"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john james wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
john james wrote:
Always seemed odd that MPs (and governments) are happy to be elected
by a small percentage of those eligible to vote - but want different
rules for others.

There isn't really any viable alternative with MPs except
compulsory voting and that has real downsides too.

Lots of viable alternatives. Getting rid of the first past the post
system, so all those who vote get at least some representation.

That isn't a viable alternative, it means that all governments
are coalitions and most of them are very unstable.

And those that vote for the parties that only get a small
minority of the vote get a lot more say in government
policy than the percentage of the vote they get warrants.

Compulsory
voting with a 'none of the above' option.

That doesn't achieve anything. What are
you going to do if that particular vote is the
majority, not have anyone elected to that seat ?

And so on.

There is no and so on.


Ok then. So explain why compulsory voting (or an absolute majority etc) is
ok when mooted for union matters?

I didn't say that was OK but it does make
some sense when say deciding whether
to go out on strike or return to work.