From: Charlie Stross (charlie@antipope.org)
Date: Mon Jan 26 1998 - 08:42:57 MST
On Mon, Jan 26, 1998 at 05:26:23AM -0800, mark@unicorn.com wrote:
>
> > until she resigned.
>
> I thought Major was voted in to replace her.
Point of order: first, she resigned (under extreme pressure). _Then_ there
was a nasty little scramble for the top of the greasy pole, which Major
somehow won.
> >(Clue: the whole world doesn't work the same way as your back yard, or mine.)
>
> Yes it does; the people who were burning her effigy were the ones who
> were no longer able to skive off at work or live off my taxes,
... er, and some of us who ended up paying _higher_ taxes as a result
of her policies.
> And if the people really disliked her that much, why did 40-45% of them
> keep voting for her?
Unask that question, or I'll ask it's inverse: why did the electoral
system let someone who was voted _against_ by 55-60% of the electorate
retain power? (Answer: "first past the post". Which we -- in the UK and
also in the USA -- have been conditioned to believe is a "fair" way of
running elections. Yeah, and I have this neat bridge you might want to
buy ... there's a lot to be said for a RON box on every ballot paper.)
-- Charlie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:31 MST