On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:00:45 -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.

You said "the parties name should be used". It is.

Names are irrelivants they are just lables.

They identify the individual. Which is who you're voting for.

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.

That might be why you choose who to vote for, but if what you say is
true, then there would be a right of substitution for another party
member, since the individual is irrelevant. There isn't. Quite the
opposite - that individual _remains_ your MP/councillor, even if they
leave the party and join another or stay independent.

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.

You really have been hitting the bottle hard and early today, haven't you?

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

Did you actually read that?

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]

Well, you pasted it, even if you didn't actually read it. Clue: It was
the PARTY name which was "confusingly similar", not the individual's name.

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.

Thank you for proving my point.