Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If trademe forums had existed (did it?) a few weeks before the 2002 election, you'd probably have found a preponderance of rightwingers moaning on about helengrad and the like.
-
this could be an area of hotbed torisym
Opinionated grumpy righties are more numerous than opinionated lefties. This doesn't necessarily equate to the opinions of the wider population.
-
do you think ”things are going well at the moment?”
“If the election was held now who would your party vote be for?”
That's wrong to start with. Voters in polling booths don't get prompted, so if you want an accurate answer, then the "how will you vote" question should come first.
It would be interesting to track the activities of polling firms using crowdsourcing, to see who's polling and how they get their results.
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I didn't think the US named things like warships after living politicians.
-
Like I say, I feel it would be counteracted by the vast majority not bothering to rank the list resulting in the party choices dominating..
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to BenWilson,
I think allowing voters to rank lists would be great.
You could actually do this online before the election, entering a voter id (into a secure electoral commission system) and interactively selecting your list ranking.
After the election, rankings would be validated (you'd have to vote for the party you ranked in order to validate the ranking).
(There are technical ways to ensure this doesn't reveal people's votes, even to the sysadmins).
The rankings would then be aggregated - anyone who voted and didn't rank candidates would be assumed to have taken the parties recommended list.
I do however reckon that most people would just take the default and hence it would all be slightly pointless. But it *would* provide a semblance of control.
-
The average voter is pretty simple and rather gullible
I'd substitute selfish and deluded.
Selfish in that they want excess money and resources for themselves at the expense of other people and the environment.
Deluded in that they believe they can actually achieve this, rather than themselves being screwed by the 1%.
(Also, I'm not running for any office and hence don't need to be nice about the IVF).
-
I don't see electorate candidates in unwinnable seats as being "pointless". I prefer to cast my vote (at party and electorate level) for a party that I actually support (and its candidate). MMP lets me do that (in most electorates).
If my chosen party didn't run a candidate because of cost, then I would lose that option. Why should Green supporters in safe Tory seats (or ACT supporters in safe Labour ones) be forced to vote for a party they don't agree with (or not vote at electorate level).
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
the likes of Tom Driberg
They'd have been tipped off as to his MI5 connection and studiously avoided the subject.
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to thegirlstefan,
So, do they ask the "how are you voting" question first, or after the topic and personality ones?