Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

General Election and Government Formation Megathread (see post #1)

14243454748116

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    Yeah, it didnt paint her in a good light at all and is usually what people go to when they have lost an argument.

    However, it wont affect their core vote and wasnt the worst thing that happened to MLM last night

    I thought the her being unable to quantity the word massive in any shape are form and lying/changing her story on the same channels two nights in a row - but they have the momentum (and are unlikely to form a government) - and that is more important that anything at this stage


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    jm08 wrote: »
    She wasn't allowed finish on the Special Criminal Court - Miriam interrupted. What ML was trying to say was that it should be reviewed (which is what Amnesty, Irish Council of Civil Liberties, the UN also say).

    She had plenty of time to say that. She had a carefully rehearsed line which was going to walk the tightrope without addressing the question. It was clearly time to move on as it was clear she wasn't going to give a straight answer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭silver2020


    markodaly wrote: »
    This.

    This election is reminding me of Labour back in 2011.
    SF will suffer the same fate of over promising in a few years days time.

    I've corrected the post :D:D:D

    Mary Lou did not do well last night.

    Handlers are probably wishing they never opened their mouths on not being part of the debate


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭silver2020


    rob316 wrote: »
    FG will support FF again but it'll hurt both parties in the long term. SF will for the first time be positioned as the main opposition party and not this fallacy that it's FG vs FF. In 2024 then SF will have the opportunity to actually win a majority government. Not saying the will but the chance will be there.
    It's quite easy to see SF plan here and it's affirmed by the fact they only ran 40 odd candidates in this election.


    The local elections and polls up til end of 2019 showed SF support waning, so 42 candidates was appropriate. One candidate in Kildare south cares so little that she's on holiday!!

    There is obvious comradery between MM & LV and despite the public attacks they come across as two people who get along with each other quite well, so a FF led minority with FG confidence and supply is probably the final result especially if FF get 20+ seats more than FG.

    It has worked quite well for FF, (being on the sideline of government rather than in it) and probably would be the prudent thing to do for FG.

    So bets on FF minority and SF dropping to 15% by Saturday


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,051 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Buer wrote: »
    She had plenty of time to say that. She had a carefully rehearsed line which was going to walk the tightrope without addressing the question. It was clearly time to move on as it was clear she wasn't going to give a straight answer.

    Yes it was time to move on 'to the important issues that voters are concerned about' as Miriam herself said.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    silver2020 wrote: »
    I've corrected the post :D:D:D

    Mary Lou did not do well last night.

    Handlers are probably wishing they never opened their mouths on not being part of the debate

    They had to put her on. The position of behind outside the tent and p*ssing in really suited them. They could cultivate the position of the establishment trying to keep them down and generate support on that basis. It's a solid tactic and they knocked it out of the park.

    The issue was they then had to deliver when allowed into the tent which didn't happen. Will the performance last night take away the gains already made in the polls? Somewhat, I reckon but there will still be a net gain overall. But there's always a dip from the polls to the election count for SF so I don't see them claiming much more than their existing seat count.

    At this point, I'm struggling to see how a viable government is formed unless there's another S&C agreement or a very messy coalition.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    silver2020 wrote: »
    I've corrected the post :D:D:D

    Mary Lou did not do well last night.

    Handlers are probably wishing they never opened their mouths on not being part of the debate

    She did great, its the biased meeja that's trying to discredit her, SF can't get a fair hearing with the establishment biased press and TV and radio.
    There only place the get a fair hearing is on social meeja don't you know.


  • Administrators Posts: 54,256 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    rob316 wrote: »
    I think we are all asking the same question. It's a broken system

    It's not a broken system.

    You just have a divided electorate. The two biggest parties are only slightly different to one another and the alternatives not attractive.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Mod Note

    Please read the charter folks
    Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.

    No name calling


  • Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭PhantomHat


    There were several 'feminist types' whooping on Twitter when she said mansplaining.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,290 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    Populists will be populist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,330 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    The Irish Nationalist evoking Americanisms.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    PhantomHat wrote: »
    There were several 'feminist types' whooping on Twitter when she said mansplaining.
    The rest of the "feminist types" on Twitter were facepalming, tbh.

    It was clear that Mary-Lou was trying to play this card the entire time and did so in an extremely contrived and clunky way that was an obvious attempt to appear "down with the kids".

    It's exactly the kind of false victim rubbish that undermines real issues, advocacy groups online were not happy with her.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,779 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    spurious wrote: »
    Populists will be populist.

    Have you read the manifestos of FF and FG? Every party is populist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Sinn Fein really should have stayed out of the debate. Mary Lou had a shoddy argument to most points and was shown up a bit. Not getting a seat in the debate would have been much more beneficial to SF as a whole.

    What's the old saying?

    “It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”
    I called this last night. All of last night's talking points were known before the debate, all she had to do is have satisfactory answers on them ready to go. Somehow she missed the most important ones and got tripped up by them.
    awec wrote: »
    It's not a broken system.

    You just have a divided electorate. The two biggest parties are only slightly different to one another and the alternatives not attractive.
    Functionally we're moving from a broken (two-party) system, to a more representative one where every future government will be some form of broader coalition.

    Realistically if SF were to formally abandon the IRA, we'd have a proper game on. 3 main parties with a number of small but stable outer parties. It's SF's refusal to cut hte cord that's holding it back.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,148 ✭✭✭amadangomor


    NIMAN wrote: »
    More marxists.
    I think:confused:

    Marxism is a type of communist ideal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,045 ✭✭✭silver2020


    She did great, its the biased meeja that's trying to discredit her, SF can't get a fair hearing with the establishment biased press and TV and radio.
    There only place the get a fair hearing is on social meeja don't you know.

    I'd get that telly of yours fixed :D:D:D

    Not even those in SF can say she did well. She was a long way back in 3rd place


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,330 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    Have you read the manifestos of FF and FG? Every party is populist.

    Not at all.

    FG, for example, are not going to row back on their pension retirement age.

    FF and SF will.

    FF and SF are populist, even though they know in the long run it's unsustainable.
    FG is trying to make a tough choice now, for the betterment of the long-run state finances.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,779 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    markodaly wrote: »
    Not at all.

    FG, for example, are not going to row back on their pension retirement age.

    FF and SF will.

    FF and SF are populist, even though they know in the long run it's unsustainable.
    FG is trying to make a tough choice now, for the betterment of the long-run state finances.


    Any party that is running for election makes stupid election promises and therefore is populist. FG have promised to dramtically cut usc which is madness.

    The 'populist' term is an attempt to smear parties that are doing well.

    And I don't even support SF.

    Plus I think FG have rowed back on the pension age.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Marxism is a type of communist ideal.
    You have the family tree upside-down.

    Marxism is the foundation stone of socialism.

    Communism is a form of socialism.

    Communism itself is rather broad, covering everything from authoritarian communism like in China, to anarchic communism (a sort of tribal community living), and everything in between.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    markodaly wrote: »
    Not at all.

    FG, for example, are not going to row back on their pension retirement age.

    This is the second\third election in which FG have pledged to get rid of USC, build a metro, etc . Perhaps they aren't populist but what's the terms for pledging to do things you've no intention of doing


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,009 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    markodaly wrote: »
    Not at all.

    FG, for example, are not going to row back on their pension retirement age.

    FF and SF will.

    FF and SF are populist, even though they know in the long run it's unsustainable.
    FG is trying to make a tough choice now, for the betterment of the long-run state finances.

    FF might be fiddling with the pace of pension age change, but SF have said that it should be 65 for all time and that this would be possible because the birthrate would increase. Big difference!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 71,051 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    silver2020 wrote: »
    I'd get that telly of yours fixed :D:D:D

    Not even those in SF can say she did well. She was a long way back in 3rd place

    Did you miss the neutral pundit winding up RTE's analysis giving the debate to Mary Lou?

    My opinion was they all had their good moments and they all had their bad moments.

    MM may have just edged it though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭FionnK86


    The off-hand comment plays to the attention span of today’s young voters and while I don’t agree with this quip, it’s will get her more attention which is what will win votes.

    Unfortunate Prudent Pascals policies which are the major achievement of this government will be ignored at ballot box. FG has been too obvious with the spin.

    We may find ourselves, like US & UK, with another spin party (SF) but this time without a good economic policy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    I don't feel like I really have the authority to say who has the "best" night or the "worst" night here, because I don't feel incredibly in touch with the average voter and I have my own biases, but that performance really cemented my feelings against Sinn Féin. I had previously marked them down mostly for their disasterous economic policies that will do nothing except exacerbate the problems they decry previous governments for, but the debate really drove home how loyal the party still is to the IRA, despite attempts at rebranding it that I guess I had kind of bought into. The absolute refusal of McDonald to address accusations of being opposed to the Special Criminal Court was really eye-opening. She couldn't even come up with some kind of alternate reason for being opposed to it to give her plausible deniability that the party's opposition to it is not purely based on wanting to protect the Ra. On top of that, I found her pathetic attempts to court female/feminist voters with nonsense buzzwords like "these men" and "mansplain" extremely off-putting, and I hope that voters don't buy into hollow gestured like these.

    It's not that the other two were what I would call "good" either of course, just that SF are coming off more and more as unthinkably bad.

    I thought the moderation on the debate was generally quite good, with the exception of the final question about making mistakes. It would be nice if they had actually made the candidates answer it, but we got 3 textbook non-answers instead. "I can't say what the mistake is, but I've learned from it!", "A big mistake the public could make would be voting for one of these two. But really I'm just too honest, although I'm working on fixing that!", "I've made many mistakes, but I don't want to get into what they are". There's no point asking a question like this if the answers are just a load of waffle from all three.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 227 ✭✭GampDub


    I thought the 'these men' reference was as much an attempt to link the two of them together and highlight that they are one in the same so neither of them could be viewed as an alternative and be capable of bring about the other buzz word from the debate 'Change'.

    SF have deployed this tactic throughout the whole campaign.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,021 ✭✭✭Shelga


    The word ‘mansplaining’ is justified occasionally. I didn’t think it was justified last night. It very much came across that Mary Lou was going to use the word at some point during the debate, no matter what was actually said.

    Didn’t like “these men” either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,030 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    She had to shoehorn it in at some stage.

    It was all for the optics. And was a completely unnecessary thing to say.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    I will vote..but seriously, what’s the fu€king point?!

    If you have any preference whatsoever for one party over another, then you have a reason to vote. The only reasons not to vote, imo, are

    1) You don't have the time or inclination to do some homework and figure out what each of the parties are about and what the state of the country is, or
    2) You find every single party/candidate to be precisely as appealing as one another.

    I think the latter case should be exceedingly rare, especially in an election system that usually has 10+ candidates on the ballot, and that almost all people who claim they are in category 2 (usually saying some vague variation of "they're all the same anyway") are actually in category 1. Although personally, I do still think not voting is better than casting an uninformed vote just for the sake of doing it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 187 ✭✭shatners bassoon


    The confirmation bias on display after the debate is fascinating. There were no 'clear winners' there imo and I can't imagine it changed many minds.

    One of the most notable takeaways for me was how highly strung Leo came across. He spoke to Fiach Kelly earlier on in the day for the IT politics podcast and he sounded impressively relaxed while making the same points he did last night but I thought he looked fairly rattled during the debate.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭Dickerty


    I am also a little biased, but I thought MM did very little to convince people that FF have changed from the party that bankrupted the country.
    And M-LMcD was very short on detail in a number of areas. She would have us believe that they can fund billions if additional spending with tak on bank profits and on the very wealthy. Both of which would find a way to avoid that tax through acquisitions, off-shore trusts/salary arragnements, and clever book-keeping. There is no point in complaining about how it it, it's just how it is!

    FG remind me of Obama - come into power on the back of a mess, and get a lot of grief for not fixing everything in jig time.
    I don't believe that changing now will do anything except allow the new government to benefit from some of the groundwork they have done.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Have you read the manifestos of FF and FG? Every party is populist.

    Every party is to some extent, but I think that FG not making any motions toward popular but bad policiy ideas like perpetually low retirement ages, rent freezes, or massive income tax cuts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    There was however, a clear loser in MLMc. Whether it dents their 1st preference vote or not is hard to tell, but what it did do is lock SF out of transfers. People who might have given them a nod for 2s and 3s won't.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    For the first half of the debate, there was really nothing between the three of them. In the second half though, it really went badly for McDonald.

    However, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference at this stage. I think it came too late in the campaign for a start. A lot of people have already made up their minds. Secondly, it came too late in the night. A lot of people would have tuned out after the first hour. Long story short, she could afford the blunder. If Sinn Fein had been having a bad campaign as opposed to a good one, that could have been a career ending performance.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dickerty wrote: »
    ........... She would have us believe that they can fund billions if additional spending with tak on bank profits and on the very wealthy. Both of which would find a way to avoid that tax through acquisitions, off-shore trusts/salary arragnements, and clever book-keeping. There is no point in complaining about how it it, it's just how it is!.......................

    The banks will just pass on any extra tax costs to the customers if they can't avoid paying it.
    Wealthy folk will manage away nicely too, the SF plans are a load of t0ss, the dept of finance just tallies up the numbers, the revenue SF are using to balance books will as you mention not materialise in the future or come out of the working person's pocket via some extra spend/cost that pays for the banks extra tax liability.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    FF might be fiddling with the pace of pension age change, but SF have said that it should be 65 for all time and that this would be possible because the birthrate would increase. Big difference!

    I had to laugh at that :) The SF policy seems to be that it's the duty of Irish citizens to go forth and procreate! Echoes of Dev there.

    I suppose it kinda makes sense up north where one thought process is that nationalists should out breed the unionists.

    But it kinda runs at odds with the SF policy on abortion, never mind the issue of climate and human impact on environment etc. Badly thought out 'policy' full of holes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman




  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭nthclare


    In a world of social justice madness and equality using the word mansplaining is feeding into the madness of the snowflake victim hood.

    No doubt the tel pis as in god help us fraternity will be overjoyed at Mary Lous taking Michael Martin down a peg or two.

    But if that's the leadership she's portraying im not impressed.

    Just because he's a man it doesn't mean that she can do his thinking for him and twist her own version of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,779 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    C14N wrote: »
    Every party is to some extent, but I think that FG not making any motions toward popular but bad policiy ideas like perpetually low retirement ages, rent freezes, or massive income tax cuts.

    FG have promised massive income tax cuts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,779 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Mary Lou made a mistake using the term attempting to come across as a victim. Funnily enough I think her own voters won't approve of the term or indeed ever use it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,101 ✭✭✭bcklschaps


    Only watched a little bit of the debate. Mary Lou was in trouble after the Special Criminal Court question.

    Sounds like things got worse for her after that. Disappointed she used the word "Mansplaining" (that should have been picked up by the chair).

    Will only vote for SF if Pearse Doherty becomes party leader.

    Leaning towards FG at the moment. Simply because of Pascal Donohue (leader in waiting) and a reasonably decent local guy here in my local constituency.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    She used manspalaining to create impression she was dismissed as woman and not as a president of SF. It backfired because she is a bit to forceful and loud. Anyway OH pointed out how LV and especially MM were always rebuffed by presenters not to talk over her and he actually thought there is an attack coming from somewhere. RTE were smart enough to Use Miriam to do the attack on MLM about Paul Quinn. There was no impression of men ganging up on poor girl. She got very fair treatment all evening and was not rebuffed about her interruptions as much as Martin. She was nicely led as a lamb to the slaughter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Augeo wrote: »
    The banks will just pass on any extra tax costs to the customers if they can't avoid paying it.
    Wealthy folk will manage away nicely too, the SF plans are a load of t0ss, the dept of finance just tallies up the numbers, the revenue SF are using to balance books will as you mention not materialise in the future or come out of the working person's pocket via some extra spend/cost that pays for the banks extra tax liability.

    SF seems to be completely unaware that taxes and regulations change peoples' behaviour. If you increase taxes on banks, they won't just say "oh well, I guess we just have less money now". You're making the business of being a bank more expensive, and that means they will adjust how they operate to compensate for that. As much as we have a huge anti-bank sentiment in this country, we're all customers of banks, and we need them for things like loans and savings, as well as to facilitate other businesses we use. The reason it's a bad idea isn't just "think of the poor bankers".

    Same with their proposed wealth tax on anyone with over €1 million. Sounds like it's just free money from greedy rich people, but similar taxes have been tried in many other European countries and almost always repealed. The administrative overhead of trying to track who has assets at that level and how to value them accurately is enormous, and other countries who did it saw very little return on those expenses. The biggest effect is to simply cause massive capital flight, because the very wealthy are able to easily move assets or even themselves overseas.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,330 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    This is the second\third election in which FG have pledged to get rid of USC, build a metro, etc . Perhaps they aren't populist but what's the terms for pledging to do things you've no intention of doing

    Em, they are not pledging to get rid of the USC in this election.
    At least get your facts straight first.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    Think I was on pint no.5 when the debate started and no.10 by the time it finished.

    I thought Mary performed well but screwed up her message, whereas Leo was much better at sticking to script. Remark about USC and those in the €30-50k bracket stuck in my mind. Micheal just seemed left out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,330 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    FF might be fiddling with the pace of pension age change, but SF have said that it should be 65 for all time and that this would be possible because the birthrate would increase. Big difference!

    And SF are dead wrong on this.

    The line, 'The demographics will look after themselves' is one that will haunt MLMD and SF for years to come, when they are staring down the barrel of hard decisions to be made on the economics.

    MLMD thinks Ireland should be like Ceausescu's Romania, like we should be breeding more kids to help us with record levels of pensions for the old folks.
    Crazy stuff.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    meeeeh wrote: »
    She used manspalaining to create impression she was dismissed as woman and not as a president of SF.

    She used it because she wanted to create the impression that she was being talked down about taxes to for being a woman, when really she was being talked down about taxes because she's clueless about taxes. It's a pretty effective rhetorical tool, because it means you don't have to actually defend your tax policy and can instead focus on portraying a situation that a lot of women, especially women who identify as feminists, can relate to. I personally do think that tactic is itself quite patronising to women though.
    FG have promised massive income tax cuts.

    As I said, everyone is populist to some extent. But the FG tax cuts are far smaller (I believe a 1% point reduction on the minimum USC rate, and raising the higher PAYE tax band, which is actually more of an elitist tax cut).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    bcklschaps wrote: »
    Mary Lou was in trouble after the Special Criminal Court question.



    Will only vote for SF if Pearse Doherty becomes party leader.

    I'm not sure how Pearse would deviate from mandated SF opinion on the Special Criminal Court.

    Unfortunately any token leader of SF will still have to beat the same drum


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,258 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Water John wrote: »
    There was however, a clear loser in MLMc. Whether it dents their 1st preference vote or not is hard to tell, but what it did do is lock SF out of transfers. People who might have given them a nod for 2s and 3s won't.


    AS you say it is hard to tell if last night will dent the SF vote, but with last night`s debate, where over 650,000 tuned, in I cannot see them adding to it.

    The SOR show interview with Breege Quinn mother of Paul Quinn today will not have helped their cause either.
    Both of those will most likely bring them back to their old Achilles heel electoral problem, low transfers.

    With SF only running 42 candidates, if the poll numbers carry through then transfers will not be that much of a problem.
    If the poll numbers do not carry through, it will most likely at this stage be due to last night`s debate and the SOR interview.
    While that will not cost them seats, it will curtail the number they will gain imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Nody wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with the civil servants; spoiling your vote rather than not voting is stating you don't like any of the choices available but you're active and available for the right candidate. Not voting simply shows that it's a voter who can be ignored because they are to lazy to make their voice heard when it matters. I don't care if the vote is for the Donald Duck party or the Third Reich; the fact that people do vote is what matters as they are actively participating in their democratic duty.

    In theory, I see how that makes sense, but I still don't think many politicians see spoiled votes as any more of an opportunity. If someone has 12 choices and can't pick any of them, I think most would conclude that they're just a pretty contrarian niche voter who, at best, will require some very niche candidate to satisfy. I think that if I was a politician running for office, I would see apathetic non-voters as an easier base to win than disgruntled protest voters. Maybe this would be different if there was a really significant spoiled count (like, lets say one third of the ballots came back spoiled), but I think it would be hard to have something like that happen without people noticing hgih levels of voter dissatisfaction and candidates stepping in to fill the void before election day.


Advertisement