|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2018 16:46:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 14, 2018 16:52:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 14, 2018 17:02:37 GMT
I thought of doing it on there but that thread would be too congested if I filled it up with every example of stupidity presented by those members of this forum who support the far-left Labour party |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Jul 14, 2018 19:35:28 GMT
Question: Am I right that technically, the Returning Officer can pick their preferred candidate in the case of a tie? Would they be likely to face repercussions if they did so? Paging Davıd BoothroydNo. There has to be a drawing of lots. The RO then allocates an extra vote to the candidate that has won the lottery. Sometimes it's done by tossing a coin, or by drawing a straw from two of different lengths, or by placing two ballot papers in a box and drawing one out. There was a notorious instance in Burnley when this was done, involving the BNP. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 14, 2018 19:39:26 GMT
Question: Am I right that technically, the Returning Officer can pick their preferred candidate in the case of a tie? Would they be likely to face repercussions if they did so? I think they used to be able to do that (decades ago) but now they have to do it by lot. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 14, 2018 19:41:16 GMT
No. There has to be a drawing of lots. The RO then allocates an extra vote to the candidate that has won the lottery. Sometimes it's done by tossing a coin, or by drawing a straw from two of different lengths, or by placing two ballot papers in a box and drawing one out. There was a notorious instance in Burnley when this was done, involving the BNP. I'm sure I remember at least one case where the lots decided not just a seat, but also control of a council. But yes, the only way the RO can decide the election him/herself is by fixing the random method. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 14, 2018 19:48:14 GMT
We don't have the raw numbers yet for Yare and Cockerton if anyone has them to hand. Con 955 Labour 337 Liberal Democrat 182 Those numbers and percentages contradict each other. 955 / 337 / 182 would be 64.8% / 22.9% / 12.3% or 66.2% / 22.4% / 11.4% would be 976 / 330 / 168 I suspect that there is a misprint somewhere and that the the total is not 1474 in any case. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Jul 14, 2018 19:52:18 GMT
No. There has to be a drawing of lots. The RO then allocates an extra vote to the candidate that has won the lottery. Sometimes it's done by tossing a coin, or by drawing a straw from two of different lengths, or by placing two ballot papers in a box and drawing one out. There was a notorious instance in Burnley when this was done, involving the BNP. I'm sure I remember at least one case where the lots decided not just a seat, but also control of a council. But yes, the only way the RO can decide the election him/herself is by fixing the random method. Northumberland last year: vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/8432/northumberland?page=3 |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,623 
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 14, 2018 19:54:07 GMT
Con 955 Labour 337 Liberal Democrat 182 Those numbers and percentages contradict each other. 955 / 337 / 182 would be 64.8% / 22.9% / 12.3% or 66.2% / 22.4% / 11.4% would be 976 / 330 / 168 I suspect that there is a misprint somewhere and that the the total is not 1474 in any case. The raw numbers are correct and we have used 64.8/22.9/12.3 in the prediction competition on this site. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 15, 2018 16:14:39 GMT
No I haven't misunderstood at all. The LDs characteristically claim that the 3rd party can't win, even when they are in a close or challenging 3rd place. They certainly have done so in elections where the 3rd party has actually won. They might choose not to do so in Oakham perhaps. I mean I might be new to this but i'm pretty sure the party you squeeze in this circumstance is Labour... You are new to this. I've known the Lib Dems to try to squeeze the Tory vote in one bit of the ward to keep out Labour, and to squeeze the Labour vote in another bit of the ward by scaremongering about a Tory victory. |
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolliberal on Jul 15, 2018 17:55:27 GMT
I mean I might be new to this but i'm pretty sure the party you squeeze in this circumstance is Labour... You are new to this. I've known the Lib Dems to try to squeeze the Tory vote in one bit of the ward to keep out Labour, and to squeeze the Labour vote in another bit of the ward by scaremongering about a Tory victory. What we may have done and what we should do are not the same thing. In Oakham, clearly the thing to do is to squeeze the Labour vote. Also what you mentioned above is an entirely legitimate strategy in say, a 3 way ward. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,746
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 15, 2018 20:32:31 GMT
You are new to this. I've known the Lib Dems to try to squeeze the Tory vote in one bit of the ward to keep out Labour, and to squeeze the Labour vote in another bit of the ward by scaremongering about a Tory victory. What we may have done and what we should do are not the same thing. In Oakham, clearly the thing to do is to squeeze the Labour vote. Also what you mentioned above is an entirely legitimate strategy in say, a 3 way ward. And it's not like we've not been relentlessly squeezed ourselves up and down the land since at least WW2. The difference is that we have to be a bit more upfront about pointing out where the two horse race is between us and another party, the uninformed assumption being that a blue v red race is normal. |
|
markf
Non-Aligned
a victim of IDS
Posts: 318
|
Post by markf on Jul 15, 2018 20:35:56 GMT
I thought of doing it on there but that thread would be too congested if I filled it up with every example of stupidity presented by those members of this forum who support the far-left Labour party I don't support the Labour party, I wont be voting at the next GE politically I have nowhere to go |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 16, 2018 9:41:07 GMT
I thought of doing it on there but that thread would be too congested if I filled it up with every example of stupidity presented by those members of this forum who support the far-left Labour party I don't support the Labour party, I wont be voting at the next GE politically I have nowhere to go I find that hard to believe tbh, IMO there is always a political party that at least reasonably approximates to an individual's outlook. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 16, 2018 12:39:24 GMT
What we may have done and what we should do are not the same thing. In Oakham, clearly the thing to do is to squeeze the Labour vote. Also what you mentioned above is an entirely legitimate strategy in say, a 3 way ward. And it's not like we've not been relentlessly squeezed ourselves up and down the land since at least WW2. The difference is that we have to be a bit more upfront about pointing out where the two horse race is between us and another party, the uninformed assumption being that a blue v red race is normal. That fairly obviously isn't the case when you're trying to claim that two different things are happening in different parts of the same ward. I'd also point out that most other parties tend to be rather less focused upon the concept of the two-horse race. For us and the Tories, it's a squeeze message. For you, it's a reflection of your identity. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,746
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 16, 2018 13:28:44 GMT
I'd also point out that most other parties tend to be rather less focused upon the concept of the two-horse race. For us and the Tories, it's a squeeze message. For you, it's a reflection of your identity. With respect, in a FPTP electoral system, the majority of election contests will already be two-horse races, and those that aren't will either (a) tend to resolve that way over time, or (b) be coronations rather than contests, with an overwhelming victor assured from day 1. The message that "a Liberal (or Lib Dem) vote is a wasted vote" was deployed for years and years by both red and blue teams with the intention of making everything a two-horse race - it's just that the phrase wasn't much in use. So on the occasions when we disrupt the standard red-blue duopoly, we have to take nothing for granted and point out when we're the main challenger. If you believe you're less focussed upon the concept of the two-horse race, it's because for you it's situation normal.
I'm puzzled by the "reflection of your identity" phrase. Please elaborate.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jul 16, 2018 13:43:10 GMT
I'd also point out that most other parties tend to be rather less focused upon the concept of the two-horse race. For us and the Tories, it's a squeeze message. For you, it's a reflection of your identity. With respect, in a FPTP electoral system, the majority of election contests will already be two-horse races, and those that aren't will either (a) tend to resolve that way over time, or (b) be coronations rather than contests, with an overwhelming victor assured from day 1. The message that "a Liberal (or Lib Dem) vote is a wasted vote" was deployed for years and years by both red and blue teams with the intention of making everything a two-horse race - it's just that the phrase wasn't much in use. So on the occasions when we disrupt the standard red-blue duopoly, we have to take nothing for granted and point out when we're the main challenger. If you believe you're less focussed upon the concept of the two-horse race, it's because for you it's situation normal.
I'm puzzled by the "reflection of your identity" phrase. Please elaborate.
It is after all the Labour Party that is the main proponent of "voter ID". Either that just means that they think no-one can be persuaded, and the only purpose of the campaign is to make more of your voters turn out than the opposition, or they are engaging in targeted squeeze messages (or both). In both cases quite a cynical approach to campaigning... It is 100% disingenuous for any political party to pretend they do not do such things |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Jul 16, 2018 14:25:28 GMT
All part of the arrogance of too many people in the Labour Party, now and for ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 16, 2018 15:28:46 GMT
I'd also point out that most other parties tend to be rather less focused upon the concept of the two-horse race. For us and the Tories, it's a squeeze message. For you, it's a reflection of your identity. With respect, in a FPTP electoral system, the majority of election contests will already be two-horse races, and those that aren't will either (a) tend to resolve that way over time, or (b) be coronations rather than contests, with an overwhelming victor assured from day 1. The message that "a Liberal (or Lib Dem) vote is a wasted vote" was deployed for years and years by both red and blue teams with the intention of making everything a two-horse race - it's just that the phrase wasn't much in use. So on the occasions when we disrupt the standard red-blue duopoly, we have to take nothing for granted and point out when we're the main challenger. If you believe you're less focussed upon the concept of the two-horse race, it's because for you it's situation normal.
I'm puzzled by the "reflection of your identity" phrase. Please elaborate.
I think you've already made my point for me. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,746
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 16, 2018 15:39:08 GMT
With respect, in a FPTP electoral system, the majority of election contests will already be two-horse races, and those that aren't will either (a) tend to resolve that way over time, or (b) be coronations rather than contests, with an overwhelming victor assured from day 1. The message that "a Liberal (or Lib Dem) vote is a wasted vote" was deployed for years and years by both red and blue teams with the intention of making everything a two-horse race - it's just that the phrase wasn't much in use. So on the occasions when we disrupt the standard red-blue duopoly, we have to take nothing for granted and point out when we're the main challenger. If you believe you're less focussed upon the concept of the two-horse race, it's because for you it's situation normal.
I'm puzzled by the "reflection of your identity" phrase. Please elaborate.
I think you've already made my point for me. Nope, still none the wiser. |
|
