| Watching the leaders debate 21:02 - May 18 with 6564 views | bluelagos |
Am really torn between the Libs and Greens for my vote.
What should a disgruntled left of centre voter with no time for Corbyn do? |  |
| |  |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:31 - May 18 with 2961 views | imsureazzure |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:06 - May 18 by lowhouseblue |
i know that. but there is no process to ever reconcile the two. i don't think there has ever been any suggestion that a voter has been identified from their ballot paper. you need a system to prevent ballot fraud - there isn't anything suspicious in that. unless you know of someone who has had their vote identified? |
I don't but it is obviously very possible, the number of the ballot is logged against the address and name, that by the very process can not be secret if not so required. |  | | |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:35 - May 18 with 2943 views | lowhouseblue |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:30 - May 18 by caught-in-limbo |
What's more interesting still is that they mention spoiled and blank votes at the bottom of any graphic which doesn't represent such votes at all.
In an extreme example if 97% of the electorate spoiled their ballot paper or cast a blank vote and 2% voted Conservative and 1% voted Labour. The official result would be:
Conservatives win with 67% majority. Turnout 100%
and the graphic would look similar this:
 |
i guess election graphics at present don't show spoilt ballots separately because they are usually a very tiny number (typically a few 10s)
i don't think that you can assume that if spoilt ballots rose to 97% of the electorate the graphics used would still not show them. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:36 - May 18 with 2934 views | lowhouseblue |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:31 - May 18 by imsureazzure |
I don't but it is obviously very possible, the number of the ballot is logged against the address and name, that by the very process can not be secret if not so required. |
i guess it's possible - but there is nothing to suggest it has ever been done. as i say the other side of this is making sure that there is no fraud and ballots aren't 'stuffed'. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:37 - May 18 with 2932 views | blue_oyster |
| Watching the leaders debate on 21:59 - May 18 by AdmiralFunge |
Disagree, but then you're a dickhead, so we'll leave it there. |
At least we know you're a true ignoramus. |  |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:38 - May 18 with 2917 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:27 - May 18 by lowhouseblue |
i was saying that, yes, at the count they declare the number of spoilt and blank ballots.
in your example 1 where more than half of the votes actually cast were spoilt or blank - and declared at the count to be that - it would be very publicly visible and would be unprecedented. it would be a very public way of making a point. no one would be able to say that it was a healthy sign.
in example 2 low turnout happens but we don't know why. it may be that it rained. it may be that the result was so certain in advance that no one could be bothered. the impact is less because the message is less clear. |
Get real.
The only two figures that the winners and everyone else talks about are:
what share of the valid vote each party gets and the number of people who cast a vote.
this is very misleading as people naturally make the assumption that the share for each party totals the number of voters. |  |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:40 - May 18 with 2912 views | lowhouseblue |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:38 - May 18 by caught-in-limbo |
Get real.
The only two figures that the winners and everyone else talks about are:
what share of the valid vote each party gets and the number of people who cast a vote.
this is very misleading as people naturally make the assumption that the share for each party totals the number of voters. |
they are the figures people talk about BECAUSE at present the number of spoilt ballots is typically very very small. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:41 - May 18 with 2914 views | Ryorry |
| Watching the leaders debate on 21:38 - May 18 by AdmiralFunge |
Fck this election.
Corbyn just gives a series of Best Man speeches to people who already completely agree with his ideas, and everyone else is irrelevant.
In summary, Laggers, I don't know. Fancy a pint? |
May in Halifax seems to have been coached into presenting like a ham actor reading from a particularly poor film script. |  |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:41 - May 18 with 2911 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:35 - May 18 by lowhouseblue |
i guess election graphics at present don't show spoilt ballots separately because they are usually a very tiny number (typically a few 10s)
i don't think that you can assume that if spoilt ballots rose to 97% of the electorate the graphics used would still not show them. |
In some countries they are officially part of the percentage of votes cast.
A few electoral systems make it virtually impossible to cast an invalid vote (e.g. electronic voting or the Gambian marble system where the only way to cast an invalid vote is to leave the marble on top of a drum rather than drop it into it). |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:41 - May 18 with 2909 views | imsureazzure |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:36 - May 18 by lowhouseblue |
i guess it's possible - but there is nothing to suggest it has ever been done. as i say the other side of this is making sure that there is no fraud and ballots aren't 'stuffed'. |
Agreed, imagine Corbyn's creed? If it could be abused it would be. | | | |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:42 - May 18 with 2898 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:35 - May 18 by lowhouseblue |
i guess election graphics at present don't show spoilt ballots separately because they are usually a very tiny number (typically a few 10s)
i don't think that you can assume that if spoilt ballots rose to 97% of the electorate the graphics used would still not show them. |
It's an extreme example that demonstrates my point. All political parties, newspapers and establishment figures urge you to vote, even if they haven't got a sniff of a chance of winning. They do this so they claim that the system which supports them is supported by the electorate. | |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:44 - May 18 with 2891 views | AdmiralFunge |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:30 - May 18 by caught-in-limbo |
What's more interesting still is that they mention spoiled and blank votes at the bottom of any graphic which doesn't represent such votes at all.
In an extreme example if 97% of the electorate spoiled their ballot paper or cast a blank vote and 2% voted Conservative and 1% voted Labour. The official result would be:
Conservatives win with 67% majority. Turnout 100%
and the graphic would look similar this:
|
Thats the thing though - the returning officer will always list the number of spoiled ballot papers.
It would be a news story of note if even 15% of votes cast were spoiled.
I can see why you choose not to vote; however, I think it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things, for the reasons previously outlined. Always willing to hear your counter-argument, though. |  |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:48 - May 18 with 2865 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:41 - May 18 by Clapham_Junction |
In some countries they are officially part of the percentage of votes cast.
A few electoral systems make it virtually impossible to cast an invalid vote (e.g. electronic voting or the Gambian marble system where the only way to cast an invalid vote is to leave the marble on top of a drum rather than drop it into it). |
"In some countries they are officially part of the percentage of votes cast. "
Good point. You have to ask yourself then, if these invalid votes are so important, why the hell is it not done in our elections? | |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:48 - May 18 with 2870 views | BlueBadger |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:41 - May 18 by Ryorry |
May in Halifax seems to have been coached into presenting like a ham actor reading from a particularly poor film script. |
Essentially the choice comes down to 'Incompetent supply geography teacher' vs 'incompetent sociopath'. |  |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:54 - May 18 with 2847 views | ThePitBoss |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:48 - May 18 by BlueBadger |
Essentially the choice comes down to 'Incompetent supply geography teacher' vs 'incompetent sociopath'. |
I swear you're a computer algorithm that scans threads.
Test: Jeremy Hunt, Ukip, Ched Evans innocent
*waits* |  | | |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:59 - May 18 with 2834 views | vapour_trail |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:54 - May 18 by ThePitBoss |
I swear you're a computer algorithm that scans threads.
Test: Jeremy Hunt, Ukip, Ched Evans innocent
*waits* |
Nothing to say. Nothing to offer.
Nothing. |  |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 23:05 - May 18 with 2811 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:44 - May 18 by AdmiralFunge |
Thats the thing though - the returning officer will always list the number of spoiled ballot papers.
It would be a news story of note if even 15% of votes cast were spoiled.
I can see why you choose not to vote; however, I think it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things, for the reasons previously outlined. Always willing to hear your counter-argument, though. |
Voting is the ideal thing to do. But then the ideal situation is that you have faith in the political system to represent the majority will of the people.
When less than 1% of the population gets increasingly wealthier at the expense of everyone else, the system is not representative of the will of the people and it's clear that those in political office are either part of the 1% or doing their bidding.
When the political system no longer shows any interest in representing you, voting blank or spoiling the paper is participating in (and condoning) the system and those in it.
When people are angry that the system does not represent them, there's always the risk of civil disobedience. If you don't obey, then those in political office have no power.
That's why those who benefit from the system implore you to vote. It's much better for them if you express your dissatisfaction through the system which justifies their existence. [Post edited 18 May 2017 23:10]
| |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 23:09 - May 18 with 2809 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Watching the leaders debate on 22:48 - May 18 by caught-in-limbo |
"In some countries they are officially part of the percentage of votes cast. "
Good point. You have to ask yourself then, if these invalid votes are so important, why the hell is it not done in our elections? |
Similar with the None of the Above option.
I remember an election at my uni where a guy who was an absolute bell3nd ran unopposed and lost to the "Re-open Nominations" option. | | | |
| Watching the leaders debate on 23:19 - May 18 with 2784 views | AdmiralFunge |
| Watching the leaders debate on 23:05 - May 18 by caught-in-limbo |
Voting is the ideal thing to do. But then the ideal situation is that you have faith in the political system to represent the majority will of the people.
When less than 1% of the population gets increasingly wealthier at the expense of everyone else, the system is not representative of the will of the people and it's clear that those in political office are either part of the 1% or doing their bidding.
When the political system no longer shows any interest in representing you, voting blank or spoiling the paper is participating in (and condoning) the system and those in it.
When people are angry that the system does not represent them, there's always the risk of civil disobedience. If you don't obey, then those in political office have no power.
That's why those who benefit from the system implore you to vote. It's much better for them if you express your dissatisfaction through the system which justifies their existence. [Post edited 18 May 2017 23:10]
|
Thanks for the reply- I'm rather more receptive to this argument that I was when we last discussed it (er, probably around the last election, in truth).
I still maintain that the only real form of protest I've got is to spoil the ballot paper, but I am beginning to feel that the whole system is pointless, mainly because I'm starting to share your argument in para. 2.
I dunno, ask me again in 4 years. I may be in full agreement with you by then. | |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 00:03 - May 19 with 2752 views | caught-in-limbo |
| Watching the leaders debate on 23:19 - May 18 by AdmiralFunge |
Thanks for the reply- I'm rather more receptive to this argument that I was when we last discussed it (er, probably around the last election, in truth).
I still maintain that the only real form of protest I've got is to spoil the ballot paper, but I am beginning to feel that the whole system is pointless, mainly because I'm starting to share your argument in para. 2.
I dunno, ask me again in 4 years. I may be in full agreement with you by then. |
If the Conservatives win, I'll likely be able to ask you in 2 years and I suspect we'll share the same view.
As a side note, it's interesting watching the recent elections across Europe where the average voter is increasingly impoverished and in greater need of a softer stance on their country's economics than just cripling austerity. Despite this opportunity for left leaning parties, they have generally split with irreconcilable differences and handed victory to right wing parties.
In short, the people generally want more socialist governments but are increasingly electing pro-austerity technocrats and former bankers.
It's almost like voting is pointless, but we remain docile because we're happy in the knowledge that we live in a democracy.
You're told you're in a healthy democracy and that your vote counts but in reality you're just a viewer.
Enjoy the show. [Post edited 19 May 2017 0:10]
| |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 08:41 - May 19 with 2667 views | No9 |
| Watching the leaders debate on 21:42 - May 18 by imsureazzure |
Fundamental Christian nutcase or a vote that makes you feel better but changes F all.
Spoil your paper as I will. |
The winners won't care about 'spoiled ballot papers' |  | | |
| Watching the leaders debate on 20:39 - May 31 with 2580 views | GeoffSentence |
| Watching the leaders debate on 21:25 - May 18 by Manchesterblue |
Plaid Cymru woman has the biggest ears ever |
I see that she has taken your criticism on board and has covered them up this time |  |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 20:43 - May 31 with 2557 views | Superfrans |
| Watching the leaders debate on 21:42 - May 18 by caught-in-limbo |
Exactly. Nobody should buy into any of the following:
1) "It's your democratic duty to vote"
2) "If you don't vote, you can't complain"
3)" A non vote is a vote for candidate x"
4) "If you don't like any of the candidates, cast a blank vote"
5) candidate x is unelectable
If you feel that none of the parties really represent you, or that you're in a position of voting for a least worst option again, it most likely means the politicians are serving themselves or someone else as opposed to you. If that's the case, don't be tricked into voting - all you're doing is condoning a system which does nothing for you and strengthens their credibility further. |
Have you thought of joining one of the parties (and trying to influence policy from within) or standing as an independent? Serious question. |  |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 21:00 - May 31 with 2530 views | ThisIsMyUsername |
| Watching the leaders debate on 21:28 - May 18 by Darth_Koont |
Not vote if it comes to it.
A low turnout can suggest a need for change and a need for politicians to properly engage with the electorate better than anything else.
I've never bought all this blackmail about having to vote. It's more important to stick to your principles rather than getting into line to preserve the status quo. |
Come on.... Do you actually think that would make a blind bit of difference?
10 people could vote in total, 7 to the Tories and all they would say is 'we won with a clear majority' and stick two fingers up at everyone who didn't bother. |  |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 01:31 - Jun 1 with 2491 views | Ryorry |
| Watching the leaders debate on 21:39 - May 18 by J2BLUE |
Watching on +1. If Fallon is right and 1p on income tax would raise £30bn over a parliament then it simply must be done. It's a no brainer. |
I replied to a Will Black tweet (which said that all the over-60s in a newsnight audience would willingly pay an extra 1p income tax to fund youngsters through uni) saying that I thought most over-60s would also be totally willing to pay another 1p in the £ to support the NHS & social care - got numerous likes and re-tweets. | |
| |
| Watching the leaders debate on 01:58 - Jun 1 with 2480 views | connorscontract |
Well, the law on Elections changed, making it harder for Parties to keep their deposit, so if either of those two parties were close to 5% of the vote last time, vote for them to help them have a chance of getting their money back. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
