Rooney wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:09:15 +0000, Oz
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rooney writes
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:25:08 +0000, Oz
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One function of a working democracy is to allow freedom for
>>>>>> minorities within it, where what they do does not affect others.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's nothing to do with the definition of democracy. It's just
>>>>> majority rule - no more, no less.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say definition, I said 'one function of a working'.
>>>
>>>
>>> The function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule - no
>>> more, no less.
>
>> So we haven't got a working democracy. Young Tone did not get a
>> majority vote, just a majority of the parliamentary seats.
>
> I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding the meaning of
> 'majority vote'. The last time the majority vote didn't produce the
> next government was in 1951.

I rather doubt it. My meaning is that, of those who voted, the majority
voted for MPs who were not members of the "winning" party. I think that is
a situation that has existed in most, if not all, elections since the war.
I also think that my meaning is recognised my the majority of the British
people.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	John Cartmell
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:21:21 +0000 (GMT)

In article <41a8be06$0$529$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
Codger wrote:
> John Cartmell wrote:
> > In article <41a52244$0$43606$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, Old
> > Codger wrote:
> >> Rooney wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:09:15 +0000, Oz
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Rooney writes
> >>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:25:08 +0000, Oz
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> One function of a working democracy is to allow freedom for
> >>>>>> minorities within it, where what they do does not affect others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's nothing to do with the definition of democracy. It's just
> >>>>> majority rule - no more, no less.
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't say definition, I said 'one function of a working'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule - no
> >>> more, no less.
> >
> >> So we haven't got a working democracy. Young Tone did not get a
> >> majority vote, just a majority of the parliamentary seats.
> >
> > I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding the meaning of
> > 'majority vote'. The last time the majority vote didn't produce the
> > next government was in 1951.

> I rather doubt it. My meaning is that, of those who voted, the majority
> voted for MPs who were not members of the "winning" party. I think
> that is a situation that has existed in most, if not all, elections
> since the war. I also think that my meaning is recognised my the
> majority of the British people.

It's a technical definition and its technical meaning is not the same as
the one you give. A majority vote is a majority of the votes cast.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

From:	Old Codger
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:02:59 -0000

John Cartmell wrote:
> In article <41a8be06$0$529$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
> Codger wrote:
>> John Cartmell wrote:
>>> In article <41a52244$0$43606$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
>>> Old Codger wrote:
>>>> Rooney wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:09:15 +0000, Oz
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rooney writes
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:25:08 +0000, Oz
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One function of a working democracy is to allow freedom for
>>>>>>>> minorities within it, where what they do does not affect
>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's nothing to do with the definition of democracy. It's just
>>>>>>> majority rule - no more, no less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say definition, I said 'one function of a working'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule - no
>>>>> more, no less.
>>>
>>>> So we haven't got a working democracy. Young Tone did not get a
>>>> majority vote, just a majority of the parliamentary seats.
>>>
>>> I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding the meaning of
>>> 'majority vote'. The last time the majority vote didn't produce the
>>> next government was in 1951.
>
>> I rather doubt it. My meaning is that, of those who voted, the
>> majority voted for MPs who were not members of the "winning" party.
>> I think that is a situation that has existed in most, if not all,
>> elections since the war. I also think that my meaning is recognised
>> my the majority of the British people.
>
> It's a technical definition and its technical meaning is not the same
> as the one you give. A majority vote is a majority of the votes cast.

Yes it is. I gave what you describe as the "technical meaning". How can
you say that: 'of those who voted, the majority voted for MPs who were not
members of the "winning" party' is not a majority vote. The majority of the
votes cast were *not* for members of the winning party. QED.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	John Cartmell
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:57:23 +0000 (GMT)

In article <41a907aa$0$546$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
Codger wrote:
> John Cartmell wrote:
> > In article <41a8be06$0$529$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
> > Codger wrote:
> >> John Cartmell wrote:
> >>> In article <41a52244$0$43606$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
> >>> Old Codger wrote:
> >>>> Rooney wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:09:15 +0000, Oz
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Rooney writes
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:25:08 +0000, Oz
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> One function of a working democracy is to allow freedom for
> >>>>>>>> minorities within it, where what they do does not affect others.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's nothing to do with the definition of democracy. It's just
> >>>>>>> majority rule - no more, no less.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I didn't say definition, I said 'one function of a working'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule - no
> >>>>> more, no less.
> >>>
> >>>> So we haven't got a working democracy. Young Tone did not get a
> >>>> majority vote, just a majority of the parliamentary seats.
> >>>
> >>> I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding the meaning of
> >>> 'majority vote'. The last time the majority vote didn't produce the
> >>> next government was in 1951.
> >
> >> I rather doubt it. My meaning is that, of those who voted, the
> >> majority voted for MPs who were not members of the "winning" party. I
> >> think that is a situation that has existed in most, if not all,
> >> elections since the war. I also think that my meaning is recognised
> >> my the majority of the British people.

> > It's a technical definition and its technical meaning is not the same
> > as the one you give. A majority vote is a majority of the votes cast.

> Yes it is. I gave what you describe as the "technical meaning". How
> can you say that: 'of those who voted, the majority voted for MPs who
> were not members of the "winning" party' is not a majority vote. The
> majority of the votes cast were *not* for members of the winning party.

You're conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a single
constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the *one* you are
discussing.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

From:	Hamish
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:33:28 -0000

"John Cartmell" wrote in message > You're
conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a single
> constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the *one* you are
> discussing.
>
Are you a politition ? you have taken a perfectly clear statement with no
ambiguous meaning, i.e.
"The majority of the British electorate voted for a party other than the one
that won the election"
and tried to make it sound as if it is unclear or a rather obscure technical
interpretation of the situation.

If we have an upper house it has to have power to alter or prevent
legislation. If it has the sole capability of delaying legislation for a
short time them we might as well abolish it. While we do that, there is then
little point in having an expensive commons. In the end it passes
legislation decided during the preparation of the manifesto and controled by
the winning party leader as PM.

The PM makes all decisions and passes them directly to the Queen as head
of state to sign off into law, this would save a lot of bother and
"undemocratic" delay.

From:	John Cartmell
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:53:17 +0000 (GMT)

In article , Hamish
wrote:
> Are you a politition ? you have taken a perfectly clear statement with
> no ambiguous meaning, i.e. "The majority of the British electorate
> voted for a party other than the one that won the election" and tried
> to make it sound as if it is unclear or a rather obscure technical
> interpretation of the situation.

You have taken a short phrase with a technical definition and decided that
you would like it to have a different meaning to fit your bias even though
that needs a complex re-working of the basic definition.

> If we have an upper house it has to have power to alter or prevent
> legislation. If it has the sole capability of delaying legislation for a
> short time them we might as well abolish it. While we do that, there is
> then little point in having an expensive commons. In the end it passes
> legislation decided during the preparation of the manifesto and
> controled by the winning party leader as PM.

The role of the upper house is as a scrutiny body. It's there to amend
legislation to make it work better - not to change or block legislation.
That's why the Parliament Act exists - to force through legislation that
the upper house won't accept. Your comment shows that you simply don't
understand what happened in this case where the Commons passed legislation
against the wishes of the PM.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

From:	Dorian
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:58:07 GMT

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:53:17 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

>In article , Hamish
> wrote:
>> Are you a politition ? you have taken a perfectly clear statement with
>> no ambiguous meaning, i.e. "The majority of the British electorate
>> voted for a party other than the one that won the election" and tried
>> to make it sound as if it is unclear or a rather obscure technical
>> interpretation of the situation.
>
>You have taken a short phrase with a technical definition and decided that
>you would like it to have a different meaning to fit your bias even though
>that needs a complex re-working of the basic definition.
>
>> If we have an upper house it has to have power to alter or prevent
>> legislation. If it has the sole capability of delaying legislation for a
>> short time them we might as well abolish it. While we do that, there is
>> then little point in having an expensive commons. In the end it passes
>> legislation decided during the preparation of the manifesto and
>> controled by the winning party leader as PM.
>
>The role of the upper house is as a scrutiny body. It's there to amend
>legislation to make it work better - not to change or block legislation.
>That's why the Parliament Act exists - to force through legislation that
>the upper house won't accept. Your comment shows that you simply don't
>understand what happened in this case where the Commons passed legislation
>against the wishes of the PM.

He would do well in the upper house.

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:46:34 +0000

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 08:33:28 -0000, "Hamish"
wrote:

>
>"John Cartmell" wrote in message > You're
>conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a single
>> constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the *one* you are
>> discussing.
>>
> Are you a politition ? you have taken a perfectly clear statement with no
>ambiguous meaning, i.e.
>"The majority of the British electorate voted for a party other than the one
>that won the election"
>and tried to make it sound as if it is unclear or a rather obscure technical
>interpretation of the situation.

It wasn't at all clear - hence three different interpretations thus
far.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	Old Codger
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:23:28 -0000

John Cartmell wrote:
> In article <41a907aa$0$546$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
> Codger wrote:
>> John Cartmell wrote:
>>> In article <41a8be06$0$529$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
>>> Codger wrote:
>>>> John Cartmell wrote:
>>>>> In article <41a52244$0$43606$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
>>>>> Old Codger wrote:
>>>>>> Rooney wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:09:15 +0000, Oz
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rooney writes
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:25:08 +0000, Oz
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One function of a working democracy is to allow freedom for
>>>>>>>>>> minorities within it, where what they do does not affect
>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's nothing to do with the definition of democracy. It's
>>>>>>>>> just majority rule - no more, no less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't say definition, I said 'one function of a working'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule -
>>>>>>> no more, no less.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So we haven't got a working democracy. Young Tone did not get a
>>>>>> majority vote, just a majority of the parliamentary seats.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding the meaning of
>>>>> 'majority vote'. The last time the majority vote didn't produce
>>>>> the next government was in 1951.
>>>
>>>> I rather doubt it. My meaning is that, of those who voted, the
>>>> majority voted for MPs who were not members of the "winning"
>>>> party. I think that is a situation that has existed in most, if
>>>> not all, elections since the war. I also think that my meaning is
>>>> recognised my the majority of the British people.
>
>>> It's a technical definition and its technical meaning is not the
>>> same as the one you give. A majority vote is a majority of the
>>> votes cast.
>
>> Yes it is. I gave what you describe as the "technical meaning". How
>> can you say that: 'of those who voted, the majority voted for MPs
>> who were not members of the "winning" party' is not a majority vote.
>> The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members of the winning
>> party.
>
> You're conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a
> single constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the
> *one* you are discussing.

What part of "The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members of the
winning party" do you not understand?

I do wonder about our education system at times, and to have two of them
posting in the same thread - incredible, or is it?

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	Dorian
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:03:27 GMT

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:23:28 -0000, "Old Codger"
wrote:

>John Cartmell wrote:
>> In article <41a907aa$0$546$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
>> Codger wrote:
>>> John Cartmell wrote:
>>>> In article <41a8be06$0$529$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
>>>> Codger wrote:
>>>>> John Cartmell wrote:
>>>>>> In article <41a52244$0$43606$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
>>>>>> Old Codger wrote:
>>>>>>> Rooney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:09:15 +0000, Oz
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rooney writes
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:25:08 +0000, Oz
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> One function of a working democracy is to allow freedom for
>>>>>>>>>>> minorities within it, where what they do does not affect
>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's nothing to do with the definition of democracy. It's
>>>>>>>>>> just majority rule - no more, no less.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't say definition, I said 'one function of a working'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule -
>>>>>>>> no more, no less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So we haven't got a working democracy. Young Tone did not get a
>>>>>>> majority vote, just a majority of the parliamentary seats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding the meaning of
>>>>>> 'majority vote'. The last time the majority vote didn't produce
>>>>>> the next government was in 1951.
>>>>
>>>>> I rather doubt it. My meaning is that, of those who voted, the
>>>>> majority voted for MPs who were not members of the "winning"
>>>>> party. I think that is a situation that has existed in most, if
>>>>> not all, elections since the war. I also think that my meaning is
>>>>> recognised my the majority of the British people.
>>
>>>> It's a technical definition and its technical meaning is not the
>>>> same as the one you give. A majority vote is a majority of the
>>>> votes cast.
>>
>>> Yes it is. I gave what you describe as the "technical meaning". How
>>> can you say that: 'of those who voted, the majority voted for MPs
>>> who were not members of the "winning" party' is not a majority vote.
>>> The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members of the winning
>>> party.
>>
>> You're conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a
>> single constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the
>> *one* you are discussing.
>
>What part of "The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members of the
>winning party" do you not understand?
>
>I do wonder about our education system at times, and to have two of them
>posting in the same thread - incredible, or is it?

Do you have any friends?

From:	Old Codger
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:51:19 -0000

Dorian wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:23:28 -0000, "Old Codger"
> wrote:
>
>> I do wonder about our education system at times, and to have two of
>> them posting in the same thread - incredible, or is it?
>
> Do you have any friends?

Actually I do have a few and just lately I have begun to realise that they
are all probably of above average intelligence.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	Dorian
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:28:48 GMT

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:51:19 -0000, "Old Codger"
wrote:

>Dorian wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:23:28 -0000, "Old Codger"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I do wonder about our education system at times, and to have two of
>>> them posting in the same thread - incredible, or is it?
>>
>> Do you have any friends?
>
>Actually I do have a few and just lately I have begun to realise that they
>are all probably of above average intelligence.

I doubt you could be rated average!

From:	John Cartmell
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:31:33 +0000 (GMT)

In article <41aa0998$0$48222$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
Codger wrote:
> > You're conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a
> > single constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the
> > *one* you are discussing.

> What part of "The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members of
> the winning party" do you not understand?

The one where you changed your definition half way through?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

From:	Old Codger
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:24:55 -0000

John Cartmell wrote:
> In article <41aa0998$0$48222$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
> Codger wrote:
>>> You're conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a
>>> single constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the
>>> *one* you are discussing.
>
>> What part of "The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members
>> of the winning party" do you not understand?
>
> The one where you changed your definition half way through?

My first statement on this was:

"Young Tone did not get a majority vote, just a majority of the
parliamentary seats."

Where is the change in definition?

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	John Cartmell
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:55:01 +0000 (GMT)

In article <41ab93b2$0$24079$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, Old
Codger wrote:
> John Cartmell wrote:
> > In article <41aa0998$0$48222$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
> > Codger wrote:
> >>> You're conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a
> >>> single constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the
> >>> *one* you are discussing.
> >
> >> What part of "The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members
> >> of the winning party" do you not understand?
> >
> > The one where you changed your definition half way through?

> My first statement on this was:

> "Young Tone did not get a majority vote, just a majority of the
> parliamentary seats."

> Where is the change in definition?

The only vote that the PM gets is in the House of Commons where government
Bills and votes of confidence are made. All HoC votes are, by definition,
for one proposal at a time and are either passed or fail by a majority.

The votes you refer to are votes in each parliamentary seat and each one is
a separate vote - some producing a majority of votes cast and others simply
more than the next.

You can't, with sense, combine the results of votes in the HoC with the
results of votes in the Constituencies.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

From:	Mike Lyle
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:10:33 -0000

John Cartmell wrote:
[...]

I wonder if anybody spotted my message asking if you'd mind snipping
uk.rec.gardening out of the very long list of groups this discussion
is being posted to? Nothing against the discussion, but we don't seem
to be joining in, and it does rather fill the screen.

Thanks,
Mike.

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:15:58 +0000

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:10:33 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

>John Cartmell wrote:
>[...]
>
>I wonder if anybody spotted my message asking if you'd mind snipping
>uk.rec.gardening out of the very long list of groups this discussion
>is being posted to? Nothing against the discussion, but we don't seem
>to be joining in, and it does rather fill the screen.
>
>Thanks,
>Mike.
>

Done - let's leave the gardeners out of this, shall we, and follow up
to my post.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:07:34 +0000

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:55:01 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

>In article <41ab93b2$0$24079$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, Old
>Codger wrote:
>> John Cartmell wrote:
>> > In article <41aa0998$0$48222$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
>> > Codger wrote:
>> >>> You're conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a
>> >>> single constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the
>> >>> *one* you are discussing.
>> >
>> >> What part of "The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members
>> >> of the winning party" do you not understand?
>> >
>> > The one where you changed your definition half way through?
>
>> My first statement on this was:
>
>> "Young Tone did not get a majority vote, just a majority of the
>> parliamentary seats."
>
>> Where is the change in definition?
>
>The only vote that the PM gets is in the House of Commons where government
>Bills and votes of confidence are made. All HoC votes are, by definition,
>for one proposal at a time and are either passed or fail by a majority.
>
>The votes you refer to are votes in each parliamentary seat and each one is
>a separate vote - some producing a majority of votes cast and others simply
>more than the next.
>
>You can't, with sense, combine the results of votes in the HoC with the
>results of votes in the Constituencies.

Precisely.
Now what's this I hear about the Waterloo Cup being brought forward to
evade the new law?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	Old Codger
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 22:22:59 -0000

John Cartmell wrote:
> In article <41ab93b2$0$24079$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>, Old
> Codger wrote:
>> John Cartmell wrote:
>>> In article <41aa0998$0$48222$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
>>> Old Codger wrote:
>>>>> You're conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors
>>>>> within a single constituency; another is the MsP. You need to
>>>>> identify the *one* you are discussing.
>>>
>>>> What part of "The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members
>>>> of the winning party" do you not understand?
>>>
>>> The one where you changed your definition half way through?
>
>> My first statement on this was:
>
>> "Young Tone did not get a majority vote, just a majority of the
>> parliamentary seats."
>
>> Where is the change in definition?
>
> The only vote that the PM gets is in the House of Commons where
> government Bills and votes of confidence are made. All HoC votes are,
> by definition, for one proposal at a time and are either passed or
> fail by a majority.
>
> The votes you refer to are votes in each parliamentary seat and each
> one is a separate vote - some producing a majority of votes cast and
> others simply more than the next.
>
> You can't, with sense, combine the results of votes in the HoC with
> the results of votes in the Constituencies.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, me thinks it is you who are confused.

In response to Rooney's "The function of a working democracy is to enact
majority rule - no more, no less."

I wrote:

"So we haven't got a working democracy. Young Tone did not get a majority
vote, just a majority of the parliamentary seats."

I was referring to Rooney's definition of a working democracy and *not*
trying to combine "votes in the HoC with the results of votes in the
constituencies".

I suppose I could have made it easier for you to understand if I had
referred to "Young Tone's party" instead of "Young Tone".

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	Michael Saunby
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:33:34 -0000

"Old Codger" wrote in message
news:41aa0998$0$48222$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> John Cartmell wrote:
>> In article <41a907aa$0$546$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old

....

>
> I do wonder about our education system at times, and to have two of them
> posting in the same thread - incredible, or is it?
>

I believe John is, or perhaps was (retired?), a teacher. So on that basis,
there could well be hundreds of them by now. It's a "meme" thing.

Michael Saunby

From:	Old Codger
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:48:49 -0000

Michael Saunby wrote:
> "Old Codger" wrote in message
> news:41aa0998$0$48222$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>> John Cartmell wrote:
>>> In article <41a907aa$0$546$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I do wonder about our education system at times, and to have two of
>> them posting in the same thread - incredible, or is it?
>>
>
> I believe John is, or perhaps was (retired?), a teacher. So on that
> basis, there could well be hundreds of them by now. It's a "meme"
> thing.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. No wonder the country is in such a state.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:28:33 +0000

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:23:28 -0000, "Old Codger"
wrote:

>What part of "The majority of the votes cast were *not* for members of the
>winning party" do you not understand?

Whose votes - that's the issue. Your post was highly ambiguous.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	BAC
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:00:02 -0000

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
news:4d14a56005john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
> In article <41a907aa$0$546$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
> Codger wrote:
> > John Cartmell wrote:
> > > In article <41a8be06$0$529$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, Old
> > > Codger wrote:
> > >> John Cartmell wrote:
> > >>> In article <41a52244$0$43606$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net>,
> > >>> Old Codger wrote:
> > >>>> Rooney wrote:
> > >>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:09:15 +0000, Oz
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Rooney writes
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:25:08 +0000, Oz
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> One function of a working democracy is to allow freedom for
> > >>>>>>>> minorities within it, where what they do does not affect
others.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> That's nothing to do with the definition of democracy. It's just
> > >>>>>>> majority rule - no more, no less.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I didn't say definition, I said 'one function of a working'.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The function of a working democracy is to enact majority rule - no
> > >>>>> more, no less.
> > >>>
> > >>>> So we haven't got a working democracy. Young Tone did not get a
> > >>>> majority vote, just a majority of the parliamentary seats.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding the meaning of
> > >>> 'majority vote'. The last time the majority vote didn't produce the
> > >>> next government was in 1951.
> > >
> > >> I rather doubt it. My meaning is that, of those who voted, the
> > >> majority voted for MPs who were not members of the "winning" party. I
> > >> think that is a situation that has existed in most, if not all,
> > >> elections since the war. I also think that my meaning is recognised
> > >> my the majority of the British people.
>
> > > It's a technical definition and its technical meaning is not the same
> > > as the one you give. A majority vote is a majority of the votes cast.
>
> > Yes it is. I gave what you describe as the "technical meaning". How
> > can you say that: 'of those who voted, the majority voted for MPs who
> > were not members of the "winning" party' is not a majority vote. The
> > majority of the votes cast were *not* for members of the winning party.
>
> You're conflating two electoral groups. One is the electors within a
single
> constituency; another is the MsP. You need to identify the *one* you are
> discussing.
>

IMO, it's quite clear he was referring to a majority of the popular vote,
nationwide.