If you don't like them,do NOT put a number next to their name!

wolfpawnat

So tomorrow will be a big day for the future of Ireland. A few people I have been talking to that are voting tomorrow and don't realise you can leave a blank box for someone you don't want in government!

If you only Labour in Government, put 1 & 2 next to their pictures.

If you want a FG and FF coalition put 1, 2, 3 & 4 next to theirs.

If want only Greens and the ULA, etc.

Don't give someone you cannot stand a number, TDs have been elected before by getting 5, 6, 7, etc!

*The examples given are just random parties btw.
** And not every constituency has the number of candidates that I give examples of! I am just working this off a party have 2 candidates in each constituency.

Happy voting tomorrow everyone. Hope ye are decided on who best suits you now and are not just going for a party out of spite, etc. As Rev. Jackson said on his trip to Ireland last week. "Do not vote out of spite, vote out of passion!"

Zubeneschamali

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Don't give someone you cannot stand a number, TDs have been elected before by getting 5, 6, 7, etc!

This is completely silly advice: to get the most from your vote, list every single candidate in the order you prefer them.

Your #5, #6 votes can't help those candidates beat anyone higher on your list, only those lower (or not listed).

Reilly616

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your #5, #6 votes can't help those candidates beat anyone higher on your list, only those lower (or not listed).

Of course they can!

If you vote:

#1 John (No Hope)
#2 Jim (No Hope)
#3 Mary (No Hope)
#4 Sally (No Hope)
#5 Michael (Popular enough for a chance, but you hate him)

Then when John is knocked out, your vote goes to Jim, then Mary, then Sally. When Sally is eliminated it might very well be your vote that pops Michael over the quota. And then you've helped elect someone you dislike. QED.

wolfpawnat

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is completely silly advice: to get the most from your vote, list every single candidate in the order you prefer them.

Your #5, #6 votes can't help those candidates beat anyone higher on your list, only those lower (or not listed).

I have seen people get in with no. 6,7 & 8. If you don't want someone getting a seat you have to voice your disdain!

P. Breathnach

Reilly616 wrote: »

Of course they can!

If you vote:

#1 John (No Hope)
#2 Jim (No Hope)
#3 Mary (No Hope)
#4 Sally (No Hope)
#5 Michael (Popular enough for a chance, but you hate him)

Then when John is knocked out, your vote goes to Jim, then Mary, then Sally. When Sally is eliminated it might very well be your vote that pops Michael over the quota. And then you've helped elect someone you dislike. QED.

So you would vote for no-hopers and then stop there? Not that good a move. Your vote becomes ineffective when your no-hopers are eliminated. I would continue down the list on the basis of who I disliked least.

wolfpawnat

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So you would vote for no-hopers and then stop there? Not that good a move. Your vote becomes ineffective when your no-hopers are eliminated. I would continue down the list on the basis of who I disliked least.

That person is saying that, that if 1,2,3,4 and 5 did not get through, no6 would get the vote if others before them did not get through and that person has the most votes from other voters!

Flimbos

The other school of thought is to fill out the whole card...

#1 John (Your favourite)
#2 Jim (You really like)
#3 Mary (You like)
#4 Sally (You like)
#5 Michael (Meh)
#6 Joe (You don't like)
#7 Paddy (You don't like, even less than #6)
#8 Charlie (You can't stand)
#9 Brian (You really can't stand)

Who would you rather see elected - someone you don't like, or someone you really can't stand?

SugarHigh

Flimbos wrote: »

The other school of thought is to fill out the whole card...

#1 John (Your favourite)
#2 Jim (You really like)
#3 Mary (You like)
#4 Sally (You like)
#5 Michael (Meh)
#6 Joe (You don't like)
#7 Paddy (You don't like, even less than #6)
#8 Charlie (You can't stand)
#9 Brian (You really can't stand)

Who would you rather see elected - someone you don't like, or someone you really can't stand?

If you left #9 blank it would effectively be the same as giving Brian a negative vote. Wouldn't that be better if you really can't stand him?

LizT

I don't get the obsession with giving everyone a vote somehow. I'm only voting for the candidates I would be happy to get in. Everyone else is getting nothing from me. Even if that means that my vote is "wasted"

e.g.
1. Really like
2. Really like
3. Like.

If 1,2,3 aren't elected then my vote doesn't transfer to a person who I don't want to get in. But if I keep going on just to fill up space then that means that candidate x who I don't like might get a vote from me by way of transfers.

This post is a bit waffely but in summary - I'm only voting for the three candidate that I like. At least if the ones I don't like get in I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I had no hand in it.

SugarHigh

lizt wrote: »

I don't get the obsession with giving everyone a vote somehow. I'm only voting for the candidates I would be happy to get in. Everyone else is getting nothing from me.

It really is this simple.:)

No matter where you put their name it is still helping them get elected so don't try any "clever tricks" to stop your vote being wasted(which is a complete misconception anyway).

Reilly616

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So you would vote for no-hopers and then stop there? Not that good a move. Your vote becomes ineffective when your no-hopers are eliminated. I would continue down the list on the basis of who I disliked least.

That's exactly what I'll be doing too. The example was just to illustrate the specific point.

The Rooster

Reilly616 wrote: »

Of course they can!

If you vote:

#1 John (No Hope)
#2 Jim (No Hope)
#3 Mary (No Hope)
#4 Sally (No Hope)
#5 Michael (Popular enough for a chance, but you hate him)

Then when John is knocked out, your vote goes to Jim, then Mary, then Sally. When Sally is eliminated it might very well be your vote that pops Michael over the quota. And then you've helped elect someone you dislike. QED.

It really is amazing how many people have the same silly misconception.

Firstly, if there are only 5 candidates in your eleciton above, then Michael will NEVER get your vote. So while he may have gotten elected, you did not help him in any way shape or form.

If there are more than 5 candidates, then while you don't like Michael, you clearly disliked candidates 6, 7 and 8 worse. Unfortunately your top 4 preferences didnt get enough votes from the rest of the electorate, and thusgot elimiated. However, then your vote helped Michael get elected, ahead of candidates 6, 7, and 8 who dislike even more thn Michael.

Only if you dislike Michael and candidates 6, 7, 8 etc, absolutely equally, should you stop at 4 and leave the rest blank. But usually you can find differences between people, in which case you should vote the whole way down.

Reilly616

Flimbos wrote: »

The other school of thought is to fill out the whole card...

#1 John (Your favourite)
#2 Jim (You really like)
#3 Mary (You like)
#4 Sally (You like)
#5 Michael (Meh)
#6 Joe (You don't like)
#7 Paddy (You don't like, even less than #6)
#8 Charlie (You can't stand)
#9 Brian (You really can't stand)

Who would you rather see elected - someone you don't like, or someone you really can't stand?

Why vote for someone you can't stand? See my example above which illustrates how by voting for people you don't like, you can help get them elected, even way down on the ticket.

cornbb

This is how I would do it, if there are e.g. 10 candidates and 3 seats

1. Favourite
2. 2nd Favourite
3. 3rd Favourite
4. 4th Favourite
5. 5th Favourite
6. Not crazy about this candidate but would rather see him get in than the remaining 4

Leave 7-10 blank because I really dislike them.

It is true to say that even if you give a 12th/13th/14th preference for someone you really dislike, your vote could still push them over the line.

Reilly616

The Rooster wrote: »

It really is amazing how many people have the same silly misconception.

Firstly, if there are only 5 candidates in your eleciton above, then Michael will NEVER get your vote. So while he may have gotten elected, you did not help him in any way shape or form.

If there are more than 5 candidates, then while you don't like Michael, you clearly disliked candidates 6, 7 and 8 worse. Unfortunately your top 4 preferences didnt get enough votes from the rest of the electorate, and thusgot elimiated. However, then your vote helped Michael get elected, ahead of candidates 6, 7, and 8 who dislike even more thn Michael.

Only if you dislike Michael and candidates 6, 7, 8 etc, absolutely equally, should you stop at 4 and leave the rest blank. But usually you can find differences between people, in which case you should vote the whole way down.

There is no misconception, you're simply reading into my example something which isn't there. I didn't say that #6, 7, 8 etc were hated more than #5.

The Rooster

cornbb wrote: »

It is true to say that even if you give a 12th/13th/14th preference for someone you really dislike, your vote could still push them over the line.

It would only push them over the line against someone who you dislike even more.

Reilly616 wrote: »

There is no misconception, you're simply reading into my example something which isn't there. I didn't say that #6, 7, 8 etc were hated more than #5.

Well then why did you give Michael preference 5, if you hate him more than 6, 7 and 8 ??

Reilly616

The Rooster wrote: »

It would only push them over the line against someone who you dislike even more.

If I 100% do not want A to get in and 100% do not want B to get in, how can I be said, for the puposes of an election, to dislike one more than the other?

Reilly616

The Rooster wrote: »

Well then why did you give Michael preference 5, if you hate him more than 6, 7 and 8 ??

Nor did I say "more". See above. It can easily be equal where party politics is concerned.

The Rooster

Reilly616 wrote: »

If I 100% do not want A to get in and 100% do not want B to get in, how can I be said, for the puposes of an election, to dislike one more than the other?

As I said, if you dislike candidates absolutely equally then sure you should leave them both/all off your card.

But if you have even the slightest difference, you should vote all the way down the card in case the last seat came between someone you don't care for and someone you really hate - to try and ensure the one you really hate doesnt get elected

irishh_bob

is your vote still valid if you only tick one canditates box

SugarHigh

irishh_bob wrote: »

is your vote still valid if you only tick one canditates box

Yes that will be counted as your first preference. Your vote would still be valid even if you selected no one.

LizT

irishh_bob wrote: »

is your vote still valid if you only tick one canditates box

It's a valid vote, but it just means that if your candidate doesn't reach the quota and is not in the running, your vote will not transfer to anyone. But it's still a valid vote!

Reilly616

The Rooster wrote: »

As I said, if you dislike candidates absolutely equally then sure you should leave them both/all off your card.

Agreed.

SonOfPerdition

The Rooster wrote: »

But if you have even the slightest difference, you should vote all the way down the card in case the last seat came between someone you don't care for and someone you really hate - to try and ensure the one you really hate doesnt get elected

It's simple logic.

How come so many people just don't get it?

cornbb

irishh_bob wrote: »

is your vote still valid if you only tick one canditates box

I was under the impression that a tick or an X is not a valid vote, and that you need a 1 instead. Im open to correction though.

SonOfPerdition

cornbb wrote: »

I was under the impression that a tick or an X is not a valid vote, and that you need a 1 instead. Im open to correction though.

You are correct.

EDIT:

It appears not, Reilly616 comment below seems to be correct from a quick search. I had always assumed that a single X was still a spoiled vote. You learn something new every day.

Reilly616

cornbb wrote: »

I was under the impression that a tick or an X is not a valid vote, and that you need a 1 instead. Im open to correction though.

No, if there is just one tick/X then the intention of the voter is clear and it would be counted as if a 1 had been written. Same goes for somebody writing A, B, C, D / i, ii, iii, iv, v, etc. It's all about the intention of the voter. It is only spoiled if the intention is unclear, or if there is a mark which could in some way identify the voter.

cornbb

The Rooster wrote: »

It would only push them over the line against someone who you dislike even more.

That's true, but what if one of them has a marginal chance of taking a seat and the others haven't a hope? Let's say Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini are running. Mussolini and Stalin haven't a hope. Hitler has a chance of grabbing the 5th seat. If I vote 13 Stalin 14 Hitler and 15 Mussolini. Stalin gets eliminated and my vote is transferred to Hitler and helps him get elected on the last count. It doesn't really matter that Mussolini got a lower preference cause he never really had a chance and got eliminated on the 3rd count anyway.

If I had voted 13 Mussolini 14 Stalin and nothing for hitler, then I wouldn't have gotten him elected.

irishh_bob

lizt wrote: »

It's a valid vote, but it just means that if your candidate doesn't reach the quota and is not in the running, your vote will not transfer to anyone. But it's still a valid vote!

thats fine , only one other canditate id consider voting no . 2 for and they are a show in anyway , FF have to be punished ( despite the fact that they have the best canditate in my constituency ) and i couldnt vote for any of the other non entitiys plus the labour canditates

im invisible

Reilly616 wrote: »

It is only spoiled if the intention is unclear, or if there is a mark which could in some way identify the voter.

dammit, there goes my idea
i have never voted before, and i dont really see my vote making much difference this time either, so i was going to leave my fingerprint/smudge in one of the boxes, and leave it to the tallymen to decide if it was a valid vote, or not. ah well.

Zubeneschamali

cornbb wrote: »

my vote is transferred to Hitler and helps him get elected on the last count.

If they are counting your preferences for these three guys at the bottom of your ballot, one of them is getting in, whether you like it or not.

In your particular example, if Mussolini is eliminated already, it's between Stalin and Hitler.

You refusing to state a preference won't keep them out, it just means you get no say in which one gets in.

ligind

cornbb wrote: »

That's true, but what if one of them has a marginal chance of taking a seat and the others haven't a hope? Let's say Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini are running. Mussolini and Stalin haven't a hope. Hitler has a chance of grabbing the 5th seat. If I vote 13 Stalin 14 Hitler and 15 Mussolini. Stalin gets eliminated and my vote is transferred to Hitler and helps him get elected on the last count. It doesn't really matter that Mussolini got a lower preference cause he never really had a chance and got eliminated on the 3rd count anyway.

If I had voted 13 Mussolini 14 Stalin and nothing for hitler, then I wouldn't have gotten him elected.

In your example Hitler would be elected anyway as last candidate standing, in my opinion you vote as far as your second last preference unless you hate a number of candidates equally.

upmeath

Thread title: "If you don't like them,do NOT put a number next to their name!"

This is a black and white version of things. The intelligent voter has likes, don't minds, dislikes and despises. So "If you don't like them, put a number next to their name as long as there's someone you dislike even more!"

dsmythy

These threads popping up constantly just makes me think it's time to change the election system.

Victor

To be honest, I've never hear of stuff like this before this election.

However, as I said in another thread, I strongly suspect comments like this were put about as a means of getting non-committed voters, i.e. ordinary Joe Bloggs, not a card carrying party member to abstain for the later preferences/counts thereby allowing marginal candidates from the major parties (I'm looking at FF) win on the last count.

SugarHigh wrote: »

If you left #9 blank it would effectively be the same as giving Brian a negative vote. Wouldn't that be better if you really can't stand him?

There are no "negative" votes. There are votes and non-transferable votes.

lizt wrote: »

I don't get the obsession with giving everyone a vote somehow. I'm only voting for the candidates I would be happy to get in. Everyone else is getting nothing from me. Even if that means that my vote is "wasted"

e.g.
1. Really like
2. Really like
3. Like.

If 1,2,3 aren't elected then my vote doesn't transfer to a person who I don't want to get in. But if I keep going on just to fill up space then that means that candidate x who I don't like might get a vote from me by way of transfers.

This post is a bit waffely but in summary - I'm only voting for the three candidate that I like. At least if the ones I don't like get in I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I had no hand in it.

Not really, you allowed someone else make the decision and allowed the 'bad' candidate to win.

Remember the saying "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing".

LizT

Victor wrote: »

There are no "negative" votes. There are votes and non-transferable votes.

Not really, you allowed someone else make the decision and allowed the 'bad' candidate to win.

.

Well I wouldn't agree. I don't think someone deserves a vote purely because they are less crap than someone else. I suppose people have different view points on this. We'll agree to disagree;)

rock chic

Flimbos wrote: »

The other school of thought is to fill out the whole card...

#1 John (Your favourite)
#2 Jim (You really like)
#3 Mary (You like)
#4 Sally (You like)
#5 Michael (Meh)
#6 Joe (You don't like)
#7 Paddy (You don't like, even less than #6)
#8 Charlie (You can't stand)
#9 Brian (You really can't stand)

Who would you rather see elected - someone you don't like, or someone you really can't stand?

its simple you just vote for who you want to see in the dail if ya have 3 faves you just put 1, 2 or 3 after their name nothing after the other candidates who you dont want easy peasy

Quackles

There's 13 in my constituency, I'll be voting for all bar 2. My stomach would be sick if I vote for that two. This means I'll be giving preferences to SF, Labour, FG, FF, Ind, ULA - because any one of them would be better than the two I'm not giving a preference to.... I'm primarily voting for who I want in, but with the added bonus of voting to keep them out!

johno2

Reilly616 wrote: »

Of course they can!

If you vote:

#1 John (No Hope)
#2 Jim (No Hope)
#3 Mary (No Hope)
#4 Sally (No Hope)
#5 Michael (Popular enough for a chance, but you hate him)

Then when John is knocked out, your vote goes to Jim, then Mary, then Sally. When Sally is eliminated it might very well be your vote that pops Michael over the quota. And then you've helped elect someone you dislike. QED.

This is ridiculous, if you give Micheal your #5 vote you obviously think he is better than any candidates that get #6, #7 or #8. So if he's in a competition with someone else for a seat you'd want him elected. He can't be in competition with John, Jim, Mary or Sally because they're already eliminated.
I can see a point about not filling in the very last empty box on the ballot though.

johno

johno2

Reilly616 wrote: »

There is no misconception, you're simply reading into my example something which isn't there. I didn't say that #6, 7, 8 etc were hated more than #5.

Oh right, so they're siamese quadruplets are they?

johno

im invisible

johno2 wrote: »

siamese quadruplets...

thats something i'd pay to see

caseyann

Mine is simples,just one vote and no vote for anyone else lol

Happy voting wolfpawnat.

Reilly616

johno2 wrote: »

Oh right, so they're siamese quadruplets are they?

johno

:rolleyes: An example would be four candidates from the same party, where you do not want that party to come to power.

Reilly616

johno2 wrote: »

This is ridiculous, if you give Micheal your #5 vote you obviously think he is better than any candidates that get #6, #7 or #8.

Why? Today I will be giving somebody my #1 and somebody else my #2. I don't prefer one to the other. Don't forget to factor in party politics.

jimaneejeebus

wolfpawnat wrote: »

"Do not vote out of spite, vote out of passion!"

Passion my hole. Vote for whoever you want-we're all screwed

wolfpawnat

jimaneejeebus wrote: »

Passion my hole. Vote for whoever you want-we're all screwed

I know we are, but you might as well vote for who you want in!

Zubeneschamali

Reilly616 wrote: »

:rolleyes: An example would be four candidates from the same party, where you do not want that party to come to power.

One more time: if you don't want this party to get in, you vote all the way to the bottom, with these four at the bottom.

Now there is no way your vote can help any of these 4 candidates beat anyone else. If everyone you like is already elected or eliminated, and it's just these four candidates left in the race, one or more of them are getting in anyway.

Don't you have some preference? Really? Why not vote for the good looking one? At least if they get in it'll be easier on the eyes.

conor.hogan.2

If you disagree with Fianna fail, do not even give them a low preference.

Just in case, however unlikely, candidates get knocked out and transfers get that far down the line.

That transfer is as good to them as a first preference vote in that situation.



Today as in today, not as in "this day and age" just btb.

Zubeneschamali

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

That transfer is as good to them as a first preference vote in that situation.

You are wrong. Hope this helps!

dolphin city

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is completely silly advice: to get the most from your vote, list every single candidate in the order you prefer them.

Your #5, #6 votes can't help those candidates beat anyone higher on your list, only those lower (or not listed).

what are you talking about? :eek:

if you don't want a certain person in - DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM i.e. do not give them ANY SUPPORT AT ALL, whether it is 8, 9 or 10.

PauloMN

Ok here's my take on it from reading here and elsewhere in the past few days - you can use your vote in a positive manner to vote for your favourites (1, 2, 3 etc.) and you can use your vote to positively discriminate against a candidate you really do not like.

For example, if you absolutely detest a candidate and do not want them near the Dáil, I think the first thing to do is not list them as a preference on your ballot paper. That's part of it.

In addition though, to get the most power from your vote against the candidate you hate, the best thing to do imo is give a preference to all the remaining candidates outside of the one you hate. So in a 15 candidate constituency, you should vote 1 through 14 and leave the candidate you hate off the paper to get the most power from your vote against that candidate.

Voting the first few is fine, but if you'd rather have someone you dislike compared with someone you really hate, then use your vote to the max.