Sligo-North Leitrim Election 2011 Mod Warning #290

thebuzz

I was working out who I'd be voting for the other night and think I am only giving 7 and leaving the rest blank. Could someone explain to me why I should give every candidate a number? If there's someone who I definitely dont want getting in(and there are a few) is it not better to leave them blank?

czarak

thebuzz wrote: »

I was working out who I'd be voting for the other night and think I am only giving 7 and leaving the rest blank. Could someone explain to me why I should give every candidate a number? If there's someone who I definitely dont want getting in(and there are a few) is it not better to leave them blank?

Yes, I can explain to you why you should give every candidate a number.

You might not like any of the candidates who you could write from 8 - 13, but do you really dislike them all equally? It could come to a situation where your ballot is looked at to help decide between the candidates you could have written 8 - 13 to fill a seat and if you've left them blank your vote will be discarded and someone else's opinion will count instead.

Leaving 8 - 13 blank means you've no opinion on which of those 5 candidates you dislike the most. You might dislike them all, but if there's an order of dislike, you should express it by filling in those numbers, otherwise you're just saying I have no opinion if I'm asked to vote on which of these 5 should get the last seat - let someone else's vote count instead.

I truely could use the word disgust for the candidates and parties I will be writing 11, 12 and 13 but if it comes down to the dire scenario where my ballott has a chance to count in putting one of them ahead of another to take the 3rd seat and my higher preferences are eliminated or already elected, I do have an opinion about that scenario and I want my opinion to count instead of letting someone else's count in my place (if I left 11, 12 and 13 blank).

brianthebard

czarak wrote: »

Yes, I can explain to you why you should give every candidate a number.

You might not like any of the candidates who you could write from 8 - 13, but do you really dislike them all equally? It could come to a situation where your ballot is looked at to help decide between the candidates you could have written 8 - 13 to fill a seat and if you've left them blank your vote will be discarded and someone else's opinion will count instead.

Leaving 8 - 13 blank means you've no opinion on which of those 5 candidates you dislike the most. You might dislike them all, but if there's an order of dislike, you should express it by filling in those numbers, otherwise you're just saying I have no opinion if I'm asked to vote on which of these 5 should get the last seat - let someone else's vote count instead.

I truely could use the word disgust for the candidates and parties I will be writing 11, 12 and 13 but if it comes down to the dire scenario where my ballott has a chance to count in putting one of them ahead of another to take the 3rd seat and my higher preferences are eliminated or already elected, I do have an opinion about that scenario and I want my opinion to count instead of letting someone else's count in my place (if I left 11, 12 and 13 blank).

But as I mentioned earlier you also have to recognise that if you give a person any preference they have a chance of getting in off your vote, even if you want them to be the lowest on the ballot. If there's someone you never want elected you shouldn't give them a preference. Have a look at the village article on cyprian brady in this issue about how someone can start off on a very small number of votes and end up in power thanks to transfers.

czarak

brianthebard wrote: »

But as I mentioned earlier you also have to recognise that if you give a person any preference they have a chance of getting in off your vote, even if you want them to be the lowest on the ballot. If there's someone you never want elected you shouldn't give them a preference. Have a look at the village article on cyprian brady in this issue about how someone can start off on a very small number of votes and end up in power thanks to transfers.

I know the Brady case well.

Yes, everything you say is true, but it's not in conflict with my point.

The central point here is that someone is going to get in, either way, whether your own vote counts or not. I'm saying, you should be brave enough to say who you dislike the least and let that count, instead of your vote not counting. You're saying if you leave preferences blank you won't have the bad taste left in your mouth of your vote counting for someone you dislike - but if you leave preferences blank and your vote doesn't count, what can then happen? Someone else has a say instead of you on whether that person you dislike gets in or if somone you dislike even MORE gets in ahead of them.

In fact this argument is the exact same principle of argument as someone who says they won't vote at all because they dislike all the candidates, except that it's happening further down the list of preferences than someone who says they won't vote at all.

Pete M.

czarak wrote: »

I'm saying, you should be brave enough to say who you dislike the least and let that count, instead of your vote not counting.

Seriously? Are you for real?

I personally don't discriminate. I hate (not dislike) them all equally.

So none will get anything from me. Principles not tactics.

czarak

Pete M. wrote: »

Seriously? Are you for real?

I personally don't discriminate. I hate (not dislike) them all equally.

So none will get anything from me. Principles not tactics.

That's fine, if that's the way you feel, as long as you're sure you hate them all equally. But that's the exact same argument somone who doesn't vote at all often makes. It's opting out of the democratic expression available to you, either completely (not voting at all), or in part (not using all your preferences). Thinking that makes you principled is great, sit on the sidelines, happy and content in yourself, without having expressed yourself. I've no problem with that, as long as you're upfront about it with yourself.

The truth is that no party or individual candidate will represent the wants and needs of any individual citizen exactly. Every vote is a vote for the party or candidate who is 'closest' to what you want, whether that's a decision between who's the closest to your ideal out of two candidates who are both pretty close to you, or a decision between who's the closest to your ideal out of two candidates who are both so far away from your ideal that words like 'hate' come to mind.

Welcome to democracy!

Pete M.

czarak wrote: »

That's fine, if that's the way you feel, as long as you're sure you hate them all equally. But that's the exact same argument somone who doesn't vote at all often makes. It's opting out of the democratic expression available to you, either completely (not voting at all), or in part (not using all your preferences). Thinking that makes you principled is great, sit on the sidelines, happy and content in yourself, without having expressed yourself. I've no problem with that, as long as you're upfront about it with yourself.

The truth is that no party or individual candidate will represent the wants and needs of any individual citizen exactly. Every vote is a vote for the party or candidate who is 'closest' to what you want, whether that's a decision between who's the closest to your ideal out of two candidates who are both pretty close to you, or a decision between who's the closest to your ideal out of two candidates who are both so far away from your ideal that words like 'hate' come to mind.

Welcome to democracy!

You are having a laugh aren't you?

Perhaps you are a student of politics or something, but I will tell you one thing, your condescension is staggering.

If one really wants to try and make a difference and put what they think into action, then why not rise from the keyboard and try to influence people by face to face contact? Argument, persuasion and discussion maybe? Canvas them perhaps? That's politics in action.
Filling your polling card to the bottom because you'd rather the bumbling butcher gets in before the cardinal nephew demonstrates a certain ignorance of the crucial human element of the system.
I'd rather have no influence on which of my 'blacklisted' candidates got elected. If it's going to happen anyway, then it'll be nothing to do with me.
And if I use the word 'hate' to your chagrin, it's only because I'm trying to be honest...

Sat on the sidelines - I'm certainly not.
Happy and content in myself - yeah, because I'm doing what I can.

And so welcome to :P

Quackles

Pete M. wrote: »

Seriously? Are you for real?

I personally don't discriminate. I hate (not dislike) them all equally.

So none will get anything from me. Principles not tactics.

Did they all get together and burn down your village? I just dont see how you'd hate them all - there are candidates there that you probably never heard of before the election was called, representing different parties and independents, conflicting ideas and policies... Hate is a strong word. Or is it that you hate the idea of politicians?

thebuzz

czarak wrote: »

You might not like any of the candidates who you could write from 8 - 13, but do you really dislike them all equally? It could come to a situation where your ballot is looked at to help decide between the candidates you could have written 8 - 13 to fill a seat and if you've left them blank your vote will be discarded and someone else's opinion will count instead.

Leaving 8 - 13 blank means you've no opinion on which of those 5 candidates you dislike the most. You might dislike them all, but if there's an order of dislike, you should express it by filling in those numbers, otherwise you're just saying I have no opinion if I'm asked to vote on which of these 5 should get the last seat - let someone else's vote count instead.

I truely could use the word disgust for the candidates and parties I will be writing 11, 12 and 13 but if it comes down to the dire scenario where my ballott has a chance to count in putting one of them ahead of another to take the 3rd seat and my higher preferences are eliminated or already elected, I do have an opinion about that scenario and I want my opinion to count instead of letting someone else's count in my place (if I left 11, 12 and 13 blank).

brianthebard wrote: »

But as I mentioned earlier you also have to recognise that if you give a person any preference they have a chance of getting in off your vote, even if you want them to be the lowest on the ballot. If there's someone you never want elected you shouldn't give them a preference. Have a look at the village article on cyprian brady in this issue about how someone can start off on a very small number of votes and end up in power thanks to transfers.

See, now I'm still just left confused as to what's the best thing to do

thebuzz

Anyone else think Colreavy @ 9-4 with PP looks a decent bet?

ectoraige

Quackles wrote: »

Which is why I'm stopping at 11 I shudder at the thought of the other two getting elected.

thebuzz wrote: »

I was working out who I'd be voting for the other night and think I am only giving 7 and leaving the rest blank. Could someone explain to me why I should give every candidate a number? If there's someone who I definitely dont want getting in(and there are a few) is it not better to leave them blank?

The best way to think about it is that your ballot is for the final seat. Once you give a candidate a preference, assume then that he has been eliminated.

As a blow-in to the constituency, I haven't formed a real opinion as to whether MacSharry or Scanlon would be a worse representative. However, I do know Scanlon is older and therefore more likely to retire in the coming years than MacSharry. I don't want MacSharry establishing a new FF "seat", so on that basis, I will give Scanlon a preference over MacSharry.

I have no problem doing so, as I know it will only come into play should they be the last two standing. In that scenario, two of my more preferred candidates will have already been elected.

I do think that is it very important to select preferences all the way down - you nearly might as well hand in a blank ballot paper. To say that you don't really care once it comes down to the last few candidates ignores the real power of our PR-STV system - it aims to build the greatest possible consensus.

UrbanSea

thebuzz wrote: »

Anyone else think Colreavy @ 9-4 with PP looks a decent bet?

I've it backed in my log. Fancy it big time,11-10 with Boyles.

Mint Sauce

thebuzz wrote: »

Anyone else think Colreavy @ 9-4 with PP looks a decent bet?

UrbanSea wrote: »

I've it backed in my log. Fancy it big time,11-10 with Boyles.

Is this to win a seat or top the poll. Have looked at none of the betting my self.

brianthebard

Is there a moratorium or deadline on when you can place political bets?

czarak

ectoraige wrote: »

As a blow-in to the constituency, I haven't formed a real opinion as to whether MacSharry or Scanlon would be a worse representative. However, I do know Scanlon is older and therefore more likely to retire in the coming years than MacSharry. I don't want MacSharry establishing a new FF "seat", so on that basis, I will give Scanlon a preference over MacSharry.

I have no problem doing so, as I know it will only come into play should they be the last two standing. In that scenario, two of my more preferred candidates will have already been elected.

I do think that is it very important to select preferences all the way down - you nearly might as well hand in a blank ballot paper. To say that you don't really care once it comes down to the last few candidates ignores the real power of our PR-STV system - it aims to build the greatest possible consensus.

Well said about using all your preferences.

Your comment on which of the two FF candidates to put ahead of the other is very insightful! Not a way I would have reasoned about my 12 and 13 before but you just might have made me swap what I had intended!

Mint Sauce

brianthebard wrote: »

Is there a moratorium or deadline on when you can place political bets?

I would assune up untill the polls open, the sites t&c would be your best bet, no pun intended.

brianthebard

irish-stew wrote: »

I would assune up untill the polls open, the sites t&c would be your best bet, no pun intended.

Makes sense, I will put a bet on pp.com tonight, they have tasty odds for the number of seats FG will win and I want some of that action. :pac:

Mint Sauce

Incase anyone else is interested, this is the full betting for Sligo/N Leitrim, odds are to win one of the three seats. Unfortunatly PP are not taking accums.

John Perry (FG) 1/12
Tony McLoughlin (FG) 1/3
Marc McSharry (FF) 10/11
Eamon Scanlon (FF) 2/1
Michael Colreavy (SF) 9/4
Michael Clarke (Ind) 11/4
Susan O'Keeffe (Lab) 3/1
Declan Bree (Ind) 10/1
Veronica Cawley (Ind) 20/1
Dick Cahill (Ind) 40/1
Alwyn Love (Ind) 40/1
Gabriel MacSharry (Ind) 40/1
Johnny Gogan (Grn) 50/1

brianthebard wrote: »

Makes sense, I will put a bet on pp.com tonight, they have tasty odds for the number of seats FG will win and I want some of that action. :pac:

Dont blame me if you miss it.

brianthebard

Would question slightly the FG transfers, its probably likely that McLoughlin will do well from transfers from Perry but its not guaranteed. I'm fairly certain there was a very high level of transfers between Perry and Scanlon last time, guaranteeing Ballymote two tds and one in govt no matter what happened. Some might vote for Perry because he has a very high chance of being a minister (spokesperson for the marine last time I checked) but might not have an interest in McLoughlin or might favour an indepenent or local over mcLoughlin if that makes sense.

czarak

irish-stew wrote: »

Unfortunatly PP are not taking accums.

You can never have an accumulator where the different bets in the accumulator interfere with each other. For example, if you were to imagine wanting to do a double with Michael Colreavy and Susan O'Keefe taking a seat - whichever of those bets you put down on the double first, affects the likelyhood of the second part of the double (and therefore its odds).

Same for example say if you saw during the World Cup the single prices for Torres to be Top Scorer and for Spain to win the World Cup - you couldn't put those together on a double either as one of them happening makes the other one more likely - in such scenarios bookies often offer 'specials' for popular combinations which takes account of this, the special would always be a lower price than what it would work out at taking the two single odds into a double.

Mint Sauce

czarak wrote: »

You can never have an accumulator where the different bets in the accumulator interfere with each other. For example, if you were to imagine wanting to do a double with Michael Colreavy and Susan O'Keefe taking a seat - whichever of those bets you put down on the double first, affects the likelyhood of the second part of the double (and therefore its odds).

Same for example say if you saw during the World Cup the single prices for Torres to be Top Scorer and for Spain to win the World Cup - you couldn't put those together on a double either as one of them happening makes the other one more likely - in such scenarios bookies often offer 'specials' for popular combinations which takes account of this, the special would always be a lower price than what it would work out at taking the two single odds into a double.

It would have been nice though

UrbanSea

irish-stew wrote: »

Incase anyone else is interested, this is the full betting for Sligo/N Leitrim, odds are to win one of the three seats. Unfortunatly PP are not taking accums.

John Perry (FG) 1/12
Tony McLoughlin (FG) 1/3
Marc McSharry (FF) 10/11
Eamon Scanlon (FF) 2/1
Michael Colreavy (SF) 9/4
Michael Clarke (Ind) 11/4
Susan O'Keeffe (Lab) 3/1
Declan Bree (Ind) 10/1
Veronica Cawley (Ind) 20/1
Dick Cahill (Ind) 40/1
Alwyn Love (Ind) 40/1
Gabriel MacSharry (Ind) 40/1
Johnny Gogan (Grn) 50/1



Dont blame me if you miss it.

Just for anyone who's interested.
Tony McLaughlin not to get in 2/1
I emailed asking for odds and got that.
Not sure if they can take it in the shops but will take it over the phone.

czarak wrote: »

You can never have an accumulator where the different bets in the accumulator interfere with each other. For example, if you were to imagine wanting to do a double with Michael Colreavy and Susan O'Keefe taking a seat - whichever of those bets you put down on the double first, affects the likelyhood of the second part of the double (and therefore its odds).

Same for example say if you saw during the World Cup the single prices for Torres to be Top Scorer and for Spain to win the World Cup - you couldn't put those together on a double either as one of them happening makes the other one more likely - in such scenarios bookies often offer 'specials' for popular combinations which takes account of this, the special would always be a lower price than what it would work out at taking the two single odds into a double.

True,a related bet.

UrbanSea

irish-stew wrote: »

Is this to win a seat or top the poll. Have looked at none of the betting my self.

Just to get in. 1st second or third.

CityMan2010

Take a chance with Sinn Fein to win 16, 17 or 18 seats....@ 85/40 is a bit of value with Bet Fair

(Sinn Fein to win 11, 12 13 14 or 15 seats @ 8/11 Bet Fair....but too thin for me...).

westtip

Perry is great value at 1/12 thats an 8% overnight return, max bet on PP is 10grand. Unless perry keels over (god forbid) its an absolute mortgage job

CityMan2010

Indeed that would appear so, but would PP really take 10k on a bet at 1/12? I doubt it, would they?

westtip wrote: »

Perry is great value at 1/12 thats an 8% overnight return, max bet on PP is 10grand. Unless perry keels over (god forbid) its an absolute mortgage job

UrbanSea

They would. Just clicked Max Bet on my PP account and it is ten grand.

Lornen

This will be my first time voting and I have little interest in politics, so I'm trying to cram in every party's manifesto.

I do know I won't be voting FG though. Veronica Creighton's stuck in the 60's. Any party who doesn't believe every citizen in Ireland should have equal rights won't get my vote.

UrbanSea

I can't find myself able to bring myself to vote that clown Enda into power.
Declan Bree my number 1.
Have little interest after to be honest. Colreavy number 2 because I've backed him. Maybe Tony McLaughlin,seems a genuinely nice guy.

Lornen

UrbanSea wrote: »

I can't find myself able to bring myself to vote that clown Enda into power.
Declan Bree my number 1.
Have little interest after to be honest. Colreavy number 2 because I've backed him. Maybe Tony McLaughlin,seems a genuinely nice guy.

I was in favour of Declan Bree also, and I know my mother would like to vote for Tony McLoughlin but after seeing the comments Creighton made, she said she just couldn't bring herself to vote in favour of a FG candidate.