Looking for an honest 'No' voter

PDN

OK, this is a bit of a strange request.

I'm going to vote 'Yes' in the Lisbon Treaty poll, but it's a pain having to take time off work. I'm looking for a 'No' voter who can pair with me so we both agree not to go the polling booth. That way our votes, or non-votes, cancel each other out and we can both do something useful like working and putting tax revenue back into the economy.

Obviously I want someone I can trust, so I would prefer one of the regular posters on this forum whom I could trust (and who would trust me).

robindch

I'd imagine that Run_to_da_hills will vote no (see his sig), and was around yesterday. Might be worth a PM.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

OK, this is a bit of a strange request.

I'm going to vote 'Yes' in the Lisbon Treaty poll, but it's a pain having to take time off work. I'm looking for a 'No' voter who can pair with me so we both agree not to go the polling booth. That way our votes, or non-votes, cancel each other out and we can both do something useful like working and putting tax revenue back into the economy.

Obviously I want someone I can trust, so I would prefer one of the regular posters on this forum whom I could trust (and who would trust me).

I wont be voting, so I'm not your man anyway, but what is it you're doing? Going to the polling station but not voting? Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying above, and I'm just curious as to what it is.

The Mad Hatter

Ack, I had high hopes for a thread with that title

Jimi: PDN's hoping to find a no voter willing to abstain from voting, so that if PDN doesn't go, there won't be any net difference.

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ack, I had high hopes for a thread with that title

Jimi: PDN's hoping to find a no voter willing to abstain from voting, so that if PDN doesn't go, there won't be any net difference.

Exactly. It's a tradition from the British House of Commons: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/82599.stm

JimiTime

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ack, I had high hopes for a thread with that title

Jimi: PDN's hoping to find a no voter willing to abstain from voting, so that if PDN doesn't go, there won't be any net difference.

Gotcha. Cheers for that.

keano_afc

Wewll I was going to vote no and I'm not sure if I can make it, so I'll let you know in due course.

Run_to_da_hills

robindch wrote: »

I'd imagine that Run_to_da_hills will vote no (see his sig), and was around yesterday. Might be worth a PM.

A definite NO voter in last years referendum and now again. As my signature clearly states:

"A Yes vote will undermine democracy, diminish civil liberties and lead our country down the slippery slope".

As far as lies and honesty go, it takes two to tango in this campaign.

How can the YES supporters go around telling us that Lisbon will "bring jobs into the country" when at the same time the EU gave Poland full approval for a grant of 54.5 million to set up and build a production factory in Lotz and at the same time displacing 10,000 Jobs in Ireland (including all the local spin off industries in the area)

They have the audacity to then offer a 15 Million grant to EX Dell workers a week propr to the referendum :rolleyes: (Nice voteing charm that dose not take into consideration other industries effect by this cathostrophe)

How can Lisbon assure us of Jobs when Nice flooded the country with cheap unchecked labour? Can we be assured against a second phase with the potential of Turkey joining the Union? Myself a trades man have already lost three years of contract work with the ESB because foreign contractors were able to undercut domestic rates and supply their own labour.

I already stated my reasons why Christians should be very vigilant about the EU Constitution Lisbon. The main reasons being the cynical symbolism used through the EU from its architecture. promotional posters. statues, images etc since its inauguration and also the fact that it is the only international government institution that totally omits any word of our Christian heritage.

JimiTime

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A definite NO voter in last years referendum and now again. As my signature clearly states:

"A Yes vote will undermine democracy, diminish civil liberties and lead our country down the slippery slope".

As far as lies and honesty go, it takes two to tango in this campaign.

How can the YES supporters go around telling us that Lisbon will "bring jobs into the country" when at the same time the EU gave Poland full approval for a grant of 54.5 million to set up and build a production factory in Lotz and at the same time displacing 10,000 Jobs in Ireland (including spin off industries in the area)

How can Lisbon assure us of Jobs when Nice flooded the country with cheap unchecked labour? Can we be assured against a second phase with the potential of Turkey joining the Union? Myself a trades man have already lost three years of contract work with the ESB because foreign contractors were able to undercut domestic rates and supply their own labour.

I already stated my reasons why Christians should be very vigilant about the EU Constitution Lisbon. The main reasons being the cynical symbolism used through the EU from its architecture. promotional posters. statues, images etc since its inauguration and also the fact that it is the only international government institution that totally omits any word of our Christian heritage.

TBH, I don't think this thread was supposed to turn into a Yes/No debate.

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, I don't think this thread was supposed to turn into a Yes/No debate.

+1, but I take it you haven't bumped into R2DH before, s/he CAMPAIGNS at the slightest hint of Lisbon in ANY thread.

Phototoxin

I will and I cannot make it as I will be only getting to Ireland a day later than the vote! So you can count on me (so to speak!)

JimiTime

Phototoxin wrote: »

I will and I cannot make it as I will be only getting to Ireland a day later than the vote! So you can count on me (so to speak!)

I don't think thats how it works. Your scenario means that you will not be voting anyway as you wont be here is that correct? PDN needs someone who IS voting, but decides not to because they have 'paired' with PDN. I.e. Cancelled each other out. If he uses you in his 'Pair', the Yes side are actually a vote down as you would not have got to vote anyway. You get me?

Wacker

This is like what Donna did with Christian Slater's character in the West Wing. It's an admirable idea, and I'd love to help. However, I'll be voting Yes, and PDN would have no reason to trust me! Happy hunting PDN.

Splendour

PDN wrote: »

OK, this is a bit of a strange request.

I'm going to vote 'Yes' in the Lisbon Treaty poll, but it's a pain having to take time off work. I'm looking for a 'No' voter who can pair with me so we both agree not to go the polling booth. That way our votes, or non-votes, cancel each other out and we can both do something useful like working and putting tax revenue back into the economy.

Obviously I want someone I can trust, so I would prefer one of the regular posters on this forum whom I could trust (and who would trust me).

If you and a 'no' voter decide not to vote you are certaninly cancelling out each other but it will show up as two spoiled votes so not sure if such a good idea.
Anyhow, if you're that concerned about the Yes side winning you should get your ass down to the polling station and 'evangelise' the No voters into voting Yes before they get inside!!

PDN

Splendour wrote: »

If you and a 'no' voter decide not to vote you are certaninly cancelling out each other but it will show up as two spoiled votes so not sure if such a good idea.
Anyhow, if you're that concerned about the Yes side winning you should get your ass down to the polling station and 'evangelise' the No voters into voting Yes before they get inside!!

Well, non-votes rather than spoiled votes. I'm not interested in playing the role of political activist. Just listening to some of the arguments has depressed me enough.

Soul Winner

I want at least 10 Yes votes for my precious No vote thank you very much...

Warning: Soap boxing ahead...

Seriously though, don't you feel really betrayed by our government for not shoving our last No vote right up in the faces of the bureaucRATic pen pushers in Brussels instead of pandering to their every whim by making us vote again? It is an insult to the Irish people to have to vote again. What it says is that democracy is dead as it did not work last time. Even if the Lisbon Treaty was proven to be a good thing to Ireland, WE VOTED NO TO IT. That should stand no matter what anyone says on the Yes side as to the positives it might bring. Right or wrong we voted No so let the chips fall where they may. That's democracy. Imagine Fine Gael trying to get the last election run again because the people didn't vote the way they (Fine Gael) thought they should? Well that is what's happening with Lisbon. If I had voted Yes the last time I would on principle alone vote No this time because it is simple wrong to make us vote again on the same unchanged treaty. At least with the Nice Treaty there was a very bad turn out first time round and it was amended. But what were are being asked to do this Friday will tell you how much real democracy has ceased as a function in Europe.

starbelgrade

PDN wrote: »

we can both do something useful like working and putting tax revenue back into the economy.

Someone needs to pay for NAMA. I applaud your Trojan efforts.

What this has to do with religion & spirituality though, is beyond me.

jhegarty

PDN wrote: »

OK, this is a bit of a strange request.

I'm going to vote 'Yes' in the Lisbon Treaty poll, but it's a pain having to take time off work.

Is voting not open from 7am to 10pm ?

starbelgrade

jhegarty wrote: »

Is voting not open from 7am to 10pm ?

Yep. I still don't know why this is in the Christianity forum.

PDN

starbelgrade wrote: »

Yep. I still don't know why this is in the Christianity forum.

It's in the Christianity forum because I'm looking for someone I know I can trust to keep their word when they pair their vote with me. Most of the regular posters in this forum fit that requirement.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

It's in the Christianity forum because I'm looking for someone I know I can trust to keep their word [...]

There are two lists of voters over the fence in A+A, and a small minority of them are no-voters -- you can find the lists here and here.

I'd imagine that a PM to the one or two regular A+A posters who are voting "No" on Friday should sort you out pronto.

.

starbelgrade

PDN wrote: »

It's in the Christianity forum because I'm looking for someone I know I can trust to keep their word when they pair their vote with me. Most of the regular posters in this forum fit that requirement.

If you know & trust them, I don't see why you can't PM them instead of starting a thread in a forum that has absolutely nothing to do with the froum itself.

Turtwig

starbelgrade wrote: »

If you know & trust them, I don't see why you can't PM them instead of starting a thread in a forum that has absolutely nothing to do with the froum itself.

(Apologies for derailment)


Emm,

That would be a lotttt of surplus private messages in one guys inbox. Starting a new thread is wayyy easier and far more practical imo:)

BrianCalgary

starbelgrade wrote: »

If you know & trust them, I don't see why you can't PM them instead of starting a thread in a forum that has absolutely nothing to do with the froum itself.

Who cares??? As a foreign observer who knows nothing at all about the Lisbon treaty and goes nowhere else on the boards this is interesting.

Thansk PDN

(BTW I think you should just get your tail down to the voting booth and cast that vote)

starbelgrade

Malty_T wrote: »

(Apologies for derailment)


Emm,

That would be a lotttt of surplus private messages in one guys inbox. Starting a new thread is wayyy easier and far more practical imo:)

Perhaps - but if this thread had been started by anybody else, it would have been moved or locked a long time ago, imo.

Charter forums are there for a reason - not just for Joe Soap - and from the amount of infractions I've had in my time on boards, I am more than aware of this.

PDN

starbelgrade wrote: »

Perhaps - but if this thread had been started by anybody else, it would have been moved or locked a long time ago, imo.

Charter forums are there for a reason - not just for Joe Soap - and from the amount of infractions I've had in my time on boards, I am more than aware of this.

Then I'm surprised you're not aware of the rules on backseat modding.

Cut it out.

prinz

starbelgrade wrote: »

Someone needs to pay for NAMA..

Yeah, the ECB as it happens :rolleyes:

BrianCalgary wrote: »

(BTW I think you should just get your tail down to the voting booth and cast that vote)

I have to agree with this. I find it disappointing that someone obviously very focused on human right abuses etc elsewhere would willingly forego using the same rights here at home. . Please vote!

The Mad Hatter

PDN - the polling station in the school where I work is open from 7am to 10 pm - are you sure you can't find any time between those to get your vote in?

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

I have to agree with this. I find it disappointing that someone obviously very focused on human right abuses etc elsewhere would willingly forego using the same rights here at home. . Please vote!

Whats the difference if he's using this 'pairing' system?

axer

JimiTime wrote: »

Whats the difference if he's using this 'pairing' system?

He is encouraging another person to not exercise their vote. God would want you to vote.

JimiTime

axer wrote: »

He is encouraging another person to not exercise their vote.

Thats putting a negative slant on whats been requested. Asking someone to pair, means that rather than being like me (A non-voter), he cares about the voting system, and will cast his vote if he has no-one to pair with. The pairing system means that once you pair, the fact that you didn't go to the ballot box is inconsaquential. I don't see why folk would start being 'disappointed' or casting accusations of 'you're encouraging people not to vote'

Soul Winner

axer wrote: »

God would want you to vote.

How do you know? God anointed David to rule without consulting the people. He chose Moses to deliver and lead His people out of Egypt without consulting the people and He raised Jesus from the dead to be King of Kings without consulting the people. If God exists then He is not voted in. Heaven is a dictatorship - a good one - not corrupted like earthly dictatorships. But I agree, PDN should try his best to vote unless God tells him specifically not to. :pac:

starbelgrade

PDN wrote: »

That way our votes, or non-votes, cancel each other out and we can both do something useful like working and putting tax revenue back into the economy.

People go out of their way to vote, whether they are working, incapable of working or unemployed. All of those people at some time have contributed or are contributing to the tax revenue of our economy.

"Sorry, I don't have time to vote.. too busy keeping the economy ticking over."

PDN

starbelgrade wrote: »

People go out of their way to vote, whether they are working, incapable of working or unemployed. All of those people at some time have contributed or are contributing to the tax revenue of our economy.

"Sorry, I don't have time to vote.. too busy keeping the economy ticking over."

Sigh! It was a faintly humourous aside about the economy. I actually don't get paid for working overtime.

Actually, I've now got plans to do something much more beneficial than paying for NAMA on Friday night - such as watching Drogheda United beat Dundalk.

There is a guy on the A&A forum who's announced that he's planning to vote twice, so I considered pairing with him and asking him not to cast one of his votes. But he would probably fail the honesty test.

I guess I'll just have to call in at the local school on the way to the match, rub shoulders with the proles in the polling booth, and hope no-one sneezes swine flu over me while I cast my vote.

axer

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats putting a negative slant on whats been requested. Asking someone to pair, means that rather than being like me (A non-voter), he cares about the voting system, and will cast his vote if he has no-one to pair with. The pairing system means that once you pair, the fact that you didn't go to the ballot box is inconsaquential. I don't see why folk would start being 'disappointed' or casting accusations of 'you're encouraging people not to vote'

No, he is making a joke of the whole system. If he cared about the system he would not be trying to encourage others to not vote. I guess you could say he is anti-democratic.

If someone is going to vote they are going to vote, if they are not then they are not. Pairing with someone who was not going to vote does nothing for the voting system and only makes the OP feel better about wasting his vote. The pairing can really only do harm since if he manages to pair with someone it is more than likely going to be with a borderline voter i.e. a person that doesn't have much time but will still vote begrudgingly. What the OP is doing is taking someone like that and giving them an excuse not to vote thus an encouragement not to vote. Shame on you OP.

Soul Winner wrote: »

How do you know? God anointed David to rule without consulting the people. He chose Moses to deliver and lead His people out of Egypt without consulting the people and He raised Jesus from the dead to be King of Kings without consulting the people. If God exists then He is not voted in. Heaven is a dictatorship - a good one - not corrupted like earthly dictatorships. But I agree, PDN should try his best to vote unless God tells him specifically not to. :pac:

Well, I guess I am a prophet then, eh?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

There is a guy on the A&A forum who's announced that he's planning to vote twice, so I considered pairing with him and asking him not to cast one of his votes. But he would probably fail the honesty test.

Yes, earlier in the week, a chap whom I don't recall having posted in A+A before drifted in, possibly from the EU forum, to vote "No" in both the polls currently open. Then, he announced he was going to break the law, was red-carded and threatened with an immediate and permanent site-ban if he ever did that again.

And while I don't think he's returned to A+A since his warning, I don't now believe he's going to vote twice either -- a small victory for rationality and honesty in a debate that is conspicuously short of both.

Stephentlig

the lisbon treaty is just the same treaty we voted out years ago.

if you ask me they saw this recession as an oppertunity to bulldoze their way in and scare us with ''you'll have no jobs if you vote no this time''

If you scare a nation they are bound to vote yes.

I shall be voting No, the EU are a murderous crowd.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Whats the difference if he's using this 'pairing' system?

Essentially the vast majority of people voting are also using a "pairing" system...no referenda are won by 100%:0%. If I vote yes and someone else votes no, then in effect we have paired, so does that mean neither of us should have bothered? .

robindch wrote: »

Yes, earlier in the week, a chap whom I don't recall having posted in A+A before drifted in, possibly from the EU forum, to vote "No" in both the polls currently open. Then, he announced he was going to break the law, was red-carded and threatened with an immediate and permanent site-ban if he ever did that again.
And while I don't think he's returned to A+A since his warning, I don't now believe he's going to vote twice either -- a small victory for rationality and honesty in a debate that is conspicuously short of both.

+1 Much as it pains me to say it, good job.;) *shivers*

prinz

Stephentlig wrote: »

I shall be voting No, the EU are a murderous crowd.

I know this isn't a politics forum etc, but could we keep this kind on nonsensical rhetoric kept to a minimum?

lugha

Stephentlig wrote: »

the lisbon treaty is just the same treaty we voted out years ago.

if you ask me they saw this recession as an oppertunity to bulldoze their way in and scare us with ''you'll have no jobs if you vote no this time''

If you scare a nation they are bound to vote yes.

I shall be voting No, the EU are a murderous crowd.

I'm astonished that this got all the way to post # 36 before the inevitable derailing into treaty discussion land occurred!! :eek:

I must say I do not get folks reservations about pairing at all. Its a routine practice in the Dail and presumably other parliaments.

JimiTime

axer wrote: »

No, he is making a joke of the whole system. If he cared about the system he would not be trying to encourage others to not vote.

Technically you are right, but the system of 'pairing' is not the equivalent of 'encouraging someone not to vote'. You are using language that is unfair as to what the OP is asking.

I guess you could say he is anti-democratic.

If someone is going to vote they are going to vote, if they are not then they are not.

Ok.

Pairing with someone who was not going to vote does nothing for the voting system

But thats 'NOT' what pairing is. I never heard of this concept before this thread, but there's a link on the first page of this thread which is concise as to what it is. Its not anti-democratic, and it happens in the Dail itself as well as the commons etc. Its when you get two people who ARE voting, but they are voting the opposite, i.e. One yes and One No. They decide to 'pair', agreeing that neither will vote, and thus no impact on the vote is made.

The pairing can really only do harm since if he manages to pair with someone it is more than likely going to be with a borderline voter i.e. a person that doesn't have much time but will still vote begrudgingly. What the OP is doing is taking someone like that and giving them an excuse not to vote thus an encouragement not to vote. Shame on you OP.

But whats the problem? If the two people in the pairing are honest, then absolutely no impact is made on the outcome of the vote. I fail to see what is so outrageous

prinz

lugha wrote: »

I must say I do not get folks reservations about pairing at all. Its a routine practice in the Dail and presumably other parliaments.

....because this is a national referendum. Given the usual outcry about people abroad not having the right to vote on things like this I am suprised that someone would be as apathetic to the whole thing tbh. 752,451 people voted yes in the first referendum on the 28th Amendment. Should they have not bothered and just said 'ah sure, my vote will be paired off anyway by someone voting no' ?

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

But whats the problem? If the two people in the pairing are honest, then absolutely no impact is made on the outcome of the vote. I fail to see what is so outrageous

In a country with an already appallingly low voter turnout I don't see the need for someone like PDN to encourage even lower voter turnout regardless of the reasoning behind it.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

...Should they have not bothered and just said 'ah sure, my vote will be paired off anyway by someone voting no' ?

But that is NOT what pairing is. Pairing IS NOT, ah sure whats the point in voting yes, someone else will be voting no. Pairing is when you actually have a partner. For instance. Lets say I am voting yes, and my wife is voting no. We value the voting process and are always voting, be it general elections, whatever. Now, we decide, 'Well seeing how you are a no voter, and I am yes voter, lets pair.' So we have two people who would Honestly be there to vote, PAIRING off. It in no way affects the outcome. I really fail to see the issue

jobucks

Why don't you just go and vote after work or before work, polling opens at 7 and closes at 9 as far as I know

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

But that is NOT what pairing is. Pairing IS NOT, ah sure whats the point in voting yes, someone else will be voting no. Pairing is when you actually have a partner. For instance. Lets say I am voting yes, and my wife is voting no. We value the voting process and are always voting, be it general elections, whatever. Now, we decide, 'Well seeing how you are a no voter, and I am yes voter, lets pair.' So we have two people who would Honestly be there to vote, PAIRING off. It in no way affects the outcome. I really fail to see the issue

I know what pairing is, essentially it's divesting yourself of the responsibility of doing your bit in making a decision that effects not only us here, but hundreds of millions of people across the EU and beyond. Why stop at two people pairing, why not have two hundred thousand people pairing, 750,000 people pairing..... and suddenly we have national referenda being decided by a ridiculous minority of the eligible electorate.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

I know what pairing is, essentially it's divesting yourself of the responsibility of doing your bit in making a decision that effects not only us here, but hundreds of millions of people across the EU and beyond. Why stop at two people pairing, why not have two hundred thousand people pairing, 750,000 people pairing..... and suddenly we have national referenda being decided by a ridiculous minority of the eligible electorate.

As someone who has never voted in my life, I'm probably not best qualified to continue this discussion. It just doesn't seem to be the issue its being made out to be.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

As someone who has never voted in my life, I'm probably not best qualified to continue this discussion. It just doesn't seem to be the issue its being made out to be.

:pac: It's not even about pairing tbh. It's the fact that I feel people in positions of responsibility etc should be actively encouraging others to vote, rather than giving off the impression that Drogs v Dundalk is more important. If you think about it, starting this thread and replying to PM's etc probably took more time than actually voting.

lugha

prinz wrote: »

I know what pairing is, essentially it's divesting yourself of the responsibility of doing your bit in making a decision that effects not only us here, but hundreds of millions of people across the EU and beyond. Why stop at two people pairing, why not have two hundred thousand people pairing, 750,000 people pairing..... and suddenly we have national referenda being decided by a ridiculous minority of the eligible electorate.

No offense but I don't think you do understand pairing. Your argument would stand up if you rebuffing someone's view that there was no point in voting at all because their vote will almost certainly not make the difference. There certainly is an argument against such a view.
What's wrong with 750,000 people pairing? Absolutely nothing if you could manage the logistics of it and trust everybody's integrity.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

No offense but I don't think you do understand pairing.

Yes, I do.

lugha wrote: »

What's wrong with 750,000 people pairing? Absolutely nothing if you could manage the logistics of it and trust everybody's integrity.

Regardless of whether it's a no vote or a yes vote, the important thing is that a vote is cast, to give legitimacy to the referendum.

PDN

prinz wrote: »

I know what pairing is, essentially it's divesting yourself of the responsibility of doing your bit in making a decision that effects not only us here, but hundreds of millions of people across the EU and beyond. Why stop at two people pairing, why not have two hundred thousand people pairing, 750,000 people pairing..... and suddenly we have national referenda being decided by a ridiculous minority of the eligible electorate.

That would be a great idea. Pairing is a perfectly legitimate arrangement which ensures that the final result of the referendum is not affected by 2 people saving themselves the bother of voting.

If the people pairing actually do vote in opposite ways then national referenda will still be decided by a ridiculous minority of the eligible electorate. Think about it. If 400,001 people vote yes, and 400,003 vote no, then the referendum is decided by two people - who, most likely, are probably half wits.

If 800,000 of those people agreed to pair, then the no vote would win by 3 votes to 1. So the net result is still the same. The referendum is still decided by two half wits. However, the pairing agreement would mean we would only need one electronic voting machine (a cheap laptop from Harvey Norman) thousands of school kids wouldn't have to take the day off school, and League of Ireland attendances could be marginally higher.

Of course, if you think a high percentage of people physically entering a polling booth is a good thing in and of itself, then pairing is probably not the way to go.

However, large scale pairing would probably be abused since the Sinn Feiners would pair up with ten people at once - thus managing not to vote at all yet still to vote often.

So I guess I'm going to have to swing by at the polling booths en route to the footie.