>>If they have been elected, they are entitled to be there.
Exactly. You cannot judge the quality of a system by how much it gives you what you want.
This country voted for Thatcher. She had a right to govern. Eventually she didn't. Lots of people didn't like her and what she did. Tough s***. She was elected. Ditto Blair. Ditto Cameron.
Don't take that to mean I particularly approve of the system, but it is our system and none of those three broke it.
I wouldn't vote for UKIP. Which is my right. Some people will, which is their right. If enough people vote for UKIP, UKIP will get in. Which, however I might not like it, is how the system must work.
I may think the voters are geniuses or planks, but this vilification of someone because you don't like the fact that others voted for them is quite silly.
If you want something and think its important, then get off your butt and vote for/against it. If the majority disagree with you. Tough. If you want the system changed, campaign for it. Maybe you'll get it and maybe you won't.
The current system works for me. Two Houses, Royal Family FPTP etc. etc. And looking back in history there are many occasions when it hasn't done what I wanted, but its usually done what the country wanted.
For many years I heard how The Sun newspaper had the highest circulation in Europe, but I virtually never met anybody who admitted buying it.
Various PMs seem to generate the same effect.
|
