On 08/05/2011 20:04, Old Codger wrote:
On 07/05/2011 23:40, Roger Mills wrote:


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.


No I didn't. I asserted that great lengths are taken to ensure that
ballot papers are free from bias. You are asserting - with no
justification whatsoever - that they *would* be biased.

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.


Rubbish. I was simply saying that the leaflet described how the system
would work in enough detail to enable people to make up their mind
whether they liked the idea or not. And I was pointing out that it
explicitly contradicted your assertion that you would *have* to rate all
candidates.

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
********".

I just have!


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."

The actual wording was:
"At present, the UK uses the 'first past the post' system to elect MPs
to the House of Commons. Should the 'alternative vote' system be used
instead?"

What could be clearer than that?
YES = Let's change to AV
NO = Lets' stay as we are


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?


I rather fear that you may be. g
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.