janfebmar wrote: » Why do you think they had a border poll in 1973? If most people in N I wanted the "Brits out" , they would have gone long long ago, same as they did elsewhere in the world.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Jan, there was never a referendum on, 'Would you like the brits to stay?'. Our time will come.
blanch152 wrote: » In the border poll of 1973, despite the boycott from the nationalists, a majority of the electorate, not just a majority of those voting, voted to stay in the UK.
Matt Barrett wrote: » There was never a referendum on, 'Would you like the brits to stay?'.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Do you mean due to? Any road, so what? It means nothing. There was never a referendum on, 'Would you like the brits to stay?'.
steddyeddy wrote: » Jesus you'd think it was gerrymandered or something.
blanch152 wrote: » This is just silly republican propaganda.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll "In addition to taking a majority of votes cast, the UK option received the support of 57.5% of the total electorate." Even if every person who boycotted it came out and voted for Irish unity, the UK option would still have won. Those are hard facts, not propaganda, not excuses, not fantasies, just plain hard mathematical facts.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Wow...there was a majority of Unionists in favour of the union in 1973...that's like stunning info, who knew!
blanch152 wrote: » This is just silly republican propaganda.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll "In addition to taking a majority of votes cast, the UK option received the support of 57.5% of the total electorate."Even if every person who boycotted it came out and voted for Irish unity, the UK option would still have won. Those are hard facts, not propaganda, not excuses, not fantasies, just plain hard mathematical facts.
janfebmar wrote: » A majority of the electorate Francie. Has the penny not dropped yet?
although less then 1% of Catholics voted.
Gerry Fitt, leader of the opposition SDLP, said the poll result was entirely predictable. He said his party had organised the boycott of the poll because it feared it would lead to an escalation in violence. He said: "I think on the figures I have just seen, which have just arrived from London, there has been massive impersonation of votes by the unionist party."
blanch152 wrote: » That is about the sixth time today that you have taken something from my post that wasn't in it. A majority of the electorate voted in favour of the Union in 1973. That was a democratic vote that Sinn Fein and the IRA ignored in favour of support for a terrorist campaign.
FrancieBrady wrote: » blanch152 wrote: » This is just silly republican propaganda.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll "In addition to taking a majority of votes cast, the UK option received the support of 57.5% of the total electorate." Even if every person who boycotted it came out and voted for Irish unity, the UK option would still have won. Those are hard facts, not propaganda, not excuses, not fantasies, just plain hard mathematical facts. Wow...there was a majority of Unionists in favour of the union in 1973...that's like stunning info, who knew!
RobMc59 wrote: » The people spoke francie,respect their wishes.
steddyeddy wrote: » . It wasn't an effective democracy.
janfebmar wrote: » It was one person one vote in the referendum. It could not have been simpler. The majority of the electorate voted to remain in the UK.
steddyeddy wrote: » Sound familiar B? Yep indeed Blanch because it was gerrymandered to ensure a unionist majority. A cold hard fact that's undisputed by any historian. Have you got new evidence to suggest all these historians are wrong? You sound young but do you not learn about this in school anymore?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Not according to somebody who seen the voting data first hand.
janfebmar wrote: » The 1973 border pill / referendum in N. I. asked the electorate if they wanted to remain part of the U.K. or join in a United Ireland. Most of the electorate (not just those who voted) wanted to stay part of the UK. All adults were entitled to vote. So you are wrong yet again Matt.
blanch152 wrote: » Wow, just explain to me how the referendum in 1973 that had one person, one vote, across Northern Ireland was gerrymandered to ensure a unionist majority. I am genuinely gobsmacked if that was the case. I cannot understand how such a situation could be gerrymandered.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Also how do you know the vote of those who didn't vote?
Matt Barrett wrote: » I think he's referencing the sham democratic system installed by the British and tailored by the Unionists.
Matt Barrett wrote: » What came from it? The GFA was decades later. Point being it meant nothing. Might as well have been Blur or Oasis. Also how do you know the vote of those who didn't vote?
steddyeddy wrote: » No problem Blanch the modus operandi of your posts here has strawmen. No one is arguing that the poll was rigged, we're saying the state in which it was held was rigged to ensure the poll only gave one answer.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Just reading about it here and they reduced the number of polling booths from 900 to 300 and only allowed the votes to be counted in a single centre, thereby preventing any analysis of constituencies. The British Labour was critical of the reduction in polling stations and suppression of constituency level results. Note: even with vastly increased mobility 620 polling stations were still needed at the most recent referendum. Postal votes which were denied to addresses in the South (despite the many who had fled across the border) but allowed for addresses in the UK. It is a referendum that is mired in dubious carry on, if not exactly rigged. And was it even binding anyhow? Who says they would have acted on a positive UI vote when they had the previous year shot 14 innocents on the street to shore up the Unionist state, which would still have it's veto up until the AIA.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Just reading about it here and they reduced the number of polling booths from 900 to 300 and only allowed the votes to be counted in a single centre, thereby preventing any analysis of constituencies. The British Labour Party was critical of the reduction in polling stations and suppression of constituency level results. Note: even with vastly increased mobility 620 polling stations were still needed at the most recent referendum. Postal votes which were denied to addresses in the South (despite the many who had fled across the border) but allowed for addresses in the UK.https://treasonfelony.wordpress.com/2017/03/16/the-1973-border-poll/ It is a referendum that is mired in dubious carry on, if not exactly rigged. And was it even binding anyhow? Who says they would have acted on a positive UI vote when they had the previous year shot 14 innocents on the street to shore up the Unionist state, which would still have it's veto up until the AIA.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Surely Blanch and jan will be outraged at this? Even keeled unbiased defenders of fair play that they are.
blanch152 wrote: » A republican history blog? You expect that to have any credibility? 57% of the electorate voted to stay in the UK. Even if fraud was 3%, that would still be a result. Some of the objections don't make any sense. "Specific provision was made for postal voting that meant that anyone who was on the 1973 electoral register (for Stormont) was eligible to get a postal vote from an address in the UK only (essentially meaning that anyone who had fled over the border could not use an address in the south)." This would not invalidate the result, as they remained on the register and entitled to vote. They were part of the 43% which included those who voted against, who did not vote or could not vote because they were in the South. Now if the result had been different, say 60% of voters voting to stay in the UK, but less than 50% of the electorate, then that objection would have substance. However, the result was what it was, meaning any votes lost to the South in those circumstances couldn't have changed the outcome.
blanch152 wrote: » What has that got to do with the result of a one-man one-vote referendum? That is where I am genuinely confused.
blanch152 wrote: » The point is, it doesn't matter how those who didn't vote would have voted. There were enough votes to defeat them anyway.
