Thursday 6th May

[fleetfootmike]

I'm sure someone's expecting this post, so...

Vote, folks. It's your right.

(readers from countries who do not have an election today need not apply; may contain nuts; candidates measured by volume, nit weight; the value of your vote may go up as well as down (but is worthless if you don't use it).)

Comments

[filklore-on-lj.livejournal.com]

You do realise that if everyone who thought "my vote would be wasted" voted anyway, they would stand a not insignificant chance of kicking out the incumbent? Aylesbury in 2005 had a turnout of 62.4%, and although the Conservative got almost half of the votes *cast*, he only got 30% of the total possible votes.

Anyway, no vote is wasted. Your vote - whoever you vote for - sends a message that the candidate/party of your choice has support in the area. The more people who send that message, the less likely that people will be saying in the *next* election "my vote would be wasted".

As for who to vote for, if you dislike all the parties equally, I suggest you vote for the local candidate you think will do best for the constituency (although you have left it a bit late to do your research, google is your friend).

A very quick check on your candidates suggests that neither the Labour or LibDem candidates have been "parachuted in", which is to their credit. The Labour candidate was born and brought up in Aylesbury, whereas the LibDem is a sitting district councilor for Coldharbour. Google them, read their webpages/blogs, try to get an idea about them.

[filklore-on-lj.livejournal.com]

Aside from anything else, the General Election is the one thing I can bet on where I can actually legally influence the result. Admittedly, not by much, but any advantage is an advantage.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

"You do realise that if everyone who thought "my vote would be wasted" voted anyway, they would stand a not insignificant chance of kicking out the incumbent?"

I doubt it -- there is no evidence which way they would vote (they could easily have the same proportions as those who do vote). As I said after the last election, IF everyone who didn't vote turned up and IF they almost all voted the same way (not Tory and not split) then there would be a good chance of changing it. If that 37.6% were equally split between LD and Labour (and none of them voted Tory) then the LibDems would just get in. In practice, however, I would be pretty certain that a reasonable proportion of those who didn't vote would vote Tory (and don't bother because he's going to get in anyway), making it hard for anyone else to get in.

(The only thing which can actually be said with any authority about those who didn't vote is that they didn't vote. How they might have voted is completely unknown. The most likely thing, statistically, is that the proportions would be the same as in the rest of the population under consideration, but that too is an assumption.)

Actually, if I vote for the person who I think would do best for the area then I would vote for the incumbent[1]. I'm pretty sure that's why he gets in, because he's seen as a "good bloke" who does work for the local area and things of concern to the locals.

[1] I rule out the Labour one as no way do I want Labour to get in, no matter how much I might like the person standing.

[fleetfootmike.livejournal.com]

(The only thing which can actually be said with any authority about those who didn't vote is that they didn't vote. How they might have voted is completely unknown. The most likely thing, statistically, is that the proportions would be the same as in the rest of the population under consideration, but that too is an assumption.)

And that's where I think we differ. I /don't/ think those proportions are the same, because the two sets of people self-select into those groups, and choosing to vote or not does NOT, IMO, have zero correlation to which way you would vote if you believed your vote mattered.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Evidence? In the absense of any actual studies on it (I don't know of any) I assume that those who do poll research at least know something about their subject in assuming that those who don't reply have a similar distribution to those who do reply. 62% is a massive proportion of a population compared to the usual few thousand out of a country for statistical purposes.

Of course, having zero correlation is also unlikely, but I never said that. But in order to get a win for the LD (I don't think Labout have any chance here) the correlation would have to be pretty massive, and I see no evidence for that.

Yes, it is possible that everyone who didn't vote will all vote the same way contrary to those who did vote. It's also possible that all of the molecules in a girl's clothing will all move in the same direction at once and expose her, but lacking an Infinite Improbability Drive (and the requisite cup of hot tea[1] to power it) I doubt that either is likely.

[1] The stuff they have here is obviously out of the Sirius Cybernetics Corp. and wouldn't power anything.