| mooghead 08.06.2017 14:34 |
I hate them all but wanted to show I was still willing to take the time and effort to cast a vote. I spoiled my ballot by drawing a massive ejaculating penis with hairy balls. Regardless of who wins I despair for the future... :-( |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.06.2017 06:24 |
I thought the Official Monster Raving Loony Party was the reasonable alternative. Shame they didn't get a huge majority. Anyway, I'm glad that Theresa May didn't get the huge majority she was hoping for. "Hung parliament" seems like what a lot of people would want to see put into practice very literally.* * I know it's "hanged" and not "hung", but just give me this, okay? |
| Holly2003 09.06.2017 10:52 |
mooghead wrote: I spoiled my ballot by drawing a massive ejaculating penis with hairy balls.Isn't that a vote for UKIP? |
| mooghead 09.06.2017 15:19 |
Holly2003 wrote:Looks like I blasted them away....mooghead wrote: I spoiled my ballot by drawing a massive ejaculating penis with hairy balls.Isn't that a vote for UKIP? |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.06.2017 04:46 |
Holly2003 wrote:You just won yourself a free beer.mooghead wrote: I spoiled my ballot by drawing a massive ejaculating penis with hairy balls.Isn't that a vote for UKIP? |
| Thistle 10.06.2017 09:57 |
mooghead wrote: I hate them all but wanted to show I was still willing to take the time and effort to cast a vote. I spoiled my ballot by drawing a massive ejaculating penis with hairy balls. Regardless of who wins I despair for the future... :-(I know you're likely joking, but you do know that is NOT wasting your ballot paper, right? If you put the cock and balls in a box, and left the others empty, you have just voted for the person you put the drawing in. You could also write "wank, wank, good guy, wank" and the "good guy" would be a vote. I was at a count last year, representing a well known party and candidate...when the officers were putting papers into the "spoiled" pile, my job was to fight for anything I thought was actually ours. I won every contested paper. |
| YourValentine 11.06.2017 13:48 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote:Really interesting read. I have been an election committee volunteer for many years and in Germany the rules are very different. As soon as you write something or draw something on the ballot the vote will be invalid. If you write an exclamation mark (!) instead of a cross (x) into the circle next to the candidate or party the vote counts as per court ruling. If you use a question mark, smiley or anything else it makes the vote invalid.mooghead wrote: I hate them all but wanted to show I was still willing to take the time and effort to cast a vote. I spoiled my ballot by drawing a massive ejaculating penis with hairy balls. Regardless of who wins I despair for the future... :-(I know you're likely joking, but you do know that is NOT wasting your ballot paper, right? If you put the cock and balls in a box, and left the others empty, you have just voted for the person you put the drawing in. You could also write "wank, wank, good guy, wank" and the "good guy" would be a vote. I was at a count last year, representing a well known party and candidate...when the officers were putting papers into the "spoiled" pile, my job was to fight for anything I thought was actually ours. I won every contested paper. It is also important to make your vote invalid rather than not voting because invalid votes cannot be used by parties to get their percentage tax money per vote while the non-votes are counted like votes and parties get money from you even if you did not vote. |
| Thistle 11.06.2017 20:43 |
That makes sense Barbara. We should make it that way too. I know I'll probably take a panning here for saying it, but I also think there should be a basic test to see if people are actually fit to vote - there are so many who don't have a clue about what they're voting for or why, and many think they're voting correctly but somehow spoil the paper: how difficult is it to read the fecking instructions? I was just at a local council count, and it was the STV system - mark each candidate in order of preference (for instance 1-6) or simply just number the candidate(s) you wish to vote for. So many still put X next to all candidates....which, of course, meant we couldn't determine the order of preference. link |
| The Real Wizard 11.06.2017 21:33 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote: I know I'll probably take a panning here for saying it, but I also think there should be a basic test to see if people are actually fit to vote - there are so many who don't have a clue about what they're voting for or why, and many think they're voting correctly but somehow spoil the paper: how difficult is it to read the fecking instructions?You're so obviously right - but tragically, important life decisions like voting and breeding aren't reserved only for those of higher intellect or even sane decision making processing abilities. In fact, this mentality is precisely largely what led to the election of Donald Trump - people with double digit IQs were tired of being excluded from the political process. They were tired of the big words and political correctness of educated people and wanted to return to the world of the 1950s where someone with a grade 4 education could easily get a hard labour job and buy a house. But as seen in the French, Dutch, and now UK elections - this trend of right wing populism was just a passing fad. Rationality seems to be returning to the fore, at least for the time being. Of the industrialized nations, it's only the US who are out to lunch now. How humiliating this defeat must be for May. She had a majority and got greedy, and it blew up in her face. |
| The Real Wizard 11.06.2017 23:46 |
link The satirists are having fun with this. But the sad thing is - if this were true about a right wing party these days, it wouldn't surprise me. |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.06.2017 05:51 |
From what I know, the DUP isn't really that right wing - economically, it seems to be quite a bit to the left of the Conservative Party, but it is EXTREMELY reactionary on social policy - a majority of its support comes from fundamentalist protestants (Ian Paisley's lot), it wants creationism to be taught in schools, it wants 'sodomy' made illegal again, and it wants the death penalty reinstated (and some of its more radical supporters want to make homosexual acts a capital offense again). That's going to cause a lot of trouble - the Conservative Party is economically rightist, but many representatives are not social conservatives, certainly not to this US heartland-like extent. The DUP is going to play its hand as strongly as it can, Theresa May is in no position to drive a hard bargain, and it only takes a handful of Conservative MPs to rebel for this prime minister to tumble. That's not a stable situation. May is trying to head this off by not going for a true coalition but simply an informal agreement, but I doubt that will be enough - the DUP is going to charge a serious price for its support. If poorly handled, this could even spark more unrest in Northern Ireland, a very disturbing scenario. I think Osborne may well have been spot on when he called her "a dead woman walking". And that's without even considering her incredibly weak position when Brexit negotiations start in a week! |
| Holly2003 12.06.2017 10:56 |
"a majority of its support comes from fundamentalist protestants " Not quite true. Protestants certainly but in Northern Ireland people tend to vote tactically to stop the "other side" gaining power so many perfectly ordinary people hold their noses and vote DUP to ensure the likes of Sinn Fein don't attain a majority. In this election Brexit complicates things a bit but not that much. SF like to position themselves as socially liberal so on the surface this looks like a vote for (religious) conservative against liberals but in actuality it is exactly like every other vote in Northern Ireland -- unionists voting for unionists and nationalists voting for nationalists. As much as I despise both the Tories and DUP, they have every right to form an agreement and unionists from Northern Ireland have every right to be represented in a national UK government -- just as Scottish or Welsh nationalists would possibly have been if Labour had gained enough MPs. |
| The Real Wizard 12.06.2017 12:25 |
Great discussion. But before we get too ahead of ourselves, this is all moot until the Queen gives the green light. She just may say no. |
| Thistle 12.06.2017 13:23 |
Great discussion indeed! Remember those on QZ? ;) :p |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.06.2017 07:29 |
Holly2003 wrote: "a majority of its support comes from fundamentalist protestants " Not quite true. Protestants certainly but in Northern Ireland people tend to vote tactically to stop the "other side" gaining power so many perfectly ordinary people hold their noses and vote DUP to ensure the likes of Sinn Fein don't attain a majority. In this election Brexit complicates things a bit but not that much. SF like to position themselves as socially liberal so on the surface this looks like a vote for (religious) conservative against liberals but in actuality it is exactly like every other vote in Northern Ireland -- unionists voting for unionists and nationalists voting for nationalists. As much as I despise both the Tories and DUP, they have every right to form an agreement and unionists from Northern Ireland have every right to be represented in a national UK government -- just as Scottish or Welsh nationalists would possibly have been if Labour had gained enough MPs.It may have come to that in these most recent elections, but from what I know, less/not fundamentalist-religiously inclined Unionists tended to vote UUP rather than DUP. This may have changed with the death of Ian Paisley, who was pretty toxic to anyone who wasn't an adherent of his branch of Presbyterianism. The UUP certainly did get wiped out in these past elections, and the DUPs growth is pretty much exactly the the UUPs shrinkage, so that backs up your story. Still, I would argue that, until recently, the DUP was a bullwark of religiously extremist Unionists, while the UUP was the party of more moderately conservative Unionists. I may be wrong, but that is the impression of the Unionist side of Northern Irish politics I always had. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.06.2017 07:36 |
The Real Wizard wrote: Great discussion. But before we get too ahead of ourselves, this is all moot until the Queen gives the green light. She just may say no.While that is not technically impossible, it has been a practical understanding since Edward VII (1901-1910) that the King/Queen cannot make such calls. In fact, I believe that the 1839 "Bedchamber Crisis" was the last time something like that (almost) happened, and heaven and earth were moved to keep the young Queen (who seems to have had quite a crush on then-PM Lord Melbourne and was determined not to have him depart) from making such a catastrophic move. |
| Holly2003 13.06.2017 13:05 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:The UUP were the bigger party and more moderate but their traditional supporters are now voting DUP because the DUPes appear stronger on the national question, which remains far and away the main issue in Northern Irish politics. Those former UUP supporters didn't suddenly become fundamentalist protestants, they simply voted tactically for the party best able to represent them on the national question and best able to keep nationalists from winning in their constituencies. Hence not all, probably not even a majority, of DUP supporters are *fundamentalist* protestants nowadays. Certainly their social manifesto is out of touch with the modern era but unless you understand how important the national question is, it's best not to make generalisations about that. Such is the nature of NI Assembly politics, nothing can be done without consensus, so DUP social policies are almost irrelevant to most people, including their own supporters. As long as they fly a Union flag high enough, most unionists will hold their noses and vote for them. Same thing applies for the other side: as long as Sinn Fein fly the Irish tricolour and moan about '800 years' of British oppression, the rest of their policies could support badger rape and irradiated toothpaste and hardly anyone would notice. Such is the depressing, backward nature of Northern Irish politics...Holly2003 wrote: "a majority of its support comes from fundamentalist protestants " Not quite true. Protestants certainly but in Northern Ireland people tend to vote tactically to stop the "other side" gaining power so many perfectly ordinary people hold their noses and vote DUP to ensure the likes of Sinn Fein don't attain a majority. In this election Brexit complicates things a bit but not that much. SF like to position themselves as socially liberal so on the surface this looks like a vote for (religious) conservative against liberals but in actuality it is exactly like every other vote in Northern Ireland -- unionists voting for unionists and nationalists voting for nationalists. As much as I despise both the Tories and DUP, they have every right to form an agreement and unionists from Northern Ireland have every right to be represented in a national UK government -- just as Scottish or Welsh nationalists would possibly have been if Labour had gained enough MPs.It may have come to that in these most recent elections, but from what I know, less/not fundamentalist-religiously inclined Unionists tended to vote UUP rather than DUP. This may have changed with the death of Ian Paisley, who was pretty toxic to anyone who wasn't an adherent of his branch of Presbyterianism. The UUP certainly did get wiped out in these past elections, and the DUPs growth is pretty much exactly the the UUPs shrinkage, so that backs up your story. Still, I would argue that, until recently, the DUP was a bullwark of religiously extremist Unionists, while the UUP was the party of more moderately conservative Unionists. I may be wrong, but that is the impression of the Unionist side of Northern Irish politics I always had. |
| The Real Wizard 14.06.2017 17:33 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:Well, there have been a few times since then that the winning party did not form government.The Real Wizard wrote: Great discussion. But before we get too ahead of ourselves, this is all moot until the Queen gives the green light. She just may say no.While that is not technically impossible, it has been a practical understanding since Edward VII (1901-1910) that the King/Queen cannot make such calls. link So we shall see. |
| ParisNair 14.06.2017 18:10 |
Here in India we have the Electronic Voting Machines. You press the button next to the symbol and that registers the vote.Eliminates vandalism and makes counting super fast. Alongwith all the party/candidate symbols, we also have the NOTA option - None Of The Above. |
| Thistle 14.06.2017 20:15 |
ParisNair wrote: Along with all the party/candidate symbols, we also have the NOTA option - None Of The Above.We really should have that, tbh. It saves having to deliberately spoil papers, and drawing cocks. |
| brians wig 15.06.2017 04:55 |
Thistleboy1980 wrote: That makes sense Barbara. We should make it that way too. I know I'll probably take a panning here for saying it, but I also think there should be a basic test to see if people are actually fit to vote - there are so many who don't have a clue about what they're voting for or why, and many think they're voting correctly but somehow spoil the paper: how difficult is it to read the fecking instructions? I was just at a local council count, and it was the STV system - mark each candidate in order of preference (for instance 1-6) or simply just number the candidate(s) you wish to vote for. So many still put X next to all candidates....which, of course, meant we couldn't determine the order of preference. linkI couldn't agree more, on both counts! Alternatively the voting age should also be increased back up to 21 and where I live it's pretty true to say that you could paint a pig red and Labour voters would vote for it! |
| thomasquinn 32989 17.06.2017 04:21 |
brians wig wrote:You could make exactly the same remark about conservative candidates and voters. It's a simple fact that a majority of voters in a two-party system will vote for either the one or the other party regardless of any other circumstances: that's why there are safe Labour seats and safe Conservative seats despite the fact that there have not been 'rotten boroughs' for a long time. Raising the voting age will not change any of that. In fact, very young voters are more likely not to have a fixed party allegiance than older voters.Thistleboy1980 wrote: That makes sense Barbara. We should make it that way too. I know I'll probably take a panning here for saying it, but I also think there should be a basic test to see if people are actually fit to vote - there are so many who don't have a clue about what they're voting for or why, and many think they're voting correctly but somehow spoil the paper: how difficult is it to read the fecking instructions? I was just at a local council count, and it was the STV system - mark each candidate in order of preference (for instance 1-6) or simply just number the candidate(s) you wish to vote for. So many still put X next to all candidates....which, of course, meant we couldn't determine the order of preference. linkI couldn't agree more, on both counts! Alternatively the voting age should also be increased back up to 21 and where I live it's pretty true to say that you could paint a pig red and Labour voters would vote for it! |
| Dr Magus 17.08.2017 09:35 |
God help all of us if the self-loathing bigots of the loony left ever get back in. I voted tory purely to keep the facists of Labour OUT. Corbyn won the student vote because he promised to scrap tuition fees. HAHAHAHAHA! Unbelievable how our universities seem to be full of students who are brainwashed liberals with questionable ethics and no life experience who only want you to be allowed an opinion if it agrees with THEIRS. I'm against tory cutbacks but the problems of this country go back 20 years to Blair's lot. We will never recover unfortunately but that won't be Theresa May's fault. Like i said, God help us all. |