fahrenheit451:109

Elections, referendums* (* referenda is the correct Latin plural,but we're not in Ancient Rome ) here there and every bleedin' where. The thing with Democracy is that you can never have too much of it. Back in the 1640's the Levellers- the radical wing of the Parliamentary forces- were calling for annual parliaments for heaven's sake.Four Centuries on and we still haven't got there.  The current fashionable theory amongst left-liberal inclined intellectuals-manque is that in the event of any election/referendum result going against their expected and hoped for outcome,then the default explanation of any such unlikely occurrence is that those who contributed to the actual verdict were somehow misled,misinformed,mistaken and misjudged,miscalculated the consequences of them individually and collectively casting their votes in the way that they did; i.e. against the explicit,considered,expert and wise advice of the commentariat/academics,experts and men of vast experience who truly understood the issues being voted upon. My, that was a bit long winded - but I went for it anyway. Today happens to be Saturday, 3rd December and the metropolitan-domiciled elites' ideological war drums are already beating all across MSM. Tomorrow,Sunday 4th December there is to be a plebiscite in Italy regarding proposals from the incumbent Premier,Renzi on the streamlining of Italy's constitution, which he amongst others feels is too cumbersome and no longer fit for contemporary purpose. Across the border over in Austria, due to a preceding procedural cock-up, there is the re-run of what had been an excruciatingly closely run Presidential contest between the Green Party's Van Der Bellen and the Freedom Party's Hofer. the likeliest of outcomes in both referendum and presidential Election will not be to the liking of the elites and their shills in the political classes in western europe. The oppositional 5 Star Movement is mounting a dynamic campaign for a " No " vote against Renzi, and Hofer's Freiheitliche Partei ought to attain a valuable,if largely wholly symbolic victory. I shall certainly be celebrating with unalloyed joy and basking in either or both such tremendous outcomes tomorrow.

fahrenheit451:103

A Presidential election is held in line with the nation's Constitution and a verdict is delivered by the Electorate in accordance with the provisions of electoral rules. So, what do " activists ", ideological agitators and hostile media commentators ( all who supported the losing candidate ) do in response ? Organise street protests that escalate into full blown rioting. Oh, and this from the likes of Daily Kos on social media :-

" Donald Trump has won the presidency after narrowly carrying a few states to put him above 270 electoral votes.

But according to the latest numbers, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. The game is rigged.

In other words, we have a similar situation as in 2000—where the candidate who more voters picked did not become president. It is unfair, undemocratic & we must eliminate the Electoral College.

Eliminating the Electoral College does not even require a constitutional amendment."

Undermine, subvert and seek to overthrow those processes and procedures that have heretofore been universally accepted as legitimate. Isn't that fascist? Aren't those carrying out all of this fascists?

The similarities between the events across many cities in the USA and the reactions in the UK to the EU Referendum verdict in favour of #Brexit are all too striking. Violent rioting aside for the moment, the political intent behind seeking to de-legitimise the Electorate's verdict on both sides of the Atlantic spring from the same intolerant,totalitarian ideological mindset. The stench of antidemocratic sedition is apparent for all to smell.

fahrenheit451:047

Democracy.Voting.The democratic process.Ballots.Universal Suffrage. These are terribly important,not only concepts, but practices for the acolytes of that most noble of specious secular quasi-theologies, Democracy. It has always struck me as an indelible flaw in their national character for the British to have persisted for as long as they have,with the eccentricities of  " The first past the post " system. Back in the days of the Reform Acts, of 1832 and 1867, there was plausibly nothing amiss with such a constricted,parochial settled kind of way of ascertaining the will of the people. Time-honoured methods have without vigourous renewal become moribund and taken on the characteristics of arcane rituals. Geographic distances within the historically determined British national polity are no longer a precusor for division and rancour to any significant degree.Distinctions and differences matter far less than once they did. And yet the legitimate expression of this innate plurality is stymied and devalued at every major opportunity. A Vote,the universal currency unit of political expression,is not equal to any other given Vote at any one time. Parliament ought long ago have instituted a fair and credible system of proportional representation.Each contending Party's ideological and practical political aspiration and raison d'etre-to win a majority for its policies and goals would not be compromised. After all winning a majority of the Sovereign electorate's Votes cast is per se more democratic in truth than winning a numerical majority of arbitrarily defined  seats.  All Votes must be of equal numeric value irrespective of where they are cast. The alternative, as has been the sad dystopian reality for decades is the " marginals ". Usually calculated to be around 70 seats out of the 630 where historic voting patterns and voter behaviour subject to minimal shifts in opinion poll discerned party policy differences turn these seats into genuine contests which determine the overall outcome of all 630 seats. That is not democracy. Legitimacy is after all a learned behaviour. Given enough cynicism coupled with disappointment,disillusionment and a powerful,cogent counter-narrative, methods other than the democratic ballot and universal suffrage begin to be contemplated.

Footnote :- I emailed this to the Wakefield express and Yorkshire Evening Post the day after the local election results were announced on May 6.

Sir - i recall being in the Public gallery not so long ago when Wakefield's Labour Councillors unanimously voted through £27,000,000 in Budget cuts. I also recall Council leader Box inveighing against the Conservative government and its Austerity measures. The central point of his lengthy,self-indulgent diatribe was to call into question the legitimacy of the Tories mandate to impose Austerity measures having won an overall majority with only 24% of the votes cast in the General election. Let's put aside for the moment the Historic alliance Labour has with the Tories on the issue of first past the post system.Those two have been brothers-in-arms in colluding to maintain this palpably iniquitous and dysfunctional model of electoral representation. What,I wonder has Cllr.Box to say about last Friday's results in Wakefield ? The turnout was 30%, of the 245,000 registered electors only 74,000 cast their ballot.Of the votes cast Labour got just over half,which means that Labour's mandate to govern and implement without dissent let alone any form of active resistance the government's Austerity measures is 15% of the electorate. Go figure.

Louis Kasatkin ( TUSC Candidate,Wakefield West 2016 )