I don't think spoiled ballots are even counted[/QUOTE]
They have to be on a local level to reconcile against voters. Don't know if it gets sent centrally to be totted up though.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
I don't think spoiled ballots are even counted[/QUOTE]
They have to be on a local level to reconcile against voters. Don't know if it gets sent centrally to be totted up though.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I keep plugging this blog but this is another really interesting post
http://www.therestlessrealist.com/2015/03/the-problem-with-polling-and-seat.html?m=1
http://www.therestlessrealist.com/2015/03/the-problem-with-polling-and-seat.html?m=1
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Yes you have to see that some Scots saying that they will vote SNP, may well pull out at the last minute, if they think it might result in a Tory government. Same with UKIPers not wanting a Labour government.
Can anyone please explain to me Labour's latest whimpering of "We're better because we won't have an EU referendum"?
Now I don't actually think leaving the EU is the right thing to do, we just need to stop giving them money and ignore their rules. But isn't it the job of the government to enact the will of the people? So if the will of the people is to leave the EU (via a referendum), isn't the government supposed to do so, no matter how bad an idea it is?
Now I don't actually think leaving the EU is the right thing to do, we just need to stop giving them money and ignore their rules. But isn't it the job of the government to enact the will of the people? So if the will of the people is to leave the EU (via a referendum), isn't the government supposed to do so, no matter how bad an idea it is?
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
No. Effective government has nothing to do with rank populism.
Well, if Labour are being upfront about it (not leaving/not having a referendum) then the will of those people who don't wish to be in the EU can be expressed by voting for a party that offers an exit (UKIP) or a referendum (Conservative).
IMO, not having a referendum on EU membership is only a problem if you promise one, get elected, and then renege on the promise.
That would be true if the referendum were the only topic being voted on. Unfortunately there are far too many people who vote Labour purely because their dads hate the Tories, so we'll never know the true will of the people without a referendum.
I think staying in would edge it in a referendum but it's incredibly arrogant (and typical of champagne socialists) to believe they know better and decide for us.
What is democracy if not the will of the people being borne out?
I think many of these people have taken to voting UKIP. We don't live in a direct democracy (and I think I would prefer it if we did sometimes, especially when it comes to going to war) where we hold referendums on all of our major issues. We elect MPs and hope they don't f*ck us, if they do then we vote for someone else next time.
Ultimately, if people really want to leave the EU, they will vote accordingly. If people are willing to vote Labour despite them saying they won't hold a referendum on it, then it cannot be such a big issue for those voters, ergo the will of the people has been expressed.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Have you seen the movie (Peter Cook) The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer? All about how parliament divests itself of all decision making and hands power over to the public via referenda. Not a happy ending. The will of the people is being borne out, there is a coalition government.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
Arrogant is exactly the right word.
it is clearly an issue that has the public support, so to rule it out because "i know best" (thats paraphrasing what Ed said at the debate, but covers the jist of it) is crazy
im of the same thought as you, staying in is better than out - but i do think we need a referendum to decide, it is too big of an issue not to have one
i also think a stay in vote would win - probably with just below 60% of the vote
You know as well as I do that there are large proportions of the electorate that will always vote left because they hate the right and who will always vote right because they know tax and spend doesn't work.
It's only really the floating voters that decide based on issues and that really doesn't represent anything like the will of the people.
When it comes to a supranational power that, at times, is more powerful than our own parliament there has to be a direct vote on whether that's what we want.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Works both ways that and to use a phrase you are keen on " both you and I know that".
And as for socialists knowing better and deciding what is better for us, well " both you and I " know that works for all MP's.
I genuinely don't think that voting based on hatred is reciprocated.
I know a lot of Conservative voters. They all vote that way because they believe one of two things - that a Conservative government is better for the country or that a Conservative government is better for them. I genuinely couldn't tell you how many Conservative voters I know but it's certainly enough to be a good sample size and not one votes the way they do out of hatred for Labour.
That's not to say that they don't hate individual members of the Labour party, but that's usually the likes of Tony Benn or George Galloway - people who are irrelevant to almost everyone's voting habits.
I'd say a good half (at least) of those I know who vote Labour would never even consider voting Conservative no matter what. If Labour dropped union involvement, reduced taxes, reduced spending and showed any kind of economic competence whatsoever I'd happily consider voting for them and so would most people I know.
Substitute Conservative/Labour and most voters fall into this category, imo . Then there's a core who would never vote for the other lot, no matter what. I guess this is why we get changes of government. I reckon it's probably easier to hate when your income is low and things change for the worse, coz there is less to fall back on -- see the suicides of people who couldn't cope with benefit changes, or areas that suffered in the past when their local industries closed and the government left them to it. If you are wealthy and you become a little less wealthy, it's bad but not life destroying. So perhaps that's why the feeling is stronger amongst the core who would never vote for the party that is further to the right.
Then again, you only have to mention the word 'socialism' to feel the hate from plenty on the right.
On an unrelated note, like the sad qunt that I am, I think I will probably watch that 7-way cluster-fcuk of a debate now too.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Absolutely - that's very true. That's not hatred of Labour though, that's hatred of the left.
If the two parties switched policies (and if Labour had someone more authoritative than Rain Man as a leader) pretty much every Con voter I know would vote Labour.
Those Labour voters I'm talking about (and they exist in significant numbers) would still vote Labour, or at least anyone other than the Conservatives, out of pure hatred.
It's absolutely true.Now I know you are joking either that or you have your head in the sand.
Rarely so the winners hate the losers in a battle.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
That is not true, I know of many Labour supporters who decided after Blair and that other warmonger Bush took us into a illegal war that they would never vote Labour again while Blair, Brown and their other cronies were involved with the Labour party. So much so they either did not vote at all or went over to the Torys.