Stormont Assembly Elections 2017

[Take Your Points]

the DUP would absolutely love you to spoil your vote - the only way you can hold them accountable is by voting for others.

Saying they are all as bad as each other in so many words is really irrelevant as an argument to spoil a vote. If, by wielding your vote, one crowd of incompetents is displaced by another, at least you would have contributed to a principle of electoral accountability and send a message that absolutely staggering RHI level incompetence will not be tolerated.

In all honesty, I would view a spoiled vote as effectively a small scale endorsement of the DUP, as its only practical effect would be to contribute to a preservation of the status quo.

The reason I spoiled my vote was because I didn't want to vote for anyone.  It's essentially saying 'I want to exercise my right to vote, but I deem none of the candidates competent enough to vote for'.  Arguing that it has no practical significance only applies if only small numbers of people do it.  It's the same as saying 'there's no point in voting UUP in east derry, or the green party pretty much anywhere.  If significant numbers of people spoiled their vote, instead of just not voting it would send the relevant message.

One thing we have learned is that no one is listening or wants to listen to the vast majority of ordinary people.

Even with 90 MLAs, relatively small numbers of votes for an individual candidate do count.  The quota for most seats will be between 7000 and 8000 votes so that will be the target for any candidate to be elected without transfers.  These are not big numbers, only a 6th of those who vote and if the turnout is as much as 50% then only 8.3% of the total electorate in a constituency.  So, the answer is to vote and to get as many of your non-voting mates to do the same if you want change.  To affect the DUP, hold your nose and vote for any of the opposition parties.

[Avondhu star]

Word of advice for SF...keep Declan Kearney off the airwaves!!

Ya. Give Aonghus O Snodaigh a chance to practice his English

[haranguerer]

the DUP would absolutely love you to spoil your vote - the only way you can hold them accountable is by voting for others.

Saying they are all as bad as each other in so many words is really irrelevant as an argument to spoil a vote. If, by wielding your vote, one crowd of incompetents is displaced by another, at least you would have contributed to a principle of electoral accountability and send a message that absolutely staggering RHI level incompetence will not be tolerated.

In all honesty, I would view a spoiled vote as effectively a small scale endorsement of the DUP, as its only practical effect would be to contribute to a preservation of the status quo.

The reason I spoiled my vote was because I didn't want to vote for anyone.  It's essentially saying 'I want to exercise my right to vote, but I deem none of the candidates competent enough to vote for'.  Arguing that it has no practical significance only applies if only small numbers of people do it.  It's the same as saying 'there's no point in voting UUP in east derry, or the green party pretty much anywhere.  If significant numbers of people spoiled their vote, instead of just not voting it would send the relevant message.

If you feel there are significant amounts of people with similar views to yourself, why don't you run?

[Franko]

the DUP would absolutely love you to spoil your vote - the only way you can hold them accountable is by voting for others.

Saying they are all as bad as each other in so many words is really irrelevant as an argument to spoil a vote. If, by wielding your vote, one crowd of incompetents is displaced by another, at least you would have contributed to a principle of electoral accountability and send a message that absolutely staggering RHI level incompetence will not be tolerated.

In all honesty, I would view a spoiled vote as effectively a small scale endorsement of the DUP, as its only practical effect would be to contribute to a preservation of the status quo.

The reason I spoiled my vote was because I didn't want to vote for anyone.  It's essentially saying 'I want to exercise my right to vote, but I deem none of the candidates competent enough to vote for'.  Arguing that it has no practical significance only applies if only small numbers of people do it.  It's the same as saying 'there's no point in voting UUP in east derry, or the green party pretty much anywhere.  If significant numbers of people spoiled their vote, instead of just not voting it would send the relevant message.

If you feel there are significant amounts of people with similar views to yourself, why don't you run?

This can't be a serious question.

[Franko]

the DUP would absolutely love you to spoil your vote - the only way you can hold them accountable is by voting for others.

Saying they are all as bad as each other in so many words is really irrelevant as an argument to spoil a vote. If, by wielding your vote, one crowd of incompetents is displaced by another, at least you would have contributed to a principle of electoral accountability and send a message that absolutely staggering RHI level incompetence will not be tolerated.

In all honesty, I would view a spoiled vote as effectively a small scale endorsement of the DUP, as its only practical effect would be to contribute to a preservation of the status quo.

The reason I spoiled my vote was because I didn't want to vote for anyone.  It's essentially saying 'I want to exercise my right to vote, but I deem none of the candidates competent enough to vote for'.  Arguing that it has no practical significance only applies if only small numbers of people do it.  It's the same as saying 'there's no point in voting UUP in east derry, or the green party pretty much anywhere.  If significant numbers of people spoiled their vote, instead of just not voting it would send the relevant message.

One thing we have learned is that no one is listening or wants to listen to the vast majority of ordinary people.

Even with 90 MLAs, relatively small numbers of votes for an individual candidate do count.  The quota for most seats will be between 7000 and 8000 votes so that will be the target for any candidate to be elected without transfers.  These are not big numbers, only a 6th of those who vote and if the turnout is as much as 50% then only 8.3% of the total electorate in a constituency.  So, the answer is to vote and to get as many of your non-voting mates to do the same if you want change.  To affect the DUP, hold your nose and vote for any of the opposition parties.

Yes, yet plenty of the parties don't reach this 'small' number in many constituencies.  Like I say, voting for anyone is pointless, unless plenty of others do the same.

[haranguerer]

the DUP would absolutely love you to spoil your vote - the only way you can hold them accountable is by voting for others.

Saying they are all as bad as each other in so many words is really irrelevant as an argument to spoil a vote. If, by wielding your vote, one crowd of incompetents is displaced by another, at least you would have contributed to a principle of electoral accountability and send a message that absolutely staggering RHI level incompetence will not be tolerated.

In all honesty, I would view a spoiled vote as effectively a small scale endorsement of the DUP, as its only practical effect would be to contribute to a preservation of the status quo.

The reason I spoiled my vote was because I didn't want to vote for anyone.  It's essentially saying 'I want to exercise my right to vote, but I deem none of the candidates competent enough to vote for'.  Arguing that it has no practical significance only applies if only small numbers of people do it.  It's the same as saying 'there's no point in voting UUP in east derry, or the green party pretty much anywhere.  If significant numbers of people spoiled their vote, instead of just not voting it would send the relevant message.

If you feel there are significant amounts of people with similar views to yourself, why don't you run?

This can't be a serious question.

You're advocating spoiling your vote, and have this notion that if enough people do it, then things will change. Leaving aside how likely the first part is, how would things change? Assuming you believe in democracy, then the only way it could change anything is by encouraging other people to run. So, rather than waste all the time attempting to start a vote spoiling movement, why not just save a lot of time by running yourself, now?

[Franko]

the DUP would absolutely love you to spoil your vote - the only way you can hold them accountable is by voting for others.

Saying they are all as bad as each other in so many words is really irrelevant as an argument to spoil a vote. If, by wielding your vote, one crowd of incompetents is displaced by another, at least you would have contributed to a principle of electoral accountability and send a message that absolutely staggering RHI level incompetence will not be tolerated.

In all honesty, I would view a spoiled vote as effectively a small scale endorsement of the DUP, as its only practical effect would be to contribute to a preservation of the status quo.

The reason I spoiled my vote was because I didn't want to vote for anyone.  It's essentially saying 'I want to exercise my right to vote, but I deem none of the candidates competent enough to vote for'.  Arguing that it has no practical significance only applies if only small numbers of people do it.  It's the same as saying 'there's no point in voting UUP in east derry, or the green party pretty much anywhere.  If significant numbers of people spoiled their vote, instead of just not voting it would send the relevant message.

If you feel there are significant amounts of people with similar views to yourself, why don't you run?

This can't be a serious question.

You're advocating spoiling your vote, and have this notion that if enough people do it, then things will change. Leaving aside how likely the first part is, how would things change? Assuming you believe in democracy, then the only way it could change anything is by encouraging other people to run. So, rather than waste all the time attempting to start a vote spoiling movement, why not just save a lot of time by running yourself, now?

Starting a movement!! Catch yerself on lad. And let's say I am trying to do that. (ffs  ).  I've currently wasted about 5mins on it, by writing a post on the GAA board.  Thanks for the concern for my time though.  Straw man much?

Anyway, if enough people did it, it would be a ringing endorsement of what we are all saying here on a daily basis.  That the shower on the hill are f**king useless and there's none of them worth voting for.  But it's also saying that you feel that your vote is worth casting.  In reality, it was just a symbolic gesture.  But I suppose if a significant portion of the electorate did that, instead of just lying on their ass at home, I reckon something would happen.  Either way, it's really nothing for you to be getting your knickers in a knot about.

[AZOffaly]

How does PR work in the north? In the elections down here, I believe that the only way you are guaranteed that your transfers are even used, is if you vote #1 for a candidate who will be eliminated. All votes of eliminated candidates are redistributed, but only a sample up to the surplus amount are redistributed for elected candidates.

If I vote monster raving looney party #1 and say Fine Gael #2, then it's very likely my #2 will come into play as all the looney votes will be distributed as they are eliminated.
If I vote the other way around, then it's unlikely my #2 will be counted as either a) the looney will be eliminated, or b) Fine Gael will be elected, and only their surplus is distributed, which is a random set of ballots that total the amount. If the quota is 8,000 and the candidate gets 8,100, then only 100 will be distributed. And that 100 can be any bundle of 100.

It would be so much better if ALL votes were counted, with a weighting given to the various preferences.

Count the #1s first, and give everyone say 5 points if it's a 5 seater, for every #1 they get. Eliminate nobody, and then count the #2s, #3s. #4s. #5s. 4 points for a #2, 3 points for a #3, etc etc. Then the 5 candidates with the most points get elected at the end.

[AZOffaly]

Apologies, ignore that last post. Complete rubbish. The surplus is distributed by counting ALL the elected candidates votes, and allocating a percentage of transfers to the other candidates. Then the Surplus is divided out in that ratio, so your vote counts.

Candidate gets 8,100. All his votes are examined, and if my looney guy gets 8 percent of the #2s of the 8,100 ballots, he gets 8% of the surplus, i.e. 8 votes.

[dec]

but only a sample up to the surplus amount are redistributed for elected candidates.

I wasn't aware until recently that all ballots weren't counted when transferring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Hare

I assumed that all ballots were counted and and transferred at a fraction of a vote (which is used in the Senate elections with the much smaller number of votes) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_single_transferable_votes#Gregory

[dec]

Apologies, ignore that last post. Complete rubbish.

Your post does match what wiki says ie a sample is used. see the links in my previous post.

[Rossfan]

Working out a percentage only happens if someone exceeds quota on first count.
I believe it's done in all cases in the North.
Here if you exceed the quota on say 3rd count they simply take the surplus straight from the top of your pile of votes , in other words from the transfers you got from others.
That's why people look for recounts where there's a close call in the hope a different set of papers will change things.

[haranguerer]

Starting a movement!! Catch yerself on lad. And let's say I am trying to do that. (ffs  ).  I've currently wasted about 5mins on it, by writing a post on the GAA board.  Thanks for the concern for my time though.  Straw man much?

Anyway, if enough people did it, it would be a ringing endorsement of what we are all saying here on a daily basis.  That the shower on the hill are f**king useless and there's none of them worth voting for.  But it's also saying that you feel that your vote is worth casting.  In reality, it was just a symbolic gesture.  But I suppose if a significant portion of the electorate did that, instead of just lying on their ass at home, I reckon something would happen.  Either way, it's really nothing for you to be getting your knickers in a knot about.

I'm not getting my knickers in a twist at all, it would seem to be you getting a little agitated. All I'm trying to ascertain is what you think the 'something' would be that would happen, i.e. what good you think spoiling your vote does or would do?

Its perfectly reasonable to suggest that if you think there are only useless people 'up on the hill', and you think sufficient people share your view, that you consider running yourself (assuming of course, that you don't consider yourself useless)

[Franko]

Starting a movement!! Catch yerself on lad. And let's say I am trying to do that. (ffs  ).  I've currently wasted about 5mins on it, by writing a post on the GAA board.  Thanks for the concern for my time though.  Straw man much?

Anyway, if enough people did it, it would be a ringing endorsement of what we are all saying here on a daily basis.  That the shower on the hill are f**king useless and there's none of them worth voting for.  But it's also saying that you feel that your vote is worth casting.  In reality, it was just a symbolic gesture.  But I suppose if a significant portion of the electorate did that, instead of just lying on their ass at home, I reckon something would happen.  Either way, it's really nothing for you to be getting your knickers in a knot about.

I'm not getting my knickers in a twist at all, it would seem to be you getting a little agitated. All I'm trying to ascertain is what you think the 'something' would be that would happen, i.e. what good you think spoiling your vote does or would do?

Its perfectly reasonable to suggest that if you think there are only useless people 'up on the hill', and you think sufficient people share your view, that you consider running yourself (assuming of course, that you don't consider yourself useless)

As I said before, it would send a message that the people deem their vote important enough to cast, but that they don't deem any of the candidates worthy of voting for.  I don't know what the practical consequences of this would be, but if 30-40% of the electorate did this, instead of just sitting at home, it would certainly reasonate with our politcos.  (if nothing else, Nolan would make hay with it!).

As for the bit in bold.  That is ONLY 'perfectly reasonable' in a world where they are the only two things that a person would consider when determining whether or not to jack it all in and go for a career in politics.  Now I'm not sure what kind of parallel universe you are inhabiting but I know I'd have a few other things to think about first.

[Rossfan]

Even if 70% spoiled their vote 90 MLAs will still be elected.
And they will get paid and their hangers on will get paid.
That would outweigh any other message