• 10 Posts
  • 517 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 17th, 2024

help-circle
  • FPTP: you get one vote, and each constituency elects one representative. Whoever has the most votes in each constituency wins, every other candidate in the constituency gets nothing.

    AMS: Like FPTP, but with an extra layer of regional elections. The results of the regional are weighted towards parties that got a lower number of seats in the FPTP section than their share of the votes (so a party that comes second or third a lot but rarely wins in FPTP will do well). This isn’t completely proportional, but it does shift the results a bit towards proportionality and makes it so that votes for non-winning candidates still have some effect.

    STV: Instead of voting for one person, you rank the available choices. The candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and that candidates votes are given to their second preference. This repeats until someone gets a majority. This reduces the pressure of tactical voting compared to FPTP, because you can pick a first preference even if you don’t expect them to win and a lower preference as your “well at least it’s not the other big party that I dislike more” as a backup

    Party list PR: Each party is given a number of seats equal to their share of the national vote. The party’s most popular candidates in each constituency get seats first (so results will tend towards candidates that are popular in each area, though not strictly. This sacrifices local representation for maximum proportionality

    The UK’s general elections are currently FPTP. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd use AMS, the Northern Irish Assembly uses STV, and the UK used Party List PR for EU elections prior to Brexit













  • It doesn’t include the UK. It just sometimes also doesn’t include other areas, notably Sweden, Norway, and Finland. They’re not an island, but they are almost functionally an island in a European context because the land route to them (prior to the Denmark-Sweden bridge) is very long and has often included at least one hostile border


  • I don’t think it’s a firm enough concept that you’ll get one answer everyone agrees on. For me, personally, it’s a fuzzy-edged geographical concept that has a cultural basis. So it’s “that bit of Eurasia west of the Urals and Bosporus”, and we think of that as a meaningful category because a lot of the people here have a lot of shared identity and history

    Russia is, in my mind, a part of that. Most of Russia’s landmass is east of the Urals, yes, but the origin of the country is within Europe and it was a major part of that shared history. Britain didn’t become less European when most of Britain’s landmass was in Africa, India, Australia etc. Belarus is just unambiguously European to me. It’s hardly the first time in history that European countries have been hostile with each other

    The other ambiguously-European countries - Turkiye, the Caucasian countries, Greenland, I suppose arguably Kazakhstan as well since it does reach into the western side of the Urals a bit - are where the “fuzzy edges” come into play for me. These countries can be thought of as European in some contexts, not in others. Often it is going to be a matter of identity for those countries - as you say, they pick their sides. I can imagine futures in which Russia, Turkiye, Armenia, and so on pull away from Europe altogether and are thought of as entirely Asian. I can equally imagine futures in which they move the other way and become more solidly European. There’s little sense to me in trying to draw a strict and exact geographic line of where “Europe” starts and ends because the concept is too entrenched and useful to just abandon, but the lines that it became entrenched upon were never neat ones in the first place







  • I don’t think that the logic holds here. There absolutely are people who take the pro-Palestinian side not because they actually oppose what Israel is doing, but because they hate Jews and see it as an opportunity to “justify” that hatred

    A good example is the former British National Party leader Nick Griffin. Thankfully, he is no longer active in politics and wasn’t very good at it when he was, but he makes for a good example. He was simultaneously anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim because he was just a massive fucking racist stain on society

    It’s good that people like Griffin aren’t leading the conversation. They are out there, though, and we ought to be wary of them