News.individual.net, bad news if you're not german

Graeme Wall wrote
tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Charles Ellson wrote

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of those
did actually intend to say "no suitable candidate".

Agreed, they could instead be saying I "like" all of them equally

Most of them are too lazy to bother

You don’t know that either. Many of them may well have
just decided that a particular seat is irrelevant to how the
country operates or that no parliament has much effect
on the economy as a whole who it doesn’t matter who
gets elected in that particular seat.

but will be up there moaning about the government as soon as it does
anything that affects them.

You don’t know that either. And even those who do may
feel that there isnt much in it between the candidates
who have a real chance of getting elected, because
there is no difference between the major partys policy
wise on that particular issue, like say the death penalty.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 11:13:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 03/01/2015 10:41, tim..... wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message


That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of those
did actually intend to say "no suitable candidate".

Agreed, they could instead be saying I "like" all of them equally


Most of them are too lazy to bother but will be up there moaning about
the government as soon as it does anything that affects them.

Damn right.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 20:00:07 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Optimist" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 08:21:23 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 03/01/2015 00:54, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:06:18 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European
Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all
members and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which
has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more than
a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing
their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for
election as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the
job the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last
year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.


Currently the only way to do it is to "spoil" the ballot paper. Those,
at least, get counted. Problem is they are regarded as just by idiots
who can't work out how to vote properly.

The significance would be in the quantity. Some will always mess it up
but if a large section of the (more likely in a local election ?)
electorate spoil their ballots then there is an implicit widespread
dissatisfaction with the choice offered.

If you don't like what's on offer, then stand yourself.

No thanks. With a first past the post
system, that is a complete waste of time.

It's quite easy to submit nomination papers.

Yes, but still completely pointless.

For parliamentary elections you have to put up a deposit
of £500 which you lose if you don't get 5% of the votes cast.

Which you won't so that is ****ing your £500 against the wall.

There is no deposit in local elections.

Still a complete waste of your time.

Not always if you have a good support team and a genuine problem that
could have support from other councillors. If you complete your task
then if you're mad enough and have the time for it you could even
carry on representing your neighbours at the next election rather than
letting some party man/woman get back in. Unfortunately for the rest
of us, there are few such people with the time and enthusiasm
available.

On 03/01/2015 18:16, Rod Speed wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote
tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Charles Ellson wrote

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of those
did actually intend to say "no suitable candidate".

Agreed, they could instead be saying I "like" all of them equally

Most of them are too lazy to bother

You don’t know that either.

Done one too many vox-pops about why people do or don't vote.

Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 03/01/2015 18:32, Charles Ellson wrote:
The significance would be in the quantity. Some will always mess it up
but if a large section of the (more likely in a local election ?)
electorate spoil their ballots then there is an implicit widespread
dissatisfaction with the choice offered.

Can't remember the figures, but weren't there significant numbers of
spoiled ballot papers in the police commissioner elections? Assumed to
express dissatisfaction in a way that failing to vote would not.

--
Rod

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 20:00:07 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Optimist" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 08:21:23 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 03/01/2015 00:54, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 23:06:18 +0000, Fredxxx wrote:

On 02/01/2015 22:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:07:59 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2015 08:13:34 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:37:15 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 28/12/2014 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 21:06:58 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 26/12/2014 21:58, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:

"Ian Jackson" wrote

http://www.nigelfaragemep.co.uk/
See 'Contact'.

Actually, Nigel Farage isn't anti-EEC (the old European
Economic
Union,
aka the Common Market) - he's against the EU, which now seems
hell-bent
more on political union, and (apparently) bugger the
economics.

VAT was required for the EEC and made compulsory for all
members and
new
entrants.

This change for cross-border services is an obvious fix which
has
been
in progress since 2008 with all details available for more
than
a
year.

The four-letter party's MEPs were evidently too busy drawing
their
expenses to notice.



They specifically claim not to take part in EU business.

A strange claim from a party which puts up candidates for
election as
MEPs.


Their objective, presumably, is to take the money but not do the
job the
are paid to do, in order to undermine the institution.

That's democracy - UKIP got more votes in the Euro elections last
year
than any other party.

Apart from the Apathy party.

They didn't get any votes, stupid.

Whoosh !

It may be whoosh to you, but on occasions I haven't voted simply I
vehemently disagreed with elements of the party candidate's
manifesto.

If there was a "no suitable candidate" I would have ticked that box.

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.


Currently the only way to do it is to "spoil" the ballot paper. Those,
at least, get counted. Problem is they are regarded as just by idiots
who can't work out how to vote properly.

The significance would be in the quantity. Some will always mess it up
but if a large section of the (more likely in a local election ?)
electorate spoil their ballots then there is an implicit widespread
dissatisfaction with the choice offered.

If you don't like what's on offer, then stand yourself.

No thanks. With a first past the post
system, that is a complete waste of time.

It's quite easy to submit nomination papers.

Yes, but still completely pointless.

For parliamentary elections you have to put up a deposit
of £500 which you lose if you don't get 5% of the votes cast.

Which you won't so that is ****ing your £500 against the wall.

There is no deposit in local elections.

Still a complete waste of your time.

Not always if you have a good support team and a genuine
problem that could have support from other councillors.

That's unlikely except with say the complete redevelopment
of a particular area in the electorate with local councils where
you may find that there are quite a few who will get off their
arses to stop something they don't want to see happen etc.

If you complete your task then if you're mad enough and
have the time for it you could even carry on representing
your neighbours at the next election rather than letting
some party man/woman get back in. Unfortunately for
the rest of us, there are few such people with the time
and enthusiasm available.

Or who even have an issue they care about enough
to warrant anything like that sort of effort.

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 03/01/2015 18:16, Rod Speed wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote
tim..... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Charles Ellson wrote

That "box" is bounded by the four corners of the ballot paper or
anything else that clearly isn't a vote for a single candidate. If a
constituency returns that as the majority vote then it won't go
unnoticed unlike the count of those who just don't turn up.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of those
did actually intend to say "no suitable candidate".

Agreed, they could instead be saying I "like" all of them equally

Most of them are too lazy to bother

You don’t know that either.

Done one too many vox-pops about why people do or don't vote.

Trouble with those is that what they say isnt necessarily the real driver.

With many who don’t bother to vote, its much more that they
don’t see that things are currently being done badly enough
to warrant trying to get someone who will do things differently,
and don’t see that the first past the post system normally does
any more than switch from one of the majors to the other.

That's not too lazy, that's just a recognition of how the system works.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:59:41 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

On 03/01/2015 18:32, Charles Ellson wrote:
The significance would be in the quantity. Some will always mess it up
but if a large section of the (more likely in a local election ?)
electorate spoil their ballots then there is an implicit widespread
dissatisfaction with the choice offered.

Can't remember the figures, but weren't there significant numbers of
spoiled ballot papers in the police commissioner elections? Assumed to
express dissatisfaction in a way that failing to vote would not.

Wiltshire and Dyfed-Powis according to :-
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/n...-ballot-papers
although there seems to have been a voting system other than just the
usual single vote in use. However, the Dyfed-Powis vote was a straight
"pick one of two" vote.

On 03/01/2015 18:59, polygonum wrote:
On 03/01/2015 18:32, Charles Ellson wrote:
The significance would be in the quantity. Some will always mess it up
but if a large section of the (more likely in a local election ?)
electorate spoil their ballots then there is an implicit widespread
dissatisfaction with the choice offered.

Can't remember the figures, but weren't there significant numbers of
spoiled ballot papers in the police commissioner elections? Assumed to
express dissatisfaction in a way that failing to vote would not.


That's what I did.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 03/01/15 18:59, polygonum wrote:
On 03/01/2015 18:32, Charles Ellson wrote:
The significance would be in the quantity. Some will always mess it up
but if a large section of the (more likely in a local election ?)
electorate spoil their ballots then there is an implicit widespread
dissatisfaction with the choice offered.

Can't remember the figures, but weren't there significant numbers of
spoiled ballot papers in the police commissioner elections? Assumed to
express dissatisfaction in a way that failing to vote would not.


The Sussex PCC seems to be intent on keeping her fizzog in the media as
much as possible prattling on about number plates for bicycles whilst
stealthily removing actual police officers from the streets (or at least
not combating the decline).