The Muslim vote

Welshy · 24 Apr 2008 at 12:23

I see nothing wrong with them being allowed to vote, they're effectively now British citizens, so they should act accordingly

Vonhelmet · 24 Apr 2008 at 19:46

OH NOES DEMOCRACY!

Nitefly · 24 Apr 2008 at 19:59

Combat squirrel said:
I just dont get how people continue to believe in such random stuff even in a world we understand so much better than many thousands of years ago

People like you are going to feed Dolph's post count for years to come

Monkey Puzzle · 24 Apr 2008 at 20:03

Heh, so true.

Doohickey · 24 Apr 2008 at 20:06

icey_haj said:
Is cleanbluesky trying to turn it into a muslim bashing thread?

Never...

manoz · 24 Apr 2008 at 20:11

Combat squirrel said:
Why does the bbc quote religious craziness?

I just dont get how people continue to believe in such random stuff even in a world we understand so much better than many thousands of years ago

And how has our new understanding of the world disproved God?

FrostedNipple · 24 Apr 2008 at 20:48

Evangelion said:
Hey, it wasn't so long ago that people thought Communism was a REALLY GREAT IDEA(tm). And don't even get me started on the Objectivists.

Well it has worked wonders for south america, and was very good for the ussr till it split and crumbled!

Glaucus · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:01

Evangelion said:
It does have little influence over the UK. At less than 3% of the population, Muslims represent a tiny religious minority.

Hold on there, it can't be discredited so easily.

Just like protesters for things like green peace.
Muslims will vote in there masses. Why stupid English people sit back and wont vote.

This is how the green party have got such a political hold. While there numbers in general public are very low.

It should be the law to vote, just like in Australia. Then the results wont be so twisted and corrupted.

cleanbluesky · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:08

Dolph said:
No it isn't. Knowing the simplest way a result could have occured is not the same as knowing how it did occur.

The term 'how it did occur' is subtly biased, the simplest explanation of how it occurred is exactly the same thing as the most complex explanation of how it did occur - assuming they are both 100% reliable.

Sankari · 24 Apr 2008 at 21:59

AcidHell2 said:
Hold on there, it can't be discredited so easily.

Just like protesters for things like green peace.
Muslims will vote in there masses. Why stupid English people sit back and wont vote.

Even if every single Muslim in the country voted (which would be impossible, since many would be under the voting age) that would still be less than 3% of the population, distributed over a number of different parties. Utterly negligible.

This is how the green party have got such a political hold. While there numbers in general public are very low.

What "political hold" does the green party have? Which green party are you talking about? :confused:

Does the UK even have a full-scale green party? They must be living under a rock, because I've never heard of them having any impact on national legislation.

It should be the law to vote, just like in Australia. Then the results wont be so twisted and corrupted.

The results aren't "twisted and corrupted"; they're a perfect example of democracy at work: certain people getting into power because other people voted for them.

Speaking as an Australian, I do think that mandatory voting is preferable - but it's not a miracle cure. It may increase the number of votes, but it won't necessarily give you the type of votes you're looking for (and it won't guarantee extra votes for your preferred party!)

Under mandatory voting, all a punter has to do is enter the booth, spoil his ballot and walk out. Job done! He'll be recorded as having "voted", but his vote won't actually count towards the final result.

Not quite what you were looking for, I suggest.

Sankari · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:00

FrostedNipple said:
Well it has worked wonders for south america, and was very good for the ussr till it split and crumbled!

Yeah, two great examples of Communist success! :rolleyes:

Glaucus · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:04

Evangelion said:
What "political hold" does the green party have? Which green party are you talking about? Does the UK even have a full-scale green party? They must be living under a rock, because I've never heard of them having any impact on national legislation.
.

why do you think parties like green pace get any seats? Because there members WILL vote. seeing as the turn out for elections is so small. Even small groups who have a near 100% member turn out. Create twisted results.

Sankari · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:19

AcidHell2 said:
why do you think parties like green pace get any seats?

Greenpeace is not a political party in the UK, and it doesn't have MPs. So I have no idea what you're talking about. :confused:

Because there members WILL vote. seeing as the turn out for elections is so small. Even small groups who have a near 100% member turn out.Create twisted results.

How would that be a twisted result? It would reflect popular support of the party. What's "twisted" here?

Glaucus · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:20

Evangelion said:
Greenpeace is not a political party in the UK, and it doesn't have MPs. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news

Sankari · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:26

AcidHell2 said:
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news

That's not Greenpeace, that's the Green Party! Good grief... :rolleyes:

And guess how many MPs do they have? None.

They have 3 MEPs and 2 members of the London Assembly. Their influence on legislation is therefore less than negligible; it is virtually non-existent.

I think you need to find a better example for your theory. This one's dead in the water.

Tefal · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:34

Evangelion said:
Yeah, two great examples of Communist success!

worked for china

Glaucus · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:35

How about BNP, 20 elected members. It's not just mp's it local council seats as well. The fact is. Small vocal groups will have high % turnouts. But the general public has low turnouts.

Monkey Puzzle · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:37

Tefal said:
worked for china

Not really. All the communist ideas had the same disastrous effects they had when Stalin introduced them in Russia.

Tefal · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:37

AcidHell2 said:
But the general public has low turnouts.

Yes but if you ask the "general" public what he difference between the conservatives and labor (insert major party) is they probbably wont know etc, ans as such hardly seams worth picking one over the other.

Glaucus · 24 Apr 2008 at 22:39

Tefal said:
Yes but if you ask the "general" public what he difference between the conservatives and labor (insert major party) is they probbably wont know etc, ans as such hardly seams worth picking one over the other.

which is where compulsory canvassing should be established.
It's absolutely stupid we don't get a leaflet through *** door, with all the partys and there main polices on.

Basic politics isn't even taught at school.