On 07/05/2011 23:40, Roger Mills wrote:
On 07/05/2011 22:24, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 20:17, Roger Mills wrote:


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.


During the course of this thread, I've developed a certain amount of
respect for your views even though I don't agree with you.

But your latest paragraph (above) has to take the prize for the most
unsubstantiated ******** I have ever read! What you wrote is total
conjecture.

Unsubstantiated agreed! Conjecture agreed! It may, or may not, be
"********", I don't know and, as you acknowledge below, neither do you.

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

That was in response to my conjecture following your statement that this
leaflet, which I did not receive, said you did not have to rank all the
candidates. I responded with: "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 small print
would be their get out clause (see other post tonight)."

You appeared to be suggesting that the leaflet was presenting a
facsimile of the ballot paper statement.

As I said, this whole charade was enacted for the benefit of the
Liberals, it was a condition of them joining the coalition. Since all
the propoganda I have seen gave a very strong impression that all
candidates had to be ranked I don't consider it unreasonable to
conjecture that the Liberals would ensure, to the greatest possible
extent, that the ballot paper would guide voters to rank all candidates
with any indication that this was not necessary hidden as far as possible.

How the hell can I - or anyone else - be expected to know exactly what wording would appear on a ballot paper in 4 years time?!

Nobody has suggested you would know what the wording would be but
equally you cannot support your claim that I posted "unsubstantiated
********".

HOWEVER, just as the wording of the question posed by the referendum was
subjected to scrutiny by the independent Electoral Commission, to ensure
freedom from bias, so would be the instructions on ballot papers used in
any AV-based election.

How successful they were would depend on how independent they actually
were from Westminster. After all parliament does reign supreme. I do
agree though that they should at least ensure that any bias is minimised

Not suggesting the question on the referendum voting paper was biased,
it certainly did not seem so to me, but:

I voted early morning, walked past the paper shop, voted and collected
my paper on the way home. Also means I have gone before the hangers on
arrive to guess who has voted and which way.

I don't trust politicians so I read the question and thought "yes". "Oh
hang on, is that right?" so I read the question again and came up with
"no". I then had to stop myself putting the cross in the first box.
When I got home I said to my Wife: "No is the bottom box". My Wife
voted late afternoon. When she came home she said "I nearly voted yes.
I had to read the question twice."

Was there a bias? If so it was extremely subtle and very clever. Or
was it just that we are a couple of doddering old gits?


--
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]