On 08/05/2011 23:18, Old Codger wrote:


You said "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?!" I
submit that clearly says you do not know what the wording will be.


Absolutely right. But I know, that with the built-in safeguards, it
won't be misleading or biased.


You actually said: "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."

You obviously believe that will ensure zero bias I, as I explained, am
not so sure.


Even if the wording were not independent of government - which it would
be - the Lib Dems are the junior partner in the coalition. Do you think
the Tories would allow wording which favoured the Lib Dems?

You are asserting - with no justification whatsoever - that they
*would* be biased.

You called it "conjecture" just now, make your mind up.

Pure imagination would have been a better description.

What I actually did was to postulate, with reasons, that the ballot
paper will try to ensure that voters believe they have to rank all
candidates. I think conjecture is the right word.


You have no valid reason for postulating that. The booklet produced for
the referendum described how it will work - making it clear that you
*don't* have to rate all candidates. Why should anything change between
now and the next election?



I suggested that the words you quoted from the leaflet would form the
small print on the ballot paper. You said: "The paragraph I quoted is in
the same sized font (looks like 14pt) as the rest of the leaflet -
hardly small print!" Since I was discussing the ballot paper your
response suggested that you were implying that the leaflet included a
facsimile of the ballot paper.


Only if you imply pretty twisted logic! I was merely pointing out that
this information was in largish print in the leaflet. Whilst having no
knowledge of what a future ballot paper may say, I have no reason to
believe that any such information would confined to the "small print".
And neither have you!


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

As I said, I did not notice any bias.

Except that you implied that, when you first read the question, your
initial answer was YES even though you meant NO. Does this not imply
that you were suspicious that the question was designed to mislead you?

I'm as cynical as the next bloke, but I can't see any way in which a
sane person could be misled by the question posed.

I think we've done this one to death now - and this is my last post on
the subject. If you insist on having the last word, feel free to reply . . .
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.