EU immigration row / time to get out

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

stevecook172001 wrote:
Or, at least, not yet.
Ah, but when will the moment come? I wouldn't want to miss it.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6596
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

8) I've counted quite a few votes over the years. I can't recall a time when after ten percent of the votes cast were counted and tallied counting the rest of them changed the outcome. To a statistician that comes down to a ten percent sample of actual voters yields a high level of confidence.
Compelling people who don't care to vote would pollute your data set and reduce the quality of the results.
The problem that holds back new parties with one new theme is that they need to be competent in all areas that concern voters ,not just their one great cause. You would not vote for a party that was great on, lets say ,education no matter how right their views on the issue were if you thought they were clueless about defense ,international diplomacy,commerce, or the management of the government bureaucracy.
A more effective strategy is to convince members of one of the existing parties that it is in their interest to adopt your cause as a way to win blocks of votes to keep them in power.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 8851
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

vtsnowedin wrote:Compelling people who don't care to vote would pollute your data set and reduce the quality of the results.
In last week's elections in the UK, only around 35% of the electorate voted. This isn't analogous to you counting only 10% of the votes cast. Our 35% aren't a random sample of the electorate - certain demographics are more likely to vote (over 60s) and some less likely (18-24 year olds). The result probably isn't he same as you'd get with near 100% turnout. However, I doubt it would be massively different.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6596
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

clv101 wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:Compelling people who don't care to vote would pollute your data set and reduce the quality of the results.
In last week's elections in the UK, only around 35% of the electorate voted. This isn't analogous to you counting only 10% of the votes cast. Our 35% aren't a random sample of the electorate - certain demographics are more likely to vote (over 60s) and some less likely (18-24 year olds). The result probably isn't he same as you'd get with near 100% turnout. However, I doubt it would be massively different.
Perhaps you missed my point or some part of it. For one the only poll that really counts is the one that tallies the voters that actually showed up and voted. Your 35% is a 100% sample of those that voted. The other 65% have chosen not to be counted as they have determined that they are not smart enough to make a choice and we must respect their decision on the matter. As often as 10% tells the tail we must ( and do) always count every vote as every now and then a contest comes down to a vote or two.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

vtsnowedin wrote:The other 65% have chosen not to be counted as they have determined that they are not smart enough to make a choice
Oh non, I don't think that can be true. There are all sorts of reasons why people don't vote but I doubt that people thinking they are not smart enough is a significant reason.

And this from the land of the hanging chad! ;)
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14632
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

vtsnowedin wrote:Compelling people who don't care to vote would pollute your data set and reduce the quality of the results.
Possibly; it depends upon what they've been told and what they believe.

I will repeat, too, that I'm not in favour of compulsory voting; it's merely a mental exercise to think of it.

There are several countries where voting is 'compulsory' but in many, the populace are not actually forced.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14632
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

biffvernon wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:The other 65% have chosen not to be counted as they have determined that they are not smart enough to make a choice
Oh non, I don't think that can be true.
Agreed. Many don't see the point, others can't be bothered. Some are just complacent about others ruling them. Yet more are happy with the way things are. No doubt there are dozens of other reasons but it would take a terrific argument to convince me that people underestimate their own intelligence. :lol:
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
extractorfan
Posts: 988
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Ricky
Contact:

Post by extractorfan »

Most of the people I know who don't vote just say it's because "it wouldn't make any difference" or "nothing would change".

They are probably right, but I still vote.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6596
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

emordnilap wrote:No doubt there are dozens of other reasons but it would take a terrific argument to convince me that people underestimate their own intelligence. :lol:

I'll concede that point with myself and family excepted. :)
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Yes, elections are not often won on the result of just one vote, yours. But most of life depends on a myriad of small actions, none of which are individually significant and yet without them there would be nothing.

The butterfly was not solely responsible for the hurricane but it might not have happened without her.
RevdTess
Posts: 2983
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Newquay

Post by RevdTess »

Tis true that a vote for a smaller party can encourage others to take them more seriously next time which eventually cascades into proper electoral success - see UKIP for details, and the Greens to a lesser extent.

Not long ago it seemed like there wasn't much hope to change things for the better politically, but now it's all been overwhelmed with the priority to 'keep racists/homophobes/misogynists out'. In which case I'll end up voting tactically against certain parties/candidates rather than positively for someone I actually want in power. But it's better than nothing I suppose.

Personally I think the solution to apathy is the 'none-of-the-above' option (fondly known as RON - reopen nominations - in my college days), but I can imagine it might make some elections go on a while...
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 5910
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

One reason I hear a lot that people give for not voting is that nobody who represents their views is standing or has the remotest chance of being elected. Of course, this is partly apathy in the sense that people could use their time organising someone to stand and represent their views, but to have a realistic chance of being elected you need

1. Enough money to fund promotion of your views
2. An electoral system that is not heavily biased in favour of the 'least worst option' - ie first past the post.

The Euro elections went some way to balancing the second, but parties with low, evenly distributed support like the Greens are still proportionately disadvantaged.

I would love an election where 'None of the Above' was a valid choice, along with first past the post and compulsory voting. They would win by a landslide!
User avatar
emordnilap
Posts: 14632
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:36 pm
Location: here

Post by emordnilap »

PS_RalphW wrote:One reason I hear a lot that people give for not voting is that nobody who represents their views is standing
That was my answer, recently, when asked who I supported. Despite a plethora of candidates for our local elections recently, NOTA would have been my choice, had I been given it.

At least the electoral system here gives us a chance to put the very worst at the bottom. :lol:
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
User avatar
jonny2mad
Posts: 2452
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: weston super mare

Post by jonny2mad »

biffvernon wrote:For those who can't be bothered to click a link, the Green Party policy on migration:
Migration
Across Europe, as austerity has reduced living standards
for ordinary people, politicians keen to shirk the blame for
their own failures have reached for a scapegoat. All too
often, they have settled on migrants But the Green Party
has always been clear. It wasn’t migrants who caused the
Migration.
Across Europe, as austerity has reduced living standards
for ordinary people, politicians keen to shirk the blame for
their own failures have reached for a scapegoat. All too
often, they have settled on migrants But the Green Party
has always been clear. It wasn’t migrants who caused the
the Schengen treaty so long as these measures are
included in it.
for non-eu migrants
• Defend the right of citizens to a family life. New UK
government rules require that in order to have a spouse
from a non-EU country move to the UK to live with you,
you have to be wealthy. This is an attack on love and on
family life and we will continue to fight it.
• Continue to oppose moves to introduce a ‘barrier round
Europe’ to stop the arrival of non-Europeans.
• Support moves to protect those who have been trafficked
into Europe, rather than victimising them further.
• Oppose the detention of migrants.
• As an interim measure: revise the remit of the Frontex EU
border agency to respect the human rights of everyone
it encounters, and to include a search and rescue at sea
function. Thousands of people die on Europe’s borders
every year. We must end this tragedy.
• Have a pact with countries around the Mediterranean to
prevent further deaths at sea of those who wish to seek a
future in Europe.
for refugees
• Have better co-ordination of the resettlement of refugees
and forced migrants. Greens have been successful in
calling for a joint resettlement programme, but the EU
must do better in co-ordinating support when there are
crises such as that resulting from the Syrian civil war.
• Have a fundamental reform of the Dublin III regulations
so that asylum seekers arriving in Europe can choose in
which country they wish to apply for asylum.
• Support legal routes to Europe for those seeking refugee
status, such as temporary visas.
• Have international protection for those forced to move for
environmental reasons.
• Ensure effective protection for LGBTIQ asylum-seekers.
Member States must correctly and fairly examine LGBTIQ
peoples’ asylum claims and support EU agencies and
national
authorities in fully implementing EU asylum
legislation. The Court of Justice of the European Union
ruled that people fleeing their country because of their
sexual orientation can qualify for asylum in the European
Union. Despite this, treatment of LGBTIQ asylum seekers
remains problematic across the EU. In the UK the Home
Office has been found to treat LGBTIQ asylum seekers
inhumanely. High rates of refusal for legitimate claims,
homophobic questioning and inhumane processes are
rife across the EU. Greens have been powerful advocates
of a humane asylum system that recognises the rights of
refugees and will continue to be.
• Implement measures to ensure that Edward Snowden
and future whistleblowers like him are able to apply for
protection in EU member states for revealing abuse of the
human rights of EU citizens.
So basically increasing our population making our countrys more splintered and less sustainable, giving our homes to other alien people . Ask yourself why it is that you have white flight, if people want to live in the sort of europe your busy creating

800,000 white british leaving london in ten years, people dont actually want to live in lagos, or be a powerless minority in what was their country.

Thanks biff for giving me another reason never to vote "green" although what the hell is green about pushing up population god knows .

One of my facebook friends was a prospective Green councillor and he posted encouraging people to send human shit to Ukips freepost address, to me thats cheating dirty tricks and very undemocratic, I wonder if the media will run a story about it like it would if he had stood for Ukip
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche

optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18539
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

jonny2mad wrote:giving our homes to other alien people .
I'm not giving my home to anyone, though I do share it. I've never met an alien person. Do they have five legs and pointy ears? I find my species, Homo sapiens, are best not classified according to their birth-place.
Post Reply