On Wednesday, 25 June 2014 15:03:59 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 06:46:26 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:
I don't believe names should be used, the parties name should be used.
Both are, of course, used.
which is what I don;t agree with as I said.
Names are irrelivants they are just lables.
Afterall you're not voting for an indivual but a party.
If you're talking about Westminster or local elections, then you are
absolutely 100% dead wrong. You are voting for THAT individual to become
your MP or councillor.
As part of teh overall party they support.
You might choose which individual to vote for
solely because of their party, but the vote is SOLELY for THAT individual
to become your MP or councillor.
That individual; is 'contolled' to varying degrees by the party.
That's why htey belong to the party they belong to unless of course they are independant.
Or are yuo saying that Nigel Farage, Nick clegg, and the rest arent; aliegned to a party. They all have to 'tow' the party line it's standard practice it's why they joined the party they are in.
There was an incident some years ago where someone got in because there
name was spelt very much like the candadaite you wanted to vote for lost
due to another coming slightly higher up on the list.
I don't believe you.
that is your problem not mine, it was in teh news well in London anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusing_similarity
In election law
There are examples of electoral confusion caused by would-be candidates deliberately choosing similar names to confuse the electorate, hence potentially affecting the outcome of an election. For example, in three instances in the United Kingdom during 1994-5: a candidate attempting to stand as a member of the 'Literal Democrat' party (in the UK there is a Liberal Democratic Party), and two instances of candidates standing for the 'Conservatory' party and the 'Conversative' party (against the Conservative Party candidate). All candidatures were rejected by the Returning Officer and the candidates had to stand using more distinguishable party names.[1]
But if a sufficiently large percentage of the
electorate were too stupid to notice the party name clarifying which
named individual was which, then - frankly - they were probably too
stupid to notice fairly large distinctions between names.