manxb&b Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 So I'm only one of 15000? I don't feel special now! Don't worry, you are. You know, needs wise and stuff. Lol, seriously? What a lame and predictable post. Think you need to go back to trolling school for a refresher course. You were always a muppet but now you're a predictable boring muppet. Must try harder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoymouse Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I'm one of the 15,000, won't be filling it in either as I don't agree with how the electoral roll data is publically shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 it would be great if they did share data. you wouldn't get the same person with 2 or 3 different names getting benefits at the same address. But you probably don't anyway. I know of a case a few years back so it has happened. but it is all the other things it could prevent and help with that makes it a reasonable course of action, who gets and is registered to vote for a line up of tossers is the least of the benefits of shared data. I avoid to be ignored for jury duty . and even if you are registered to vote it doesn't mean you will, it just means the turn out compared to those eligible to vote will be even lower than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j2bad Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I don't want to vote I don't see any point in it as we don't have a democratic system, give me a democracy where my vote actually matters and I will fill in your stupid form. Also why has this letter come from the cabinet office, is this not the electoral register an independent body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 15,000 and some forms will have 2 or more names on, or have I got it wrong. Either way, it sounds like a lot of people don't want to stand as a commissioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 [...] They've effectively removed 15,000 homes (and God knows how many people) permanently off the Register in the lead up to a general election. Then they say that voter turn out figures have been terrible for the last by-election's and some of the local authority elections. No shit? I wonder why? They've also had local authority members themselves who have had to resign positions because they have failed to re-register. It's worth pointing out that this sort of mass-removal from the Register actually tends to increase turnout. The reason is the 15,000 households which have not yet returned their forms are more likely to contain the sort of people who don't vote than those in the 22,000 or so[1] which have returned their forms. After all the latter are more likely to be interested in politics and less apathetic, less likely to be off the Island, more likely to be settled at that address and so on. All the reasons why someone wouldn't/couldn't vote are going to be the same as why they didn'y get the form back. So by excluding the people who are say 50% likely to vote, but including those who are say 75% likely to, you increase the turnout. (Not disagreeing with your other comments, but this is a surprisingly widespread misconception). [1] Based on the 35,599 households in the 2011 Census and assuming a smaller increase in number of households than the 6.6% increase between 2006 and 2011 (see page 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Lol, seriously? What a lame and predictable post. Think you need to go back to trolling school for a refresher course. You were always a muppet but now you're a predictable boring muppet. Must try harder! Ah, your enthusiasm for banter only goes so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 [...] They've effectively removed 15,000 homes (and God knows how many people) permanently off the Register in the lead up to a general election. Then they say that voter turn out figures have been terrible for the last by-election's and some of the local authority elections. No shit? I wonder why? They've also had local authority members themselves who have had to resign positions because they have failed to re-register. It's worth pointing out that this sort of mass-removal from the Register actually tends to increase turnout. The reason is the 15,000 households which have not yet returned their forms are more likely to contain the sort of people who don't vote than those in the 22,000 or so[1] which have returned their forms. After all the latter are more likely to be interested in politics and less apathetic, less likely to be off the Island, more likely to be settled at that address and so on. All the reasons why someone wouldn't/couldn't vote are going to be the same as why they didn'y get the form back. So by excluding the people who are say 50% likely to vote, but including those who are say 75% likely to, you increase the turnout. (Not disagreeing with your other comments, but this is a surprisingly widespread misconception). [1] Based on the 35,599 households in the 2011 Census and assuming a smaller increase in number of households than the 6.6% increase between 2006 and 2011 (see page 8) I would like to see evidence backing that assumption up as it clearly hasn't worked here. I also don't agree that it's sensible policy for a government to write off and effectively disenfranchise a huge part of a population just because of a belief that they are not interested in politics because they are a bit slack in returning petty forms to civil servants. It's a bit like saying let's not send out tax assessments anymore as people clearly aren't interested in paying tax as 40% of them haven't completed their tax return on time. Edited to add: also you can hardly say that local authority politicians are dis interested in local politics and yet many of them fell into the class of failing to re-register. Yes some might just be thick. But it hardly supports your view that all that has been removed is a layer of the population who aren't politically active or involved and therefore it's not material in terms of voter turn out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I got mine, signed it and returned it the following day . Took seconds. 1000 quid fine ideal. Wow. You could be the new Mr Awesome. You could always put your spliff down for a few seconds to sign it. Seriously, it was really easy for anyone that can read and sign their own name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 But it hardly supports your view that all that has been removed is a layer of the population who aren't politically active or involved and therefore it's not material in terms of voter turn out. You're making another very common mistake, which is that if a group of people are more likely to do (or not do) something, then it means every member of that group will behave like that. This is about probabilities. There will certainly be some people in that excluded group who will be desperate to vote, but on average there will be fewer of them than in the group who have already sent the form in. To see how this affects the turnout, suppose that half have returned the form are 75% likely to vote while the other half are only 50% are likely to. If only the first lot are on the Register the turnout will be 75%. However if the registration people make an effort and get the other half on the Register as well, turnout will only be 62.5% because the Register will be twice as big. Obviously turnout in terms of people will be more because many more people will have voted, but turnout is normally quoted as a percentage. It shows you need to be careful when people claim that an increased turnout is automatically a good thing, it may just be because a lot of people have been missed of the Register. I actually think there are a lot of stupid things about the way the Island handles electoral registration and it looks as if they are about to repeat the same sort of mess they got themselves in as in 2006 when they decided to start a new register from scratch (though this time with less excuse). The exclusion of the Councillors and Commissioners was another example - especially as that even if someone sends in the form there's no guarantee that it won't get lost or some data entry error made. Effectively someone can be thrown off a local authority by a junior civil servant out of malice or carelessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I really can't understand anyone who can't be bothered to vote, particularly on the pretext that we do not have a democracy. The number of people who may be disinterested or disheartened with Manx politics and think that they are being clever by excluding themselves from the process is worrying. It is little more than apathy and laziness and I wouldn't give it credence by calling it anything else! If you don't vote, how will anything ever change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 But it hardly supports your view that all that has been removed is a layer of the population who aren't politically active or involved and therefore it's not material in terms of voter turn out. You're making another very common mistake, which is that if a group of people are more likely to do (or not do) something, then it means every member of that group will behave like that. This is about probabilities. There will certainly be some people in that excluded group who will be desperate to vote, but on average there will be fewer of them than in the group who have already sent the form in. As I said I would like to see evidence for that statement rather than discussing probabilities which we can all have an opinion on. At face value we have taken around 15,000 whole households of the electoral roll. You can't say that isn't going to affect voter turn out numbers without producing better evidence than you have. I do agree with you on the whole process has been stupidly handled and stupidly implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxb&b Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Lol, seriously? What a lame and predictable post. Think you need to go back to trolling school for a refresher course. You were always a muppet but now you're a predictable boring muppet. Must try harder! Ah, your enthusiasm for banter only goes so far. You cried special needs, I cried muppet, no lack of enthusiasm on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 They might be apathetic or maybe they might just want to avoid some (imo) tit from the coroner's office (no implication whatsoever that everyone who works there could be so described) turning up on their doorstep entirely unnanaounced. Not much wrong with that in itself you might think, if they are on official business, and I would agree but this one wouldn't say who he was, or what it was about until I identified myself. You can imagine the rest. It was so ludicrous as to end up very slightly, but not very, amusing but I was quite taken aback by the level of self-importance and 'attitude' which was entirely unnecessary. All he had to do was to say " Hi, I'm Mr X from the coroner's office and I'm here regarding jury service. Are you Mr Y? which would have elicited an immediate confirmation. This one seemed like ex-services or ex-copper given the attitude. I also have reason to believe my data isn't that safe with officialdom either, given their unenviable track record on DP. Good luck on taking 15,000 to court for 'forgetting' to fill the form in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I don't want to vote I don't see any point in it as we don't have a democratic system, give me a democracy where my vote actually matters and I will fill in your stupid form. Also why has this letter come from the cabinet office, is this not the electoral register an independent body? It should be. But the Cabinet Office seems to be busy taking on more and more roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.