General Election 2017

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38464

markg wrote:

What do people reckon then? I reckon that the Tories will gain about 30 seats or so.

Hung Parliament

/Blind Optimism

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6515

Hung parliament, leading to civil disturbances, rioting, civil war, paramilitary death squads and Britain ending up as a barren, burnt out, poisoned wasteland.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:46

DavPaz wrote:

markg wrote:

What do people reckon then? I reckon that the Tories will gain about 30 seats or so.

Hung Parliament

/Blind Optimism

I'd like a hung parliament, a multi-party push for a decent voting system, and politicians being realistic and honest to the public about Brexit. I'd also like to teach the world to sing.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:47

Squirt wrote:

civil disturbances, rioting, civil war, paramilitary death squads and Britain ending up as a barren, burnt out, poisoned wasteland.

Yes, but mustn't grumble.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16560

It's certainly interesting, I wonder if there aren't perhaps going to be more than a few shy defectors out there. I was talking to my dad who's 80 and he's said that he's spoken to a couple of people who were lifelong Tory voters who had said that this time around they'd be voting Labour. I think that if they hadn't fucked up the NHS and then announced the dementia tax that it would be an absolute landslide.

Mr Russell · **Joined:** 6th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 12243

I think even with the NHS cuts, the school cuts, the local services cuts, the police cuts, the dementia tax, the U-turns on everything, the human rights act scrapping etc the Tories will still up their majority by around 20 seats.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:50

markg wrote:

It's certainly interesting, I wonder if there aren't perhaps going to be more than a few shy defectors out there. .

Mrs May's weaknesses as a political leader have come to the fore in a way I didn't expect. That won't bode well for her long-term political future.

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

I sometimes wonder if some kind of demographic weighting could improve the democratic process, whereby your vote was multiplied by a certain proportion designed to eliminate disproportionate power in the hands of groups by age, gender, ethnicity etc.

I doubt it could be perfectly implemented, but it could result in a vote outcome that is more representative of the population as a whole, not just those who vote.

Edit: PR would obviously be better than FPTP too.

Edit2: and I don't think it will happen any time soon, but eventually I think Labour should push for PR. It wouldn't benefit Labour so much, but it would benefit the Left as a whole.

Jem · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:51

Kern wrote:

Are the #usepens twats active this year?

I've seen a few but it's mostly piss-taking.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:54

LewieP wrote:

I sometimes wonder if some kind of demographic weighting could improve the democratic process, whereby your vote was multiplied by a certain proportion designed to eliminate disproportionate power in the hands of groups by age, gender, ethnicity etc.

Sadly, this has the potential to go wrong very quickly, as the legacy of Jim Crow reminds us.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that some people are more equal than others. Otherwise, we might as well go back to only landowners having the vote. Heck, at the start of WW1 only 60% of males, and 0% of females, had the franchise.

EDIT: strikeout because I shouldn't feel sad about this.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16560

LewieP wrote:

I sometimes wonder if some kind of demographic weighting could improve the democratic process, whereby your vote was multiplied by a certain proportion designed to eliminate disproportionate power in the hands of groups by age, gender, ethnicity etc.

I doubt it could be perfectly implemented, but it could result in a vote outcome that is more representative of the population as a whole, not just those who vote.

That's a terrible idea.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:00

I think LewieP might have something in mind akin to the Irish Senate, elected by various 'vocational panels' composed of organisations representing different elements of society.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:03

Of course, until 1950 I'd have had an additional vote for a university seat.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

Kern wrote:

Which reminds me: remember you are not obliged to give your electoral number to anyone outside.

Could you expand on this? See, I'm sure I almost black out when I get there, because I'm always confused to what's happened. I've spoken to Russell about it before, but I always think they've taken my card, then given me my voting slip, written down my voting slip number next to my name and made a note of my register number, which Russell has said can't be right. Russell, when you go tonight can you just pay attention to what they actually do, as they distracted me today talking about dinosaurs.

Oh, and today they said there's new rules where they tear up your polling card and you are obliged to take it back with you (which I guess is yo prevent election fraud, though I'm not sure how that is abu use if you don't take your card with you)

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

LewieP wrote:

I sometimes wonder if some kind of demographic weighting could improve the democratic process, whereby your vote was multiplied by a certain proportion designed to eliminate disproportionate power in the hands of groups by age, gender, ethnicity etc.

"A whole count of each free person, and 2/3 of all other persons"?

When the precedent is slavery, I'm not convinced it's something people would go for...

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:14

Mimi wrote:

Kern wrote:

Which reminds me: remember you are not obliged to give your electoral number to anyone outside.

Could you expand on this? See, I'm sure I almost black out when I get there, because I'm always confused to what's happened.

You go into the polling station, the official asks for your address and name, and issues you with a ballot form. See: https://www.yourvotematters.co.uk/how-d ... -in-person.

People outside the polling station, called 'tellers', are party activists checking their lists to see who's voted so they can decide where to mobilise their get-out-the-vote campaigns.
If anyone makes you feel unhappy or unsafe in or around the polling station, find an official and tell them.First time I voted I felt very uncomfortable going in and going out but these days I just walk straight past the party people and don't make eye contact.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

So, here's my solutions (not entirely serious that these are workable or the right thing, but I'm chucking them out there):

1) Minimum voting age is 18, disproportionately caring for the interests of the older end of the population. Make the maximum voting age -18 years the average mortality age.

2) Let parents vote by proxy for their children.

Of course they don't work, but meh, today I wish they did.

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:20

I reckon the Tories gain 48 seats.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

Kern wrote:

Mimi wrote:

Kern wrote:

Which reminds me: remember you are not obliged to give your electoral number to anyone outside.

Could you expand on this? See, I'm sure I almost black out when I get there, because I'm always confused to what's happened.

You go into the polling station, the official asks for your address and name, and issues you with a ballot form. See: https://www.yourvotematters.co.uk/how-d ... -in-person.

People outside the polling station, called 'tellers', are party activists checking their lists to see who's voted so they can decide where to mobilise their get-out-the-vote campaigns.
If anyone makes you feel unhappy or unsafe in or around the polling station, find an official and tell them.First time I voted I felt very uncomfortable going in and going out but these days I just walk straight past the party people and don't make eye contact.

Ah, no, these aren't people outside, these are the people behind the desk that issue the ballot paper, that cross your name off of the list. I just wanted to know what the number is that they write down.

Nobody outside the polling station has ever asked my number. I think the only guy there is a security guard

JBR · **Joined:** 2nd Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 3214

Very friendly, smiley person outside Whitstable's polling station this morning, and whoever she represents I'm happy to give my number - it's either 'oh arse, not one of ours' or 'good, don't need to knock there later, then'. It ought to help your party but not actually help the other. I suppose you could game it by promising (say) the Tories your vote, then not telling them you've voted, and hoping they waste time chasing you later.

I have not given info before, but either because I didn't understand what they wanted - they don't say - or because I didn't want to drop down the queue. Not a problem at 8.15. No one else there.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Mimi wrote:

2) Let parents vote by proxy for their children.

Holy crap no!

Other way around we might get somewhere

LewieP · **Joined:** 29th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 7600

As I said, such a system couldn't be perfectly implemented, but I do think equal representation for different sectors of the population would be more democratic than equal representation for individuals who vote.

Edit: I did the number taking thing for Labour during council elections a couple of times when I was younger.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:24

Mimi wrote:

I just wanted to know what the number is that they write down.

The number of the ballot paper you've been issued, so it can't be used again.

Mr Russell · **Joined:** 6th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 12243

Kern wrote:

Mimi wrote:

I just wanted to know what the number is that they write down.

The number of the ballot paper you've been issued, so it can't be used again.

Nothing sinister about actually tracking your anonymous vote then?

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:33

Kern wrote:

Mimi wrote:

I just wanted to know what the number is that they write down.

The number of the ballot paper you've been issued, so it can't be used again.

And now I'm reading up on electoral law about the precise process. #sthash.PmKaeS1b.dpuf" class="postlink">Wiltshire Council explain it well (spoilered for length):

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

Quote:

Why is my name marked in the register and why is my number written down before I am allowed to vote?

Every ballot paper has a unique serial number and by law, a record is kept of every serial number issued to each voter. The copy of the register used in the polling station is already marked to show who has a postal or proxy vote. The poll clerk on duty will put a small mark against your name to show you have voted and to make sure that nobody tries to vote at the station pretending to be you.

At the close of poll, documents which list the serial numbers of the ballot papers and who they have been issued to are sealed in special packets and cannot be opened without a court order. This enables checks should a legal challenge be made to the result of the election.

It is very rare for the documents to be examined except in cases where fraud or impersonation (i.e someone voting illegally on someone else’s behalf) are being investigated. Because of these safeguards, it is virtually impossible for any person to be in a position to match the voter to a particular ballot paper. For that reason, voters can be confident that the ballot remains secret.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

Cras wrote:

Mimi wrote:

2) Let parents vote by proxy for their children.

Holy crap no!

Other way around we might get somewhere

I don't think my son has the right degree of penmanship even to manage a cross, just yet.

Mr Russell · **Joined:** 6th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 12243

Noice one Kern.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:35

Mr Russell wrote:

Nothing sinister about actually tracking your anonymous vote then?

It's a protection against fraud and so MI5 know where the Communists live

myp · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:36

I live in Nottingham! I don't mind them knowing!

Curiosity · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:37

MaliA wrote:

Put my money where my mouth is.

Those are terrible odds. Online the WEP are 100/1 to win ANY seat.

Jem · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:37

Is there a decent argument for keeping the voting age at 18 rather than dropping it to 16? It's something I've never really understood.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:40

Jem wrote:

Is there a decent argument for keeping the voting age at 18 rather than dropping it to 16? It's something I've never really understood.

I suppose you just have to draw the arbitrary line somewhere. Anything less than 16 feels too young; anything above 18 too old (US drinking laws, I'm looking at you).

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

Kern wrote:

Mimi wrote:

I just wanted to know what the number is that they write down.

The number of the ballot paper you've been issued, so it can't be used again.

And now I'm reading up on electoral law about the precise process. #sthash.PmKaeS1b.dpuf" class="postlink">Wiltshire Council explain it well (spoilered for length):

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

Quote:

Why is my name marked in the register and why is my number written down before I am allowed to vote?

Every ballot paper has a unique serial number and by law, a record is kept of every serial number issued to each voter. The copy of the register used in the polling station is already marked to show who has a postal or proxy vote. The poll clerk on duty will put a small mark against your name to show you have voted and to make sure that nobody tries to vote at the station pretending to be you.

At the close of poll, documents which list the serial numbers of the ballot papers and who they have been issued to are sealed in special packets and cannot be opened without a court order. This enables checks should a legal challenge be made to the result of the election.

It is very rare for the documents to be examined except in cases where fraud or impersonation (i.e someone voting illegally on someone else’s behalf) are being investigated. Because of these safeguards, it is virtually impossible for any person to be in a position to match the voter to a particular ballot paper. For that reason, voters can be confident that the ballot remains secret.

See, that's what I always thought was happening, but when I've spoken to people they've always been adamant it can't possibly been as it means an individual's vote choice can be traced back to them (if 'needs' be, if they fall into the wrong hands, if...) so wouldn't be truly anonymous. I can understand why it's done, but I don't think everyone realises that's what is happening.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16560

LewieP wrote:

As I said, such a system couldn't be perfectly implemented, but I do think equal representation for different sectors of the population would be more democratic than equal representation for individuals who vote.

But you're making the assumption that the views and interests of people within any particular sector who vote coincide with those who don't. e.g. I don't know but I sort of imagine that more youngsters from wealthy families vote than those from poorer backgrounds.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:44

Mimi wrote:

See, that's what I always thought was happening, but when I've spoken to people they've always been adamant it can't possibly been as it means an individual's vote choice can be traced back to them (if 'needs' be, if they fall into the wrong hands, if...) so wouldn't be truly anonymous. I can understand why it's done, but I don't think everyone realises that's what is happening.

The alternative would be not number the papers, which is the greater risk. But then I've a charming and naïve blind faith in the system.

TheVision · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:48

Jem wrote:

Kern wrote:

Are the #usepens twats active this year?

I've seen a few but it's mostly piss-taking.

I've seen someone use #penisbest. They were being serious too!

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:58

markg wrote:

LewieP wrote:

As I said, such a system couldn't be perfectly implemented, but I do think equal representation for different sectors of the population would be more democratic than equal representation for individuals who vote.

But you're making the assumption that the views and interests of people within any particular sector who vote coincide with those who don't. e.g. I don't know but I sort of imagine that more youngsters from wealthy families vote than those from poorer backgrounds.

As far as market research is concerned, there's been a lot of research done on the viability of weighting. The outcome is basically "once you have around 300 people in each base group the results barely change".

Malc · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:02

Jem wrote:

Is there a decent argument for keeping the voting age at 18 rather than dropping it to 16? It's something I've never really understood.

I asked my 16 year old son who he would vote for and his reply was "whatever you and mum wanted me to vote for" I don't think he's ready to vote to be honest, although my eldest son (19 next month) would have loved to have voted in the referendum last year (2 weeks too young to have voted in that), so it's harder to justify, but then I think with any line you're going to have some who want to vote younger, and some who cba over.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

Kern wrote:

Mimi wrote:

See, that's what I always thought was happening, but when I've spoken to people they've always been adamant it can't possibly been as it means an individual's vote choice can be traced back to them (if 'needs' be, if they fall into the wrong hands, if...) so wouldn't be truly anonymous. I can understand why it's done, but I don't think everyone realises that's what is happening.

The alternative would be not number the papers, which is the greater risk. But then I've a charming and naïve blind faith in the system.

I'm not saying it's not the best process. What I am saying is that I don't think everyone realises that IS the process. Certainly when I've spoken to people before to say that's what I think happens they've told me that surely I must be wrong and that it can't possibly be

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:03

Mimi wrote:

I'm not saying it's not the best process. What I am saying is that I don't think everyone realises that IS the process. Certainly when I've spoken to people before to say that's what I think happens they've told me that surely I must be wrong and that it can't possibly be

Agreed. When I first heard of the practice I was also going through a huge conspiracy phase so was naturally aghast. Ha! Sheeple thinking it's secret ballot! I was also 14.

Jem · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:08

Kern wrote:

Jem wrote:

Is there a decent argument for keeping the voting age at 18 rather than dropping it to 16? It's something I've never really understood.

I suppose you just have to draw the arbitrary line somewhere. Anything less than 16 feels too young; anything above 18 too old (US drinking laws, I'm looking at you).

At 16 we are responsible enough to have sex and make babies but not vote? It just seems odd. :shrug:

GazChap · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:11

Jem wrote:

At 16 we are responsible enough to have sex and make babies but not vote? It just seems odd. :shrug:

Obligatory

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:13

Jem wrote:

At 16 we are responsible enough to have sex and make babies but not vote? It just seems odd. :shrug:

I know what I wanted to do at that age.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25594

Kern wrote:

Jem wrote:

At 16 we are responsible enough to have sex and make babies but not vote? It just seems odd. :shrug:

I know what I wanted to do at that age.

Vote?

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:13

Mimi wrote:

Kern wrote:

Jem wrote:

At 16 we are responsible enough to have sex and make babies but not vote? It just seems odd. :shrug:

I know what I wanted to do at that age.

Vote?

Giphy "winner!":
https://media3.giphy.com/media/l44Q6Etd5kdSGttXa/giphy-loop.mp4

Hearthly · **Joined:** 11th May, 2008 **Posts:** 13382

You can vote in general elections on the IOM at the age of 16, fact fans. We changed the law in 2006.

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:19

I could be wrong, but I still reckon Tory majority of ~50+ or thereabouts. When push comes to shove, people just aren't going to be voting for Corbyn, Abbott & co. (IMO)

It could've been ~100+ were it not for May's car-crash election campaign, which will surely go down as one of the all-time worst and may yet bite her (and the rest of us) well and truly on the bum-cheeks. If someone like, say, the charismatic David Miliband were leading a moderate, Centrist, pseudo-aspirational Labour Party, instead of Cor-bin, he would've walked this. Thank heavens I was out of the country for most of it.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16560

Grim... wrote:

markg wrote:

LewieP wrote:

As I said, such a system couldn't be perfectly implemented, but I do think equal representation for different sectors of the population would be more democratic than equal representation for individuals who vote.

But you're making the assumption that the views and interests of people within any particular sector who vote coincide with those who don't. e.g. I don't know but I sort of imagine that more youngsters from wealthy families vote than those from poorer backgrounds.

As far as market research is concerned, there's been a lot of research done on the viability of weighting. The outcome is basically "once you have around 300 people in each base group the results barely change".

I'm not sure what you're saying there. How does that relate to likely differences between the views of voters or non-voters?

Anyway any weighted voting system could never be accepted as fair. It would need constant revision and this would be most heavily influenced by the government of the day so it would make the current gerrymandering that goes on look like the pinnacle of democracy.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:22

Cavey wrote:

If someone like, say, the charismatic David Miliband were leading a moderate, Centrist, pseudo-aspirational Labour Party, instead of Cor-bin, he would've walked this.

Meanwhile, in an alternative universe...

Cavey · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:23

Kern wrote:

Cavey wrote:

If someone like, say, the charismatic David Miliband were leading a moderate, Centrist, pseudo-aspirational Labour Party, instead of Cor-bin, he would've walked this.

Meanwhile, in an alternative universe...

Do you not reckon, Kern? :shrug:

Be Excellent To Each Other

General Election 2017
Number 10 or Bust

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

General Election 2017 Number 10 or Bust

Who is online

General Election 2017
Number 10 or Bust