Insane homeowners association tries to fine resident for dick-shaped outline car left in snow

Now, now. Enough dicking around!

Re: "Insane homeowners association"

Very good.

Re: Power unchecked

You ask the people, they tell you, and it's then your job to deliver on that, whatever you think of the result.

there, FTFY.

In a non-binding referendum, what you have is an opinion poll that nobody is bound to do anything at all with. What the major political parties have chosen to do is run with the result, with no legal compunction to do so (only political expedience*). This is why we have ourselves in a situation where the High Court has said that although the referendum was fraudulent, it can't strike it down, as there is nothing to actually strike down in a legal sense, but at the same time, we have a PM who keeps insisting it is some sort of mandate, which is only true in a very narrow political sense.

*Although Cameron said the government would implement the result of the referendum, he was exceeding his authority when he said this. Not only can a PM not bind the decisions any future government, the enabling bill explicitly stated that the result did not have to be implemented. This is why the poll was allowed to exclude, for instance, British citizens living in the EU, and EU citizens who would otherwise be allowed to vote in elections here.

Re: Power unchecked

I take your point re: rerunning until you get the 'right' answer, and it's why I'm on the fence about a second referendum now. Technically it's a different question — mutated from "these are some hypothetical benefits, should we pursue?" to "this is the deal so far, shall we continue?" — but if you follow that path of logic then I guess you'd end up with at least three polls since even May's current deal is, at least in part, to establish a transition period during which the actual final agreement is obtained. So a different absurdity looms.

The chaos in parliament and the prospect of a no-deal exit, which is a thousand miles from what most leavers voted for (cf. Gove, Redwood, et al and their beliefs that a deal would be easy), is the real tragedy here. That's not delivering on the referendum. That's admitting that the thing was so poorly framed and ill-prepared for that the whole system of government has failed to find a way to deal with the result.

On the issue of substance, the 48% I'm in lost. Game over. Farewell, EU.

Re: Power unchecked

"And there are defendable reasons for that."

Mmm, semi-defendable. There were contradictory motives (and some political maneuvers) in creating the Electoral College, and the evidence that it's a mishmash is, for example, demonstrated by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.

Not that this excuses the Trump victory.

(Note, I'm not in favor of a strictly popular vote, but the Electoral College is a set of compromises that were unsatisfactory in the 18th century, never mind the 21st.)

Re: Power unchecked @scrubber

I've obviously touched a nerve. But to ignore your "over 50%" request as neither 2016 candidate got over 50% (it was 46.2% for the winner, 48.1% for the loser, to 1dp), I can name zero elections in the UK in which the winner got fewer votes than any of the losers.

I was also pretty clear in slagging off both of the countries I have any association with. Both the one that sleepwalked into allowing a 52% majority kick off a constitutional crisis by taking their opinion only in the negative — much like the MPs are now doing every other week, they indicated what they don't want, without providing any indication on what they want and with no mechanism being in place to find out — and the one that allowed the candidate that got fewer votes to assume the highest office in the land, where he's busy ripping apart the constitution all on his own.

Re: Power unchecked

"You, likely, come from a country with an unelected hereditary head of state and FPTP electoral system that all but demands tyranny of the minority masquerading as a huge majority"

But the head of state in constitutional monarchies is largely ceremonial. The devolving of power to make laws, declaring war and raise taxes to parliament is pretty fundamental part of the UK constitution. Lizzy is so nice that other countries choose to have her as their head of state.

Not sure where you live that has no FPTP elections, but even in NZ they have FPTP for some roles, MMP is half FPTP, and local councils are FPTP or STV.

The only thing that FPTP does guarantee is a two party system.

"and yet slag off the country that managed to throw off the shackles of medieval thinking."

That's not the USA then? Last I checked congressional and mayoral races are FPTP. So exactly like the UK. The electoral colleges differ by state, but some states are winner take all, which seems like FPTP on crack to me :)

In the other "medieval" countries I've lived in elections are held on weekends or public holidays, so people with jobs can vote. In the "modern" USA they're on a weekday, in order to allow farmers a couple of days to get in to town. You know, like in medieval times...

It's also not possible to tar the USA with a single brush. Certain states take their elections seriously. They're the ones who aren't gerrymandered to pieces (boundaries based on law), have somewhat sane vote counts, and generally aren't big on voter suppression. Other states work VERY hard to ensure that certain voting segments never get their say. Mostly against democrat voters, but I wouldn't be shocked if there was a way to disenfranchise red voters then certain political actors would use it.

Oh, and if you want to shit on UK democracy, the upper house (equivalent of the senate) is unelected, and is for life. Ideologically I object to it, but in practice the Lords have a lot more sense than the commons. In part because they don't need to spend most of their time ensuring they get re-elected, or engaging in the internal party backstabbing sessions.

Re: Power unchecked @ scrubber

Quote "throw off the shackles of medieval thinking."

Men's Suffrage -

UK - Representation of the People Act 1918 – the consequences of World War I persuaded the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who worked in factories, agriculture and elsewhere as part of the war effort, often substituting for enlisted men and including dangerous work such as in munitions factories. All men aged 21 and over were given the right to vote. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men

USA - 24th Amendment (1964): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Womens Suffrage -

Most independent countries enacted women's suffrage in the interwar era, including Canada in 1917; Britain, Germany, Poland in 1918; Austria and the Netherlands in 1919; and the United States in 1920.

You were saying?

Re: Power unchecked

And they say Americans have no sense of irony. “hereditary Head of State” indeed. Political dynasties in the USA..... Bush’s, Reagans, Kennedys, Roosevelts, Tafts,Rockefellers, Clintons, and that’s just 20thC premier league.

We’ve got....hmmm Milibands, Foots, Churchills, Astors, Pitts, Asquiths, Bottomleys/Callaghan. You’ve got to reach back 200 years to get two related PMs, whereas *non* dynastic POTUS are in the minority.

Re: Power unchecked

"" I'm still slightly aghast that the man who won 3 million fewer votes than his opponent gets to be in charge""

That is because you come from an itty bitty country 1/40th the size of the united states. Your country doesn't have to balance the rights of a native Alaskan at the arctic circle with a billionaire in New York City. The entire island of Great Britain is about the same size as the single STATE (out of 50) that I live in. Your concepts of transportation , health care, VOTING simply DO NOT APPLY. Just as the U.K. did not want to be ruled from Brussels, folks in Wyoming or North Dakota or south Georgia don't want to be ruled from New York/California. Infrastructure for a village is simply not going to scale up to the size of a country. So to keep major cities (< 1% of the country in area) from dominating the other 99%, we have a system of government that gives states more equal footing. If you are aghast, it is because you simply cant imagine something 40 times bigger than your country is now, and what it takes to administer that.

Re: Power unchecked

"The electoral college system actually provides a damping system in case one very populous state has very non-diverse politics."

It is my understanding that the Founding Fathers intended the Electoral College to be a buffer against an unsuitable populist candidate. They required the college's representatives to use their judgement.

That principle has been undermined.

Some states pick their representatives only from that same winner's party allegiance. A "winner" takes all policy.

Some states have forbidden their representatives to vote against their state's winner - under all circumstances. Legal action against them is possible if they vote contrary to that.

Some states pick their representatives from allegiances according to their state's split vote for the candidates - a much fairer representation of the state's voters wishes.

Re: What's wrong with these people?

We don't even have a parish council. last time it was proposed it died when it became clear the locals would have to pay for it.

Re: Went on vacation...

"They will also fine you for NOT taking your bin in within a few hours of the rubbish being collected."

Some UK local councils issue fines if a bin is put out "too early" or left out "too long" after emptying. Admittedly one reason is that in busy city streets the mandated bins can block the footpath.

One local council gave people nine bins to separate their household rubbish.