The 'unknowns'

pisslips

I've heard scarey things about people voting 'NO' because of nager and confusion about biased media coverage, political campaigns and the fact that this second vote is undemocratic in nature.

Pthers would say that you should not vote at all if you are uncertain of the facts.

THese things may all be true, I'd agree but I was always told that you can protest vote by spoiling your vote. It seems logical to me that the electorate can communicate the ir message of dissatisfaction while still performing their civic duty by spoiling their vote. Things would change if a huge percentage of the votes were spoiled.
So instead of sitting at home and not voting or instead of voting 'no' in protest or equally 'yes', because your party said so or "We're stronger with europe", GO OUT THERE AND SPOIL YOUR VOTE.

It's the only way you'll change the political process.

meglome

Do you really think that spoiling a vote on an EU treaty will make any difference? We have Fianna 'necks of steel' Fail in power, I think you're mistaking them for people that care.

At the next Dail election find a decent candidate and vote for them.

Also there are no real unknowns, any of us can read the treaty or one of the guides.

pisslips

Yes they will, if 50% of votes are spoiled, then our politicians have no backing even if they win an election.

THe fact is that lots and lots of people won't read the thing or lack the understanding to vote in a sensible way. So i say if you're unsure vote,

"Don't know"

or

"I woz ere"


Makes more sense than being influenced by a poster on a telephone pole or of sitting at home giving out about the whole thing.

They'd have no credibility if there was a huge amount of spoilt votes.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

meglome wrote: »

Also there are no real unknowns, any of us can read the treaty or one of the guides.

The 'unknowns' are how aspects of the treaty are implemented/abused.

bleg

Which unknowns are you on about? The known unknowns or the unknown unknowns?