Degag wrote: » Isn't it a tad bit pointless putting in the option of couldn't/wouldn't vote in this poll? Wouldn't it make more sence to see who voted for who and that's it?
phasers wrote: » it's never stopped me before.
Chuck Stone wrote: » I'm voting for the person who everyone hates the most in a somewhat foolhardy attempt to correct the inherent weakness in a system where people vote because of what they don't want rather than what they do.
irish-stew wrote: » Our votes are going to be private tomorrow when we're behind the screen and dropping them into the box, why not here as well. There is also the opition tomorrow as well of not voting or spoilling it, hence the opition here as well.
Degag wrote: » As is your democratic right but i'm just wondering why you or anyone would, especially regarding Judge's pay. They should suffer just like every other citizen has suffered in this country in regards pay.
Degag wrote: » I wasn't asking for the poll to be made public. I just think that having an option in this poll to see how many people spoiled their vote or indeed didn't vote at all is a bit irrevelant.
Wouldn't it make more sence to see who voted for who
phasers wrote: » personally the bit I'm looking forward to most is the 'hilarious' photo of a woman in her wedding dress going in to vote which appears in the papers during every bloody election.
hondasam wrote: » Can anyone tell me why we should vote yes or no in the referendum, what will it change?
irish-stew wrote: » The final opition though does give an indication of how many people not bothered by the vote.
The-Rigger wrote: » Why has Gallagher always polled poorly on boards.ie Do his supports not use t'internet?
In the case of inquiries being conducted by the Houses of the Oireachtas,it would be for the House or Houses to decide how those rights would be applied in particular cases. When making that decision, the House or Houses would have to have “due regard to” the principles of fair procedures.This means that the House or Houses would have discretion as to the procedures to be applied in any given case. The balance struck in any given case may have important implications for people affected by an inquiry. It is not possible to state definitively what role, if any, the courts would have in reviewing the procedures adopted by the Houses.
tonycascarino wrote: » 1 McGuinness 2 Higgins 3 Norris 4 Dana 5 Davis 6 Mitchell
Local-womanizer wrote: » It's not about making anyone suffer, that is a silly notion to hold going into a polling both imo. One of the reasons is that they cannot be influenced by government over certain cases, ie be threatened or rewarded with regards their pay by the government for a favourable outcome for the government. I don't like the whole, in the public's best interest part about the ability to reduce their pay that is being mooted, as the government never act out in the public's best interests. I would agree they should have to pay the Public Service Pension Levy though. We covered Judges pay a lot in college and one of the reasons they are well paid is to discourage corruption. And if I am being honest I do have to do a bit more reading into the Oireachtas bill.
strobe wrote: » There is a big thread about it here Sam, if that's any help.
Local-womanizer wrote: » HEY! You can't vote twice!! Or 3 times as it is now!
realies wrote: » If I am still on this earth tomorrow I shall be voting martin mcguinness and also voting no in both referendums.
