Iwant To Make My Wishes About End Of My...
Law1 min ago
Vote Early And Vote Often
You may not be able to read it all, but enough to get the idea.
http://
If this took place in marginal constituencies - which would have been the whole point of doing it - could it have made a big difference to the outcome of the election?
http://
If this took place in marginal constituencies - which would have been the whole point of doing it - could it have made a big difference to the outcome of the election?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I guess you can grant that "relative majority" is an alternative way of expressing the point, but I find that plurality v. majority is a much better way of putting things, as it avoids confusion.
At any rate, it should be clear that when I say that the Tories didn't win a majority, I meant that they didn't reach 326 seats. Which is unambiguous.
At any rate, it should be clear that when I say that the Tories didn't win a majority, I meant that they didn't reach 326 seats. Which is unambiguous.
It could certainly have made a difference in Canterbury where a 9,700 Tory majority was wiped out and Labour won (for the first time in 99 years) by 187. There are, I believe, about 20,000 students in the city and the electoral roll increased by 10%.
However, the election is over, it’s done, there’s no justification to keep going over it. All of the “enquiries” that might be held will make no difference to the result. It needs to ne accepted and we should move on.
Personally I doubt many students voted twice. Most of them of my acquaintance can scarcely stir themselves from their torpor to make arrangements to vote once, let alone twice. Of course the root cause of this is the ridiculous procedure which makes individual local authorities responsible for maintaining the electoral role. There is no justification for this and the chances of any two of them (let alone all of them) getting their heads together to check for duplicate voters is, shall we put it kindly, somewhat remote. The electoral role should be maintained nationally. It would then be a fairly simple task to check for duplicates by way of date of birth and NI number and check whether they have voted twice. It would also have the added advantage of doing away with separate departments in umpteen local authorities all doing the same thing.
However, the election is over, it’s done, there’s no justification to keep going over it. All of the “enquiries” that might be held will make no difference to the result. It needs to ne accepted and we should move on.
Personally I doubt many students voted twice. Most of them of my acquaintance can scarcely stir themselves from their torpor to make arrangements to vote once, let alone twice. Of course the root cause of this is the ridiculous procedure which makes individual local authorities responsible for maintaining the electoral role. There is no justification for this and the chances of any two of them (let alone all of them) getting their heads together to check for duplicate voters is, shall we put it kindly, somewhat remote. The electoral role should be maintained nationally. It would then be a fairly simple task to check for duplicates by way of date of birth and NI number and check whether they have voted twice. It would also have the added advantage of doing away with separate departments in umpteen local authorities all doing the same thing.
We can I'm sure to add to this, the usual abuse of the postal vote as was shown in the 2015 Oldham by-election, where observers (not only Nigel Farage) told of cardboard boxes of votes being delivered by car,
every illiterate Bangladeshi granny got to vote, one Muslim woman was asked by a reporter on the street for whom she was going to vote and she said "I don't know, I haven't been told yet."
every illiterate Bangladeshi granny got to vote, one Muslim woman was asked by a reporter on the street for whom she was going to vote and she said "I don't know, I haven't been told yet."
NJ // I doubt many students voted twice. Most of them of my acquaintance can scarcely stir themselves from their torpor to make arrangements to vote once, let alone twice.//
Things have changed since that was the case, social media and virtue signalling have made a huge difference, I feel certain that this plan was orchestrated for them by the extreme left, ("proof, proof" I hear the shouts) All postal voting should be banned apart from real cases, such as those serving in the armed forces and others who are outside of the country on the election day, the system is too open to abuse.
Things have changed since that was the case, social media and virtue signalling have made a huge difference, I feel certain that this plan was orchestrated for them by the extreme left, ("proof, proof" I hear the shouts) All postal voting should be banned apart from real cases, such as those serving in the armed forces and others who are outside of the country on the election day, the system is too open to abuse.
In an entirely separate incident, are you prepared to consider that there was maybe some effort by Russians to interfere in the recent US elections, as all US intelligence agencies (and Donald Trump, by this point) accept? "Proof, proof", I hear you cry...
But that aside, I think there's a difference in the assertion that such abuses happened, and in asserting that they made a difference. There is no evidence for the latter in the slightest, because it's just not possible to target that precisely in advance the "right" places to make a difference in the end. Especially as all the Tories would have needed to do to counter the effect was to run a half-competent campaign that managed to get another thousand-odd people to turn out for them honestly, and no-one would have cared.
Fraud in elections is not as big a problem in practice as people seem to make it out to be. I don't mean that it's not a problem at all, but in both the US and UK there's this sinister undercurrent right now that election results either go the way you wanted them to, or only happened the way they did because they were fraudulent. There's no real reason to doubt that there was Russian interference in the US election, but if Hillary Clinton were a better candidate, or someone else entirely, then Trump would have lost. He already *did* lose the popular vote, of course -- not that it mattered as he won in the "right" places. It's not a dominant factor in results, and people should stop pretending that it is.
But that aside, I think there's a difference in the assertion that such abuses happened, and in asserting that they made a difference. There is no evidence for the latter in the slightest, because it's just not possible to target that precisely in advance the "right" places to make a difference in the end. Especially as all the Tories would have needed to do to counter the effect was to run a half-competent campaign that managed to get another thousand-odd people to turn out for them honestly, and no-one would have cared.
Fraud in elections is not as big a problem in practice as people seem to make it out to be. I don't mean that it's not a problem at all, but in both the US and UK there's this sinister undercurrent right now that election results either go the way you wanted them to, or only happened the way they did because they were fraudulent. There's no real reason to doubt that there was Russian interference in the US election, but if Hillary Clinton were a better candidate, or someone else entirely, then Trump would have lost. He already *did* lose the popular vote, of course -- not that it mattered as he won in the "right" places. It's not a dominant factor in results, and people should stop pretending that it is.
“Things have changed since that was the case,…”
What, since last month, you mean? I’m not talking about a generation ago, I’m talking about now. Most of the students I know are far too busy (playing on their X-Box, farting about with Twitface or whatever or else in the pub) to trouble themselves with the rigours of voting. Yes there may be a few who want to join the revolution and vote multiple times to achieve their aims but they are exceptions.
I agree that postal voting has been the cause of much of the electoral fraud that has taken place. It should never have been made widely available and should be restricted to those who genuinely cannot get to a polling station.
“…but in both the US and UK there's this sinister undercurrent right now that election results either go the way you wanted them to, or only happened the way they did because they were fraudulent.”
Quite agree, Jim. It’s getting silly. The amount of fraud required to significantly influence the outcome of a referendum or a General Election (or a Presidential election) is huge and there is no evidence to suggest that such widespread abuse has taken place. Local elections are a different matter and it does not take much to alter a result as this case (which was not the result of student activity or that of “revolutionary Lefties”)adequately demonstrates:
http://
What, since last month, you mean? I’m not talking about a generation ago, I’m talking about now. Most of the students I know are far too busy (playing on their X-Box, farting about with Twitface or whatever or else in the pub) to trouble themselves with the rigours of voting. Yes there may be a few who want to join the revolution and vote multiple times to achieve their aims but they are exceptions.
I agree that postal voting has been the cause of much of the electoral fraud that has taken place. It should never have been made widely available and should be restricted to those who genuinely cannot get to a polling station.
“…but in both the US and UK there's this sinister undercurrent right now that election results either go the way you wanted them to, or only happened the way they did because they were fraudulent.”
Quite agree, Jim. It’s getting silly. The amount of fraud required to significantly influence the outcome of a referendum or a General Election (or a Presidential election) is huge and there is no evidence to suggest that such widespread abuse has taken place. Local elections are a different matter and it does not take much to alter a result as this case (which was not the result of student activity or that of “revolutionary Lefties”)adequately demonstrates:
http://
danny; //Don't forget the housebound Khandro.//
A doctor's certificate would take care of that.
NJ Yes, there will always be the group to whom you refer; uninterested in politics and preferring hedonism and the pub - I once belonged to that cohort! but the internet and the cursed mobile phone has led many into group behaviour such as we have never witnessed before.
When you see a group of chanting students demanding the tearing down the statue of Cecil Rhodes (led by guy on a Rhodes scholarship!) you can see how easy it is to achieve rentamobism (I may have made that word up)
A doctor's certificate would take care of that.
NJ Yes, there will always be the group to whom you refer; uninterested in politics and preferring hedonism and the pub - I once belonged to that cohort! but the internet and the cursed mobile phone has led many into group behaviour such as we have never witnessed before.
When you see a group of chanting students demanding the tearing down the statue of Cecil Rhodes (led by guy on a Rhodes scholarship!) you can see how easy it is to achieve rentamobism (I may have made that word up)
'318 seats is not a majority.'
'A "majority" would be 326 seats (and a working majority 322, owing to the speaker and his deputies, Sinn Fein, etc).
But then if the Tories won the election anyway, one wonders how you can even ask the question about whether fraud (by Labour voters) could have made a difference to the outcome in the first place.'
The seats required for a majority is only 320.
(Total partisan seats = 650 - 1 [Speaker] - 3 [Deputies] - 7 [Sinn Féin] = 639)
Conservatives returned 317 seats (including 1 Deputy Speaker) therefore are 4 short of a majority.
Seats lost by Conservatives include:
Kensington by 20 votes
Crewe and Nantwich by 48
Canterbury by 187
Keighley by 239
So there is the working majority foiled by 494 votes.
Is fraud of that level not feasible?
'A "majority" would be 326 seats (and a working majority 322, owing to the speaker and his deputies, Sinn Fein, etc).
But then if the Tories won the election anyway, one wonders how you can even ask the question about whether fraud (by Labour voters) could have made a difference to the outcome in the first place.'
The seats required for a majority is only 320.
(Total partisan seats = 650 - 1 [Speaker] - 3 [Deputies] - 7 [Sinn Féin] = 639)
Conservatives returned 317 seats (including 1 Deputy Speaker) therefore are 4 short of a majority.
Seats lost by Conservatives include:
Kensington by 20 votes
Crewe and Nantwich by 48
Canterbury by 187
Keighley by 239
So there is the working majority foiled by 494 votes.
Is fraud of that level not feasible?
I was going to go into a lecture but perhaps another time. I think the point is that you are taking the minimum number necessary and assuming that people knew this to be so before the campaign. Anyone wanting to rig the election and be certain that they had done so successfully, though, would surely have had to target more seats than just the four you mention, and would have had to do so with more votes if they wanted to be sure it would work. That puts the scale of required fraud overall somewhere closer to the tens of thousands, rather than just a few hundred. And even then you require the cooperation of the rest of the country to do what you think they were going to, and a bit of help from turnout, and so on.
No matter how you look at it, electoral fraud is just not the main factor in determining an election result. It *could* have technically made a difference, in ideal conditions. But everything else had to work out correctly.
No matter how you look at it, electoral fraud is just not the main factor in determining an election result. It *could* have technically made a difference, in ideal conditions. But everything else had to work out correctly.
