On 07/05/2011 20:17, Roger Mills wrote:
On 07/05/2011 19:34, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 18:30, Roger Mills wrote:


Do you have a copy of the booklet produced by the independent Electoral
Commission (not to be confused - as even my MP appeared to do - with the
partial Electoral Reform Society) and circulated to all households?

Not to this household it wasn't. Since this is the first time I have
heard it mentioned I suspect that I am far from being the only household
not to have received a copy.


Mine was brought by the postman - un-addressed. Maybe if you've opted
not to receive un-addressed mail. . . but things like that are supposed
to get delivered despite any such opt-out.

I haven't elected not to receive un-addressed mail. I get all the crap
but am happy to glance, to confirm that it is crap, and then deposit in
the paper recycling sack.

As I said, I had not even heard of the document which means that no one
I have spoken to on the subject has mentioned it which means they have
not received it and none of their contacts has mentioned it either.
Even the Royal Mail isn't that bad.

If so, turn to Page 5 and read the bit where it says:
"You can choose how many candidates to rank.You don't have to rank every
candidate. As long as you rank at least one, your vote will be counted"

OLD CODGER, PLEASE NOTE!!

Noted. That is what I would expect for the small print. The Liberals
would have ensured that the impression would be that all candidates had
to be ranked. Those words in the small print would be their get out
clause (see other post tonight).


The paragraph I quoted is in the same sized font (looks like 14pt)as the
rest of the leaflet - hardly small print!

Is that an exact facsimile of the polling card that would have been
issued? If not it is irrelevant and, even if it is, it could be changed
before AV came in and I suspect would be. The Liberals, for whom this
whole charade was enacted, would have wanted to ensure that as many folk
as possible ranked all the candidates. The wording on the eventual
polling card would be designed to make that likely. The words you have
quoted will be subsidiary to the greatest extent possible to a main
instruction that will give the impression that all candidates should be
ranked.

[1] though, sadly, not savvy enough to see the merits of AV in
sufficient numbers! g



If anybody has been brainwashed it seems to me it has to be the pro AV
folk. How anyone can consider AV to be a fair voting system, or even
fairer than FPTP, is beyond me. I think I have read all the pro
arguments in this thread and they just don't hang together.


How do you explain the fact that, up to a few weeks before the
referendum, the opinion polls were showing a 10 point lead for the YES
camp? What changed in the meantime?

Perhaps they all read this thread. :-)

I cannot believe the "No" campaign would have changed anyone from 'yes'
to 'no' so perhaps the abysmal 'yes' campaign showed that there really
was no valid argument for AV and that it was just a ploy to attempt to
increase the Liberal vote so voters decided to stay with the status quo.
As you said, voters are savvy, they can work these things out.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]