Lets see if we are representative of the general populous,
No reasons wanted or required in this post, no comments, no jokes, no insults, and NO thread drift, Just a simple yes or no, and then we can count up at the end of the poll and see how we compared.
Type Yes if you voted yes to AV
Type No if you voted no to AV
|
|
Did not vote (and may well represent the general populous more than the YES or NO camps).
Last edited by: Londoner on Thu 5 May 11 at 17:59
|
No from me
No from her Ladyship
|
|
Had I been eligible (i.e. on the electoral register), I would have voted "no" as would SWMBO.
|
I did vote, but I won't say how I voted because I don't want to make all my fellow reactionary carphounds feel any more smug than they do already. And of course voting hasn't closed yet so if the news gets out, it may cause a late further swing in a Certain Direction. Geddit?
Herself voted the other way, so that's two votes cancelling each other out.
Goodness it's odd voting in the sticks. Just two people in the polling station, and no copper! In London there always used to be a peeler hanging about to keep order in case the voters got out of control (some hope, I always used to think).
It was a nice little afternoon trot though.
|
|
Yes. Cancelled out by Mrs Dugong.
|
|
no votes placed from "The Hovel" occupants!
|
|
I voted by post 3 weeks ago. I didn't want to be muddled by the Broadcasts, politicing and point scoring from our Dear Leaders.
|
>> I voted by post 3 weeks ago.
>>
Should arrive tomorrow.
|
|
Yes for me & Mrs B and I think Miss B (first time voter!) was yes as well.
|
Ok 22:01 check point
No: 24
Yes: 12
No 66%, Yes 33%
|
I was a no and the wife a yes as it turns out - so cancelled each other out then.
I'm not against AV as such but not sure about the type being proposed. It's not even the liberals preference is it?
|
I'm beginning to understand why some people find AV complicated.
Despite clear instructions that only a Yes or No required 13 posts contained additional information mainly relating to how their wives voted (how do you know!) and presumably wishing to claim two votes in the poll.
|
|
I thought Zero had ended his poll when he posted results. That's my excuse.
|
Everyone in my household voted Yes.
Allegedly.
|
>> how their wives voted (how do you know!)
Are you calling our wives liars CGN?
One imagines Zero has enough nous to leave the wives out and interpret posts like mine.
|
|
No x 2 in the HM household.
|
|
One yes and one no in the F household... oh well that's what a free vote's about.
|
Expecting this electorate to stick to a simple voting mandate was I suppose a little hopeful and its really no surprise that a man like AC, to whom a simple yes or no is waste of possible words, would be the first to spoil his ballot paper. ;)
But on the whole the majority did manage to keep it simple, and I thank you. Where there was a clear instruction I did include wives votes, both yay and nay in the checkpoint result,
I will keep the poll open till 18:00 tonight (for the latecomers) and publish the final result before the real result tonight.
Remember for the next 6 hours, just a yes or no please.
|
|
As it's AV I voted No as my first choice, and Yes as my second.
Last edited by: Robbie34 on Fri 6 May 11 at 09:28
|
Oh good lord, someone has given me a red offensive face.
Ok Fair do's, Poll closed, result stands as of last nights checkpoint.
The BR voted 66% to 33% to reject AV.
The polling booth is closed, the local residents can vandalise it as they wish or the Site owners can board it up. I have moved out of the neighborhood.
|
Don't be too offended Z. Apart from practical jokers it's pretty easy to hit the rate offensive button instead of the top/home etc arrows.
EDIT - the sad face has now gone!!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 6 May 11 at 10:07
|
>> Don't be too offended Z. Apart from practical jokers it's pretty easy to hit the rate offensive button instead of the top/home etc arrows.
You have the option to cancel if you hit the button by mistake though, so there's no excuse for accidentally hitting it, then continuing to then rate it as offensive.
|
>>You have the option to cancel if you hit the button by mistake though, so there's no
>>excuse for accidentally hitting it, then continuing to then rate it as offensive.
In the (thankful) absence of a thumbs down button it does get used thus.
|
>> In the (thankful) absence of a thumbs down button it does get used thus.
Absence?
Where's yours gone then?
ok, it's not a thumbs down symbol, it's a red circle, in case that was what you were meaning by absence.
|
Aw. Missed the fun.
Bet you can't guess how I voted. Losing side again. Same old same old.
|
No and no - but as I haven't voted since 1986 mine doesn't really count.
>>In London there always used to be a peeler hanging about to keep order in case the voters got out of control<<
Blimey, he must have been hanging about for a hell of a long time...
|
|
Well done Zero. It will be interesting to see to what extent yr result reflects the national one. Motorists, like professional thieves, are generally thought more conservative than the population as a whole.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 6 May 11 at 11:13
|
|
But we have more than an average number of people with a "view" on matters here, and prepared to think about or promote that view, borne out by the small number who claim to have not voted.
|
>> more than an average number of people with a "view" on matters here
Turnout in my ward was 35%.
In a neighbouring ward where just over 49% turned out, 616 people voted BNP. Thankfully 5,389 people didn't.
|
...Turnout in my ward was 35%...
That applies to the local elections, not the AV vote.
It's a small point, but some people may have decided to vote in one, but not the other.
I regarded voting no to AV as more important than voting Conservative in the local election, although I did both.
|
I voted for a couple of Conservatives for the council as they were the only people to actually go door to door round my way and actually take the time to have a conversation, plus on the whole they seem to have done a decent job with things which matter on a local level.
The Labour guy only appeared at the polling station but didnt even have the common decency to stand up when he greeted people ( the Conservative guy, prob twice the age of the Labour guy remained standing the whole time despite a chair being available ) - I know its a small thing but manners do matter when dealing with people, do to me anyway.
Lib Dems? Didnt know they were even standing here, not so much as a leaflet - poor show indeed, they deserve the kicking if thats how they play the game.
I decided to give the English Democrat guy one of my 6 votes because the policies were good, local ideas, not too distant from the Conservative ones and his leaflet didnt have the self-congratulating tone that the main parties seem so fond of but which irritates me hugely - I just want to know your ideas, what drives you, ill decide if I think your worthy thanks. He was the only non-establishment person standing, no Greens, no BNP, no other minor parties even bothered, so he may do better than he would otherwise do.
|
FoR,
Assume you're electing for the borough (Kettring or corby?) If so it's interesting how the voting system varies even within the same county. In this ward in South Northants we had two votes to distribute between three candidates. A Conservative a Green and an Independent. The Independent is a well known villager who lost his seat last time becuase of a swing to the tories. He got my vote on principle. I also voted for the Green on the basis that anything was preferable to the Conservative - though the guy concerned is a perfectly honest & committed local man as well.
Results not expected until later today.
|
|
Iffy, surely the turnout is the number of people turning up at the polling Station, regardless of what they do when they get there? My local vote was just for AV, my partner in Berkshire turned out and had 3 different ballot papers to deal with. Some people may attend and accidentally, or otherwise, spoil their ballot. Their vote won't count but theye were there.
|
>> Iffy, surely the turnout is the number of people turning up at the polling Station,
>> regardless of what they do when they get there?
No the turnout is the number that vote.
Number of votes for candidates + spolied ballot papers / people on electoral roll = turnout
The woman outside the polling station checking your number has no official role and you can tell her to eff off (or mind the dog as I did yesterday), she is merely employed by the political parties.
The person inside checking your name off on a list, is merely there to ensure you don't vote twice.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 6 May 11 at 13:58
|
>>The woman outside the polling station checking your number has no official role and you
>>can tell her to eff off (or mind the dog as I did yesterday), she is merely employed by
>>the political parties.
No, she's a volunteer. Or at least the Tory and Lib Dem will be a volunteer. The Socialist is reasonably likely to be being paid by his Union to stand there and tell.
You can be nice to her, Zero, she's a volunteer helping the political process go round.
|
>> Iffy, surely the turnout is the number of people turning up at the polling Station,
>> regardless of what they do when they get there?
Interesting point. The presiding officer issued me with two ballot papers (referendum and district council) and marked his copy of the electors list accordingly. I had impression that referendum was messing up the usual way of working and there seemed to be a fair amount of scrabbling about recording ballot paper numbers against elector's roll numbers.
Ballots went in seperate boxes marked with the ward name.
Is turnout calculated from the number recorded as attending or from a count of the ballots divided by electors on roll?
|
|
As per my reply above, the names are ticked off the list to ensure no-one votes twice, the numbers (ticks) on the list are not counted. Only ballot papers are counted, so that's the only source of numbers.
|
Not my words - lifted from Guido Fawkes blog, but how very true!
"The “Progressive Majority” Delusion
The noisy progressives in our public life are forever claiming there is a “progressive majority” in Britain. If it was not for Murdoch, the City and the editor of the Daily Mail they would lead us into the social democratic utopia that the people so desire. That is basically the underlying worldview of many at the BBC, Guardian editorial meetings and the young wonks in the think-tanks around Ed Miliband. Tony Blair understood that this was a delusion which electorally crippled the Labour Party and the somewhat flakier LibDems. He fashioned a left-of-centre platform which addressed the real concerns of voters.
The British people are sceptical about “progressives”, their language and their disconnection from the reality of their lives. The “progressive” idea that switching to the Alternative Vote was important to ordinary people, who are not on the whole interested in politics, was delusional. There is no untapped progressive majority outside the media and political elites.
It is one thing to be youthful and idealistically progressive, believing if only we cared and shared everything would be alright. When you become a taxpayer, parent or home owner you are mugged by reality. Caring and sharing with your family becomes your priority, that is human nature. The amount of your salary that goes to HMRC, the fear of crime, a desire for better schools for your children and the cost of petrol become more important priorities. Guido speaks to Labour Party supporters who think that Ed Miliband is overly influenced by “progressive” voices, his support for switching to the Alternative Vote shows that in truth Ed Miliband is himself a “progressive”. Voters are not."
|
...Only ballot papers are counted, so that's the only source of numbers...
Quite so.
At my station, there were two ballot papers - one AV, one local council.
Both were to be deposited in the same box.
Nothing to stop me depositing one, two, or none.
Strictly, there will be two turnout figures.
Local elections by ward, and the AV referendum, which could be broken down into wards, but there's not much point because it is a national vote.
Practically, the turnout figures will be almost the same, but they need not be.
Most people who crossed the polling station threshold will have done as I did and voted in both elections.
|
Turnout is the number of people who Turn Out, never mind what they do when they get inside the polling station. One dictionary definition is "The number of people gathered for a particular event or purpose."
200 people at a polling station, each handing in two ballot papers is 400 votes cast by a turnout of 200.
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Fri 6 May 11 at 14:38
|
|
But what is in he dictionary and what is practical are two different things. The only count made is of ballot papers. They don't count people walking through the door.
|
|
So an electorate of 1000 people, each using 2 ballot papers = 2000 votes is a 200% turnout? The answer is out there somwehere but we han't found it yet!
|
>> So an electorate of 1000 people, each using 2 ballot papers = 2000 votes is
>> a 200% turnout? The answer is out there somwehere but we han't found it yet!
You are being deliberatly obtuse again PP.
You know full well the votes (electoral and referendum) are counted separately (two different votes) NOT added together.
Stop stirring the mire. you have the information you need. The turnout is the number that vote.
|
|
I am not being obtuse, I am responding to posts made by you and others. If you don't agree with my mathematics that is your perogative. In the highly unlikely event that I require your comments on my attitude, or your orders on what I can and can't do on this forum, I will ask for them! Don't hold your breath!
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Fri 6 May 11 at 15:43
|
Nothing wrong with your maths, just that you are deliberately avoiding the facts pointed out to you by myself and others, make 2+2 = 8.
The turnout is those who vote, there is no other count taken so there can be no other number used to calculate a turnout, so only one version of turnout exists, Its not yours.
|
|
No I am not deliberately avoiding avoiding anything, and just because you state something that doesn't make it a fact. You say "Only ballot papers are counted, so that's the only source of numbers." Source of number of votes or number of voters? I t can't be both in a multi-ballot paper election. Please clarify.
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Fri 6 May 11 at 16:05
|
There is no count of the numbers of voters merely the number of votes. There are two counts taking place Electoral and referendum. Each will have a "turnout"
Therefore, as i said, there is no physical count of the number of people who enter the polling station. Only votes and spoiled papers.
Where is you other source of "turnout"?
|
|
Right, I follow that. This means that if there are two ballot papers, one for AV and one for local councillors there may thus be two different percentage turnouts. I suppose we are given the average of the two? Never mind my source of turnout! Where does the published figure come from?
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Fri 6 May 11 at 16:38
|
No we are not give the average of the two. We are given two turnouts.
There will be a published figure of the referendum turnout, and one for the electoral one. There is no combined, or average, or mean turnout.
Turnout has nothing to do with the number of people who turn out. My dog turned out but she didn't have a vote.
|
>> I suppose we are given the average of the two?
>> Where does the published figure come from?
What makes you think that you will get an average?
For instance:
www.southwark.gov.uk/info/1000/election_results/1617/general_election_2010
The two numbers missing are spoilt ballot papers and total number of electorate. With those numbers you could see where the turnout number comes from.
Where you complete two ballot papers at once, the total turnout will be different for the two separate ballots. What's hard to understand, can't belive this has run so far!? Why would anybody care about any other number?
There will of course be a slight discrepancy between total number of votes counted and total number of ballot papers issued. (Issued at the polling station, of course; unreturned issued postal ballot papers obviously do not count towards turnout.) Some voters will have taken theirs home, and the counters will have made mistakes. Occasionally you will see a recount under circumstances where the result is not close if the discrepancy is too great.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Fri 6 May 11 at 16:56
|
>>
>> the two separate ballots. What's hard to understand, can't belive this has run so far!?
>>
Not everyone is as numerate as Engineers turned Accountants. :-)
Last edited by: John H on Fri 6 May 11 at 17:21
|
It has to be those who vote.
Postal voters don't walk through the door and get a tick.
Pat
|
...Postal voters...
Good point.
More and more postal voters, so I'm told.
They will also be included in the turnout figures.
|
>> They will also be included in the turnout figures.
even tho they didn't - turnout that is.
|
>> Turnout is the number of people who Turn Out, never mind what they do when
>> they get inside the polling station. One dictionary definition is "The number of people gathered
>> for a particular event or purpose."
The posts above suggest that in electoral practice it has a more specific meaning based on the number of ballots placed in the box divided by the electorate.
|
Initial counts indicate its a 70% / 30% split for No to AV.
Follows our mini poll pretty closely.
|
...its a 70% / 30% split for No to AV...
Depressing in the sense the political class can be so out of step with the electorate.
As I said earlier, it was a stupid question.
|
Motorists, like professional thieves, are generally thought more conservative than the population as a whole.
Then the thinking is wrong, AC. With more than 30 million vehicles on the UK's roads, 'motorists' are the population as a whole. Over-50s with time on their hands, though...
}:---)
|
Some interesting results coming through.
Several London boroughs voted in favour of AV, although the overall split is still looking like 70/30 against.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13280105
|
|
With a turnout for the referendum vote of 40%
|
>> Some interesting results coming through.
>>
>> Several London boroughs voted in favour of AV, although the overall split is still looking
>> like 70/30 against.
>>
Probably the places like Islington where all the Toytown Trots live.
|
Another dodgy voting system - the local government count in Belfast will not finish until late at night - tomorrow night.
Single Transferable Vote is to blame, which from what I can make out is one man/five votes.
I felt sorry for the young reporter from the BBC.
All his mates at counts around the country are done and dusted and will be home in time for a late supper.
He's got to hang on tonight, just in case, and go back for some more punishment tomorrow.
Last edited by: Iffy on Fri 6 May 11 at 20:49
|
>> Another dodgy voting system - the local government count in Belfast will not finish until
>> late at night - tomorrow night.
>>
>> Single Transferable Vote is to blame, which from what I can make out is one
>> man/five votes.
>>
Do you mean the elections for the legislative assembly?
Reading your posts I'd guess you and I are both around 50. The 'troubles' were part of the daily news in our formative years. Do I need to explain why an electoral system that recognises multiple parties and radically different outlooks in a way FPTP cannot is needed?
|
...Do I need to explain why an electoral system...
Why is it you 'yes' felllas have such a patronising, world-weary, know-all attitude?
It makes people instinctively oppose you, and that's not good if you are pushing for change.
To me, an electoral system has to be plain, simple, and as easy to grasp as anything can be made to be.
Put it another way, every elector should be capable of running an election from start to finish.
First past the post passes those tests.
The fact the single transferable vote in Belfast takes so long to count proves it is a rubbish system - it has failed a key test.
Confronted with a heap of single transferable vote papers, I don't think I could do the count and produce the correct result, no matter how long I was given.
The system is just not fit for purpose.
I don't doubt it was introduced in Northern Ireland with the best of intentions.
But I wonder if electoral systems should be introduced just because they suit a set of circumstances which exist at a particular time.
Shouldn't they be based on something more permanent?
|
>> Then the thinking is wrong, AC. With more than 30 million vehicles on the UK's roads, 'motorists' are the population as a whole.
Alas, you are surely right WdeB. I have griped here often enough about the prevalence of the mere cud-chewing vehicle user on our roads today. A lapse of memory caused by sensory overload or something.
Yes, motorists are just the same as the population at large, God help us all.
Given this appalling fact, it is reassuring that Zero's straw poll conducted near the cigarette machines in the corridor out to the bogs reflects the national picture with pleasing accuracy given the small size and drunken, garrulous, irresponsible character of his sample. Apparently two thirds of the two fifths of us who voted nationally don't want proportional representation just yet.
|
AV - how C4P voted - Zero
