Reply to: Government to employ mind readers

[BlasterBates]

I am jumping to the silly conclusion that someone who doesn't vote doesn't care what happens.

Well we can't read their minds so we don't know.

[DodgyAgent]

I thought that was clear. Anyone who doesn't vote for change doesn't want change. How do you jump to the conclusion that someone who doesn't vote for change does in fact want change? Unless UKIP are planning to employ mind readers of course.

I am jumping to the silly conclusion that someone who doesn't vote doesn't care what happens.

[VectraMan]

Are you suggesting they don't want change?

I thought that was clear. Anyone who doesn't vote for change doesn't want change. How do you jump to the conclusion that someone who doesn't vote for change does in fact want change? Unless UKIP are planning to employ mind readers of course.

[VectraMan]

Holy Moley

are youse STILL banging on about this.
Any IT guy knows of a null


value unknown


abstension = null = value unknown

It's an in/out referendum, or a yes/no referendum. It's a bool(ean).

[EternalOptimist]

Holy Moley

are youse STILL banging on about this.
Any IT guy knows of a null


value unknown


abstension = null = value unknown

[TykeMerc]

Why should people who do not vote be assumed to not want change? I have just made the point that says that according to your argument we should not even be in the EU. Presumably your reason is that your twisted logic is designed to suit your own agenda.

Indeed.

There are 3 clear ways which one can vote in an election with a binary choice.

Yes
No
Abstain

Unless it's explicitly stated up front that all Abstentions are to be treated as Yes or No then they have to be treated as a third state which is don't care/don't know/can't decide.

Depending how the democratic process is organised and run it can change whether the vote is valid, but in traditional UK "democratic" process it's irrelevant what percentage of the electorate makes up the abstain section, the only votes counted are the ones cast.

[DodgyAgent]

Are you suggesting that people who don't vote do want change?

.

Are you suggesting they don't want change?

[VectraMan]

your summary assumes the organisation hasn't changed from the original prospectus

I didn't say any such thing.

We joined the Scout association, this quietly changed into 'Hitler Youth' and now we find we are being groomed for conscription into the Waffen SS.

This is still a valid analogy as the EU is intentionally evolving into a superstate and expansion of its powers will continue. The only thing wrong with this analogy is that the SS used to offer you a chance to choose to join the organisation and were clear what you were getting into.

I'm happy to go on record now and say I completely support a referendum to decide whether Britain should be part of an EU superstate/Hitler Youth movement. Not that it'll be necessary as there's no support for that in Britain or anywhere else in the EU.

[EternalOptimist]

your summary assumes the organisation hasn't changed from the original prospectus, here is one that may reflect the changes we have seen.

We joined the Scout association, this quietly changed into 'Hitler Youth' and now we find we are being groomed for conscription into the Waffen SS.

This is still a valid analogy as the EU is intentionally evolving into a superstate and expansion of its powers will continue. The only thing wrong with this analogy is that the SS used to offer you a chance to choose to join the organisation and were clear what you were getting into.

Of course the boy scout organisation was a bunch of children led by adults. The EU is a bunch of adults being led by children

[VectraMan]

Why should people who do not vote be assumed to not want change?

Are you suggesting that people who don't vote do want change?

I have just made the point that says that according to your argument we should not even be in the EU.

And I agreed. But we are in the EU.

Presumably your reason is that your twisted logic is designed to suit your own agenda.

Pot, Kettle, etc.

[vetran]

Can't argue with that.



Just because a referendum was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right this time. The question is not whether we should have ever been part of the EEC/EU, but whether having been part of the EEC/EU for 30 odd years we're better off leaving now. If we were looking at joining the EU now I'd be saying exactly the same: change should require a clear majority, and those that aren't interested/can't be arsed/didn't know there's a referendum/never watch Eurovision so don't think it concerns them etc. etc. should be assumed not to want a radical change that'll affect their lives.

Unfortunately it will be done wrong, and there's a chance we'll all end up worse off because of a small, vocal minority of Daily Express readers.

your summary assumes the organisation hasn't changed from the original prospectus, here is one that may reflect the changes we have seen.

We joined the Scout association, this quietly changed into 'Hitler Youth' and now we find we are being groomed for conscription into the Waffen SS.

This is still a valid analogy as the EU is intentionally evolving into a superstate and expansion of its powers will continue. The only thing wrong with this analogy is that the SS used to offer you a chance to choose to join the organisation and were clear what you were getting into.

[DodgyAgent]

Can't argue with that.



Just because a referendum was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right this time. The question is not whether we should have ever been part of the EEC/EU, but whether having been part of the EEC/EU for 30 odd years we're better off leaving now. If we were looking at joining the EU now I'd be saying exactly the same: change should require a clear majority, and those that aren't interested/can't be arsed/didn't know there's a referendum/never watch Eurovision so don't think it concerns them etc. etc. should be assumed not to want a radical change that'll affect their lives.

Unfortunately it will be done wrong, and there's a chance we'll all end up worse off because of a small, vocal minority of Daily Express readers.

Why should people who do not vote be assumed to not want change? I have just made the point that says that according to your argument we should not even be in the EU. Presumably your reason is that your twisted logic is designed to suit your own agenda.

[VectraMan]

in the last referendum 64% of the eligible electorate voted representing a total of about 26 million out of 41 million eligible voters. 18 million voted to join and 8 million voted not to. That leaves 15 million who did not vote. According to your logic these 15 million would not want change which puts them onto the side of the "NO" vote. Again according to your logic this means that 23 million voted no as opposed to 18 million voting yes.

Can't argue with that.

Your argument defeats itself. Firstly that the original referendum was wrongly conceived thus making our membership null and void. So the referendum we will have next (again according to your logic) should be the other way round. I.e about Britain ("proactively" as you call it) joining the EU. This would mean that anyone who does not vote (according to your logic) would be presumed to be on the side of the No vote.

Just because a referendum was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right this time. The question is not whether we should have ever been part of the EEC/EU, but whether having been part of the EEC/EU for 30 odd years we're better off leaving now. If we were looking at joining the EU now I'd be saying exactly the same: change should require a clear majority, and those that aren't interested/can't be arsed/didn't know there's a referendum/never watch Eurovision so don't think it concerns them etc. etc. should be assumed not to want a radical change that'll affect their lives.

Unfortunately it will be done wrong, and there's a chance we'll all end up worse off because of a small, vocal minority of Daily Express readers.

[EternalOptimist]

Not caring means you don't want a change, since change is proactive.

so the tories won a massive landslide at the last election ?

yippee

[DodgyAgent]

Not caring means you don't want a change, since change is proactive.

I am not sure you understand simple logic or simple English. Maybe it is because you are one of gods "chosen" mind readers but to me "not voting" means equally that the individual does not mind either way. If he or she does mind then I do not know what that person really wants and nor do you. Of course you seem to assume that you know what people want without asking them?

So let us look at your argument.

in the last referendum 64% of the eligible electorate voted representing a total of about 26 million out of 41 million eligible voters. 18 million voted to join and 8 million voted not to. That leaves 15 million who did not vote. According to your logic these 15 million would not want change which puts them onto the side of the "NO" vote. Again according to your logic this means that 23 million voted no as opposed o 18 million voting yes.

Your argument defeats itself. Firstly that the original referendum was wrongly conceived thus making our membership null and void. So the referendum we will have next (again according to your logic) should be the other way round. I.e about Britain ("proactively" as you call it) joining the EU. This would mean that anyone who does not vote (according to your logic) would be presumed to be on the side of the No vote.