Connect2 phone voting

[Danny Colyer]

On 08/12/2007 09:29, Trevor A Panther wrote:
> My empirical experience with Sustrans is that one a "route" is established
> then it is abandoned to the whims of various local authorities who fail to
> maintain the route.

That's not my experience. But then I actually bother to get involved
and tell the local authorities what maintenance is required, and I
attend meetings to discuss maintenance issues.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Since then I've always lived in a constituency where my MP has had a
> safe seat. That's never stopped me voting, though, although on one
> occasion I spoiled my ballot paper when I wanted to register a protest
> vote and the choice of candidates for a protest vote was (IIRC) UKIP,
> the Referendum Party or the Natural Law Party.

Are you aware that spoilt papers are no longer counted?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 08 Dec, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The seat I'm talking about was strong tory in the worst of times for them,
> > so the chances of it going to anyone else are pretty much zero. And we'd
> > know if there was some competition for the seat beforehand - your examples
> > weren't sudden surprises.
>
> Hmm... If I assume correctly, at the last election your MP was elected
> with 49.7% of the vote.

There _are_ safe seats that have no likelihood of changing for many,
many years - in my constituency the tories have sometimes won such that
even if ALL those that did not vote had voted for the second place
candidate the tories would still have won (eg, 1992: 12,047 people did
not vote, tories won with a majority of 15,950). Even in the 'great'
labour landslide of 1997, teh tories had over a 10,000 majority here.

The tories are perilously close to winning even if everyone that does
not vote tory votes for the second place candidate.

At the last election, 65% of the did-not-voters would have had to vote
for the lib-dems for the tories to have been ousted. Given that only
30% of the voters voted for the lib-dems that's just not credible for
a long time to come.

The highest any non-tory has had in a general election at any time in
the last 25 years was 30.7% of the vote. The lowest a tory has had is
48%, and they have twice beaten 60% of the vote.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 08/12/2007 11:41, Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Are you aware that spoilt papers are no longer counted?

I would sincerely hope that that is not the case.

If it is, was it true in 1997?

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

 

[Clive George]

"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1i8sodq.13bf812mm90lwN%[email protected]...
> Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:1i8rpf9.ymnnku14qopN%[email protected]...
>> > Nigel Cliffe <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Matt B wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Given that (in theory) we vote for our constituency representative,
>> >> > and not specifically for the Government, I think you'll find that
>> >> > each
>> >> > person's vote has an equal value.
>> >
>> >> No they don't. I live in a very safe seat area. I can vote or not,
>> >> but my vote has no effect on the outcome.
>
>> > That is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>>
>> Unfortunately it isn't - it's real life.
>>
>> I'm in a safe seat. Every time I go out and vote I do so in the knowledge
>> that it won't make any difference.
>>
>> When there are a sufficient number of people who support a party without
>> question, then this happens.
>
> I'm sorry, I must disagree. Unless it is genuinely the case that the
> majority of potential voters in an area support the same party, by
> refusing to register your disagreement you send the signal to other
> potential voters that voting will not make a difference.

The evidence seems to strongly suggest that the majority of potential voters
in my area support the same party. (I'm not entirely sure why I had to write
that - surely it's obvious?)

That's what a safe seat means - especially one as safe as the one I'm in.
It's tory, and didn't even quaver in 1997.

It'll take something other than simply voting to shift it - eg an
independent candidate with a strong local cause.

cheers,
clive

 

[Clive George]

"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1i8sokr.wfd9hr1o03ajpN%[email protected]...
> Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's not actually true. It may change for me in the future, but at the
>> moment my vote plays no part in the proceedings. I've got as much
>> representation if I vote or if I don't.
>>
>> The seat I'm talking about was strong tory in the worst of times for
>> them,
>> so the chances of it going to anyone else are pretty much zero. And we'd
>> know if there was some competition for the seat beforehand - your
>> examples
>> weren't sudden surprises.
>
> Hmm... If I assume correctly, at the last election your MP was elected
> with 49.7% of the vote.
>
> 69 500 people were eligible to vote. 36% of those voted for him. If
> sufficient of those who had not bothered to vote had chosen to vote for
> the second placed candidate then the Tories would have been ousted.
>
> On the other hand, if enough people in your constituency decide there is
> no point voting, your MP may one day be elected with 100% of the vote.

And? Makes no difference - he's still only one seat in Parliament.

The difference doesn't come from the individual vote, it comes from
organising them, ie campaigning. And simply campaigning to get people to
vote will probably bring in numbers proportional to what we already see.

If we get one of the opposition candidates using the argument you're using,
it might bring in a few people for them - but it's not just people who don't
want him who aren't voting, it's people who do. So they'll come and vote
too - and it'll still go the same way. There's no way of organising the
numbers of people you want and keeping it secret (eg you've got to find them
in the first place).

(it's not like campaigning for voter registration in the US, where it's
largely aimed at poorer people and hence done by Dems).

If we get a candidate who can actually be bothered to make an impact, we'll
know about it in advance. Ditto if there's a scandal. But in the absence of
that, any apathy on my part would make no difference.

cheers,
clive

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Dec, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> > Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > The seat I'm talking about was strong tory in the worst of times for them,
> > > so the chances of it going to anyone else are pretty much zero. And we'd
> > > know if there was some competition for the seat beforehand - your examples
> > > weren't sudden surprises.
> >
> > Hmm... If I assume correctly, at the last election your MP was elected
> > with 49.7% of the vote.
>
> There _are_ safe seats that have no likelihood of changing for many,
> many years - in my constituency the tories have sometimes won such that
> even if ALL those that did not vote had voted for the second place
> candidate the tories would still have won (eg, 1992: 12,047 people did
> not vote, tories won with a majority of 15,950). Even in the 'great'
> labour landslide of 1997, teh tories had over a 10,000 majority here.
>
> The tories are perilously close to winning even if everyone that does
> not vote tory votes for the second place candidate.
>
> At the last election, 65% of the did-not-voters would have had to vote
> for the lib-dems for the tories to have been ousted. Given that only
> 30% of the voters voted for the lib-dems that's just not credible for
> a long time to come.

It is certainly not credible while people refuse to vote on the grounds
that their preferred candidate won't win.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 08/12/2007 11:41, Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > Are you aware that spoilt papers are no longer counted?
>
> I would sincerely hope that that is not the case.
>
> If it is, was it true in 1997?

As I recall, the change in the law was introduced prior to the 2005
General Election. I cannot, however, find any online confirmation of
this so I may well be wrong.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1i8sodq.13bf812mm90lwN%[email protected]...
> > Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> I'm in a safe seat. Every time I go out and vote I do so in the knowledge
> >> that it won't make any difference.
> >>
> >> When there are a sufficient number of people who support a party without
> >> question, then this happens.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I must disagree. Unless it is genuinely the case that the
> > majority of potential voters in an area support the same party, by
> > refusing to register your disagreement you send the signal to other
> > potential voters that voting will not make a difference.
>
> The evidence seems to strongly suggest that the majority of potential voters
> in my area support the same party. (I'm not entirely sure why I had to write
> that - surely it's obvious?)

I don't think it is obvious. There is a large number of people
nationally who claim that there is no point voting because nothing ever
changes.

67% of potential voters in your area did not vote for the Conservatives.
Every individual who votes for a party other than the Conservatives
reduces the incumbent's majority.

I have the feeling, however, that this discussion could go on for ever
and in circles so will now shut up on the subject.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Clive George]

"Ekul Namsob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1i8t7ka.1pb4q6b164aqvnN%[email protected]...
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Dec, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
>> > Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > The seat I'm talking about was strong tory in the worst of times for
>> > > them,
>> > > so the chances of it going to anyone else are pretty much zero. And
>> > > we'd
>> > > know if there was some competition for the seat beforehand - your
>> > > examples
>> > > weren't sudden surprises.
>> >
>> > Hmm... If I assume correctly, at the last election your MP was elected
>> > with 49.7% of the vote.
>>
>> There _are_ safe seats that have no likelihood of changing for many,
>> many years - in my constituency the tories have sometimes won such that
>> even if ALL those that did not vote had voted for the second place
>> candidate the tories would still have won (eg, 1992: 12,047 people did
>> not vote, tories won with a majority of 15,950). Even in the 'great'
>> labour landslide of 1997, teh tories had over a 10,000 majority here.
>>
>> The tories are perilously close to winning even if everyone that does
>> not vote tory votes for the second place candidate.
>>
>> At the last election, 65% of the did-not-voters would have had to vote
>> for the lib-dems for the tories to have been ousted. Given that only
>> 30% of the voters voted for the lib-dems that's just not credible for
>> a long time to come.
>
> It is certainly not credible while people refuse to vote on the grounds
> that their preferred candidate won't win.

You're ignoring the point that the "don't votes" aren't going to be
naturally opposed to the winning candidate. The same thing which persuades
the people who didn't vote out last time to vote against the incumbent will
also persuade the people who didn't vote last time who support the
incumbent - and they'll tend to be in similar proportions to those who did
vote. So it all cancels out.

It'll take something else to make the contest interesting.

cheers,
clive

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 08 Dec, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 08 Dec, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> > > Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The seat I'm talking about was strong tory in the worst of times for them,
> > > > so the chances of it going to anyone else are pretty much zero. And we'd
> > > > know if there was some competition for the seat beforehand - your examples
> > > > weren't sudden surprises.
> > >
> > > Hmm... If I assume correctly, at the last election your MP was elected
> > > with 49.7% of the vote.
> >
> > There _are_ safe seats that have no likelihood of changing for many,
> > many years - in my constituency the tories have sometimes won such that
> > even if ALL those that did not vote had voted for the second place
> > candidate the tories would still have won (eg, 1992: 12,047 people did
> > not vote, tories won with a majority of 15,950). Even in the 'great'
> > labour landslide of 1997, teh tories had over a 10,000 majority here.
> >
> > The tories are perilously close to winning even if everyone that does
> > not vote tory votes for the second place candidate.
> >
> > At the last election, 65% of the did-not-voters would have had to vote
> > for the lib-dems for the tories to have been ousted. Given that only
> > 30% of the voters voted for the lib-dems that's just not credible for
> > a long time to come.
>
> It is certainly not credible while people refuse to vote on the grounds
> that their preferred candidate won't win.

That response does not seem to address the situation of 12,047 people
did not vote, teh tories won by a 15,950 majority.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[MatSav]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> ...In a general election one
> constituency votes for one MP, and the size of constituencies
> vary, so
> that those people voting in a bigger constituency do not have a
> proportionate vote to those in smaller constituencies.

The role of the Boundary Commission is to ensure that each
parliamentary constituency comprises a similar electorate:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/default.asp

In brief, they recognise that Tom is correct - and recommend
changes to constituencies and boundaries.

--
MatSav

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:47:50 -0000, "MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage |
at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com> wrote:

>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]...
>> ...In a general election one
>> constituency votes for one MP, and the size of constituencies
>> vary, so
>> that those people voting in a bigger constituency do not have a
>> proportionate vote to those in smaller constituencies.
>
>The role of the Boundary Commission is to ensure that each
>parliamentary constituency comprises a similar electorate:
>
>http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/default.asp
>
>In brief, they recognise that Tom is correct - and recommend
>changes to constituencies and boundaries.

I wonder what they will do about the discrepency between constituency
sizes?

Isle of Wight - constituency electorate: 104,702
Western Isles - consitiuency electorate: 22,141

It seems that Scotland is vastly over represented in the House of
Commons. However, my figures are for 2001, and things may have
changed since then.

 

[Martin Bulmer]

Matt B wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Without wanting to reopen the debate about good thing/bad thing:
>>
>> Phone voting is now open at 0870 24 24 602 (10p a call, apparently).
>> Closes noon on Monday.
>>
>> If you're pro-Connect2 you'll want to vote from your home number,
>> your mobile, your work number, your aunt's mobile etc. etc.
>
> You're not a supporter of fair play then, or the old fashioned notion
> of one person, one vote.
>
Hey, I pay for 4 lines & 4 mobiles, I'm entitled (or enfranchised).
Then there's the web site...........
--


Martin Bulmer

 

[Paul Boyd]

Danny Colyer said the following on 08/12/2007 12:47:

> I would sincerely hope that that is not the case.

I think it is, but I'm not totally sure.

What the ballot paper really needs is a "None of the above" box on it.
I can't not vote, because then I have no right to moan about what
happens, but often I really cannot decide who to vote for right up to
the point when I'm standing in the booth. If there were enough "None of
the above" votes then the election needs to be declared void.

I also don't like the system in the UK where you can't actually vote for
the party that you would like to run the UK, which may not be the party
you want to run the local council. At the last general election I was a
bit torn because there was no way I wanted party A to have control of my
council, but I did want them to run the country as a whole. They didn't
though...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[JNugent]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Danny Colyer said the following on 08/12/2007 12:47:
>
>> I would sincerely hope that that is not the case.
>
>
> I think it is, but I'm not totally sure.
>
> What the ballot paper really needs is a "None of the above" box on it. I
> can't not vote, because then I have no right to moan about what happens,
> but often I really cannot decide who to vote for right up to the point
> when I'm standing in the booth. If there were enough "None of the
> above" votes then the election needs to be declared void.
>
> I also don't like the system in the UK where you can't actually vote for
> the party that you would like to run the UK, which may not be the party
> you want to run the local council. At the last general election I was a
> bit torn because there was no way I wanted party A to have control of my
> council, but I did want them to run the country as a whole. They didn't
> though...

I think you must have forgotten something - surely?

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:

> I also don't like the system in the UK where you can't actually vote for
> the party that you would like to run the UK, which may not be the party
> you want to run the local council.

Council elections are separate from General elections, even when held on
the same day. I have previously voted for candidates from 2 separate
parties on the same election day because my preferred party had not put
a candidate forward for the local election.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 10/12/2007 16:32, Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Council elections are separate from General elections, even when held on
> the same day. I have previously voted for candidates from 2 separate
> parties on the same election day because my preferred party had not put
> a candidate forward for the local election.

In principal I could vote for candidates from 4 different parties on the
same day, because a council election allows me to vote for 3 different
candidates. I tend to vote for the best 3 candidates, who won't always
all represent the same party.

I don't think I've every voted for >2 parties on the same day, though.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis