Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
faraway saint

General Election 8th June

Recommended Posts




Apparantly it is better to give them all a number as 7 against your cheeseknobs might count against them.


Can't see it. If you don't put a number against someone you don't want then they can never get any vote (or "partial" vote) from you. If you give them a number, no matter how high, then there is always a chance (albeit very small) that they could gain an advantage from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

 


Apparantly it is better to give them all a number as 7 against your cheeseknobs might count against them.

 

 

As we walked into the local primary school to vote, the independent candidate, a young guy wearing a white independent rosette, held the door open for us as we entered. Mrs Poz voted for him because he was polite and held the door open.

I voted Green, as I reckoned, by reading his bio' on his leaflet, he wasn't an utter knobcheese.

I remember the days when Mrs Poz and I voted on political beliefs, deeply-held views, and a sense of what the parties stood for. Here we are in 2017 voting because a young chap held a door open and I didn't want to vote for a knobcheese.

FFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemingly it was better to rank all the candidates - including the f**king bastarding shitehawks. Not ranking the foul, despicable candidates effectively acts as an abstention, and apparently they can gain from that. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but other, more knowledgeable folks, seem to promote that approach.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seemingly it was better to rank all the candidates - including the f**king bastarding shitehawks. Not ranking the foul, despicable candidates effectively acts as an abstention, and apparently they can gain from that. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but other, more knowledgeable folks, seem to promote that approach.
 
 
 


I was reading up earlier on how it works (funnily enough, after I voted) and I can't see how that would be correct. It's very complicated so I won't even start to try and explain how it works (or at least how I think it works), it would be like going back to the bad old days with wotsisface and page long posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 0:53 PM, mcdowell76 said:

Scottish, Tory and proud!

Tories on track for their most successful election in Scotland since the early 70s!

Brilliant!

'mon the Ruth!

 

Yeh Vote Tory.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Can't see it. If you don't put a number against someone you don't want then they can never get any vote (or "partial" vote) from you. If you give them a number, no matter how high, then there is always a chance (albeit very small) that they could gain an advantage from that.


It is to do with how excess votes are distributed once a candidate reaches the required amount to be elected.

Apparantly they are then redistributed.

When the National advises you to include the Tories in your voting you know there must be something in it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Drew said:

What d'ye reckon to the Rape Clause, Andy? In favour of it, aye?

 

I think the Tories would have been better off not having this clause at all and either sticking to a cap of 2 kids, 3 kids or removed the cap altogether. They have allowed lefties to comtrol the debate and wrongly make this about rape when in actual fact it was always about capping benefits.

Addition of that clause really was a schoolchild error because the Tories should have known that lefties will always hijack any cause for political gain.

All this vocal concern which appeared overnight for victims of rape after so many centuries of not apparently giving two f**ks about it absolutely reeks of fakery. Certainly I dont recall such outrage across the nation after that footballer was jailed. This is just all disgustingly and depressingly fake. I wish it wasnt. I wish the outrage was genuine but it isnt though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DougJamie said:

Offer retracted........

I tore up your offer, burnt it, added some petrol to make sure it fully combusted, ground the remains to a fine powdery dust, gathered the dust into a mortar and pestle, added some acid to dissolve what was left, neutralised the resulting liquid, diluted it in water and poured it down the sink before flushing for 35 minutes.

Under these circumstances, if you were somehow able to sufficiently reconstruct the original offer to make the phrase "Offer retracted" have any meaning whatsoever then I have seriously misjudged your talents. Otherwise I have to tell you, my dear fellow, you simply cannot retract what I have already disposed of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I voted tactically. I gave everyone a number - well, everyone who wasn't Labour or Conservative.

 

4 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

 


Apparantly it is better to give them all a number as 7 against your cheeseknobs might count against them.

 

 

3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 


Can't see it. If you don't put a number against someone you don't want then they can never get any vote (or "partial" vote) from you. If you give them a number, no matter how high, then there is always a chance (albeit very small) that they could gain an advantage from that.

 

 

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 


I was reading up earlier on how it works (funnily enough, after I voted) and I can't see how that would be correct. It's very complicated so I won't even start to try and explain how it works (or at least how I think it works), it would be like going back to the bad old days with wotsisface and page long posts.

 

If you buggers think you are going to use these subversive tactics to trick me into getting involved in a discussion over the range of probabilities you can forget it. Nice try though. Nice try.

Edited by oaksoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, on the election front, this is turnin out to be a bloodbath.

Tories are winning everywhere, Labour are hemorrr....hameorrr....bleeding votes in all areas and UKIP appear to be dead.

The Scottish vote will be fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I think the Tories would have been better off not having this clause at all and either sticking to a cap of 2 kids, 3 kids or removed the cap altogether. They have allowed lefties to comtrol the debate and wrongly make this about rape when in actual fact it was always about capping benefits.

Addition of that clause really was a schoolchild error because the Tories should have known that lefties will always hijack any cause for political gain.

All this vocal concern which appeared overnight for victims of rape after so many centuries of not apparently giving two f**ks about it absolutely reeks of fakery. Certainly I dont recall such outrage across the nation after that footballer was jailed. This is just all disgustingly and depressingly fake. I wish it wasnt. I wish the outrage was genuine but it isnt though.

Do you know what you've just done? Perhaps you aren't fully aware of it, but you've twisted this to suit your argument - exactly what you are accusing the 'vocal/fake' objectors to the rape clause of doing.

If you cannot grasp the fact that many, many people find the idea of obliging women to divulge that their child was conceived as a result of rape for £13 a week is abhorrent, then you are beyond debate. Suggesting that this strength if feeling is based on 'lefties' hijacking the issue is tawdry at best.

The Tories are being called out, and that is entirely appropriate. It seems you cannot find empathy for the women who are directly affected by this, and prefer to use it as an opportunity to advance your argument. That's pretty lacking on your part, I'm afraid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

 


It is to do with how excess votes are distributed once a candidate reaches the required amount to be elected.

Apparantly they are then redistributed.

When the National advises you to include the Tories in your voting you know there must be something in it!

 

I can't fathom out this advice. If your first choice can't win, then your second choice is counted and so on. Theoretically, if you rank a tory 7th it could eventually count as a vote. 

If you only rank three, for example, and none of them can win, then your vote is non-transferable and that's the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 candidates on my form.

Gave a 1 to my first choice.

Gave a 2 to my second choice.

That was it, never gave any of the remaining 8 a number. 

Hope I done it correctly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Thorizaar said:

I can't fathom out this advice. If your first choice can't win, then your second choice is counted and so on. Theoretically, if you rank a tory 7th it could eventually count as a vote. 

If you only rank three, for example, and none of them can win, then your vote is non-transferable and that's the end of it.

The argument is that non rankings count as abstensions (to all intents and purposes) and the ghost ranking is distributed to others - though I'm  of sure how that is worked out.

Seemingly, there is therefore more cbance of non-ranking 'votes' passing  on to your least favoured option than if you had ranked them as low as possible.

As I said earlier, folk who understand this better seem to have put forward this analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a danger that people will try to extrapolate too much from the results today in terms of the overall political/constitutional picture.

Turnout is likely to be low, and the style of campaigning will be very different.

It seems to me that the SNP have gone all out to target the prize of Glasgow in order to get the big scalp and lay down a marker. They've certainly been quiet in my local authority area - given their profile in the last GE and Scot Parliament elections. This could yet backfire on them.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Drew said:

The argument is that non rankings count as abstensions (to all intents and purposes) and the ghost ranking is distributed to others - though I'm  of sure how that is worked out.

Seemingly, there is therefore more cbance of non-ranking 'votes' passing  on to your least favoured option than if you had ranked them as low as possible.

As I said earlier, folk who understand this better seem to have put forward this analysis.

Only your ranking choices will ever count. A candidate you don't rank will never get a vote from you.

There was also mention of a "partial" vote earlier. Any preference you put can become your actual vote. There aren't partial votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Thorizaar said:

Only your ranking choices will ever count. A candidate you don't rank will never get a vote from you.

There was also mention of a "partial" vote earlier. Any preference you put can become your actual vote. There aren't partial votes.

I appreciate that, but it is similar in some ways to the list system for Scot Parliament elections. In the list scenario, it isn't simply about how many votes a candidate receives, it is also a case of an 'excess' of votes (ie - in addition to the requirement to gain a seat) getting distributed among the remaining candidates.

In STV, I think there is a similar scenario with non-ranked (abstention) options.

That probably doesn't make sense, but it the only way I can come close to describing how I think it works.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taken from a document that specifically mentions that it is about the Single Transferrable Vote in Northern Ireland but I think this is how it works in Scotland as well.  At least, it's where the BBC link for how STV works goes to from the Scottish Council elections article.

-------------------------------------

An STV count

After the poll has closed, the counting process begins.  The ballot papers are sorted into parcels according to the candidate for whom the first preference votes have been given.  The number of first preference votes given to each candidate are recorded, along with the total number of valid and invalid papers.

The quota

The total number of valid ballot papers are then divided by the number of candidates to be elected plus one.  So if there are six seats to be filled, the total number of valid ballot papers is divided by seven.  The quota (the number of votes necessary to secure the election of a candidate) is equal to the result plus one.  Any fractions that may arise in calculating the quota are disregarded.

An example is provided below:

Total number of valid votes:

9,829

Number of candidates to be elected: 6

Quota equals: (9,829 divided by 7) +1 = 1,405

When a candidate reaches the quota, they are deemed elected.

Transfers

When the first preference votes for a candidate exceed the quota, those ballot papers for that candidate are sorted and grouped according to the next preference indicated.  The ballot papers are then transferred to the candidate for whom the next available preference was indicated.  The ‘transfer value’ is calculated by dividing the total surplus to be transferred by the number of transferable papers.  If a voter has not indicated a further preference, the ballot papers are deemed to be non-transferable.  This process is repeated until all the surplus papers have been transferred.  If there are still vacancies to be filled, the candidates with the least number of votes are excluded and any additional surpluses arising are transferred until the required number of candidates has been elected.  A candidate does not necessarily have to reach the quota in order to be elected.  Indeed, if many of the ballot papers become non-transferable, it may not be possible for the required number of candidates to reach the quota.  In that case the candidate or candidates with the highest number of papers would be deemed elected.  As soon as the final stage has been completed, the Deputy Returning Officer will declare the names of those who have been elected and the order in which they were returned.  The Deputy Returning Officer will also give public notice of the number of first preference votes for all candidates, any transfer of votes, and the total number of votes for each candidate at each stage in the count when those transfers took place.

-------------------------------------

So, there you have it - easy peasy. :)

The "Transfer Value" mentioned there is what I referred to as a "partial" vote earlier on, pretty accurate, I think.

I think that it also shows that it is better to not rank someone you don't want than to give them a low rank.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drew said:

There is a danger that people will try to extrapolate too much from the results today in terms of the overall political/constitutional picture.

Turnout is likely to be low, and the style of campaigning will be very different.

It seems to me that the SNP have gone all out to target the prize of Glasgow in order to get the big scalp and lay down a marker. They've certainly been quiet in my local authority area - given their profile in the last GE and Scot Parliament elections. This could yet backfire on them.

Very little campaigning in my area from any Party .. They must be saving themselves as there was very little representation at the polls too . .not even a cop. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drew said:

The argument is that non rankings count as abstensions (to all intents and purposes) and the ghost ranking is distributed to others - though I'm  of sure how that is worked out.

Seemingly, there is therefore more cbance of non-ranking 'votes' passing  on to your least favoured option than if you had ranked them as low as possible.

As I said earlier, folk who understand this better seem to have put forward this analysis.

Tell me how you can count votes that were never made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...