On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:02:51 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:
If you are really judging on polics rather than personality
Except you ARE judging on "personality", because it is the INDIVIDUAL
candidate who you are voting for.
Names are irrelivants they are just lables.
They identify the individual. Which is who you're voting for.
That's the problem identifying the individual not the personality,
you should be judging them on the polics they are putting forward.
Indeed you should. Which is why THAT INDIVIDUAL sends you leaflets
around, telling you what they - personally - will do.
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.
are you saying that UKIP aren't independant ?
Oooh, lemme think about that for a second... Nope. I don't believe I even
mentioned UKIP, let alone claimed they weren't a political party. I would
suggest you re-read what I actually wrote, but it probably won't help
much.
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?
I remmeber it at the time.
I meant "Did you actually read the link you just posted?"
Clearly, no, since it actually directly contradicts your statement.
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.
Yes I know
So WTF did you post it to "prove" your point?
my point with individuals names was that of any ism from sexism to
raceism as explained.
Umm, that wasn't what you explained last time around. If you remember,
you posted that link to "prove" that party names shouldn't have
individual names, because individual names could be confused - and,
apparently, had been in the past. Except it was actually the party names,
and removing the individual names would exacerbate any confusion.
But if yuo want to stand for the Literal Democrat party then that;'s OK
by me, but there are those out there that will use a name to prove a
point, why don;t you think you see the name Hitler used much nowerdays,
it's not rocket science.
There's a village lacking an idiot today, and no mistake.
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.
Yep and I knew it happened and I'm not very policically minded,
I think the word "politically" is redundant.
I typcally scane headlines and read about scinece and technology so if I
hear about people that are changing names in order to fool the
electorate then I see that as wrong, even if it were 10+ years ago my
memery of the event ....
Except, you raving ****wit, it was the PARTY name that apparently caused
confusion.
well at least I knew it happened, just like I knew about imagration
figures being wrong, just by waiting for a bus and listening to the
languages.
Thank you for proving my point. Again.
If you know these things happen you cvan keepo an eye out for them,
just like you do with any fraud including winning the chinenese lotery
that my dad won, by email.
You really are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't you?