All Kinds Of Everything Remind Me Of You

smokingman

Anyone hear Dana on the last word yesterday? - didn't answer one question and just said over and over "sure I was the one that got the councils the presidential vote for nominations".

Absolute nutjob

Mistress 69

Looks like FF are good for something after all, as their decision not to back a candidate makes it extremely difficult for Dana & Norris to secure a nomination.

Mistress 69

koth wrote: »

I don't think I could support a person who is a member of an organisation that puts people into a sin bin :P

Dont knock it till you try it Koth!

Mistress 69

Approaching re entry.... nearly there!.....:pac:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0922/breaking28.html

Mistress 69

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0927/breaking1.html

I cannot take it Captain... its my Dilithium crystals.. they cant handle it


ScottyStarTrek.jpg

Galvasean

Glad they're both allowed run. Don't plan on voting for either though.

Mistress 69

Galvasean wrote: »

Glad they're both allowed run. Don't plan on voting for either though.

Democracy in action. Agreed, Dana is too right wing for me and I dont know if you remember the Eamon Dunphy radio sketch taking the preverbial out of Norris www.winkywankywoo... the information super highway runs right through my living room...... Lets keep him out of The Aras. As we do a prop rep thing I heard a new to me swing on it recently and that is to make your vote count even up to the last count. (as I am in Co WIcklow that is usually a lot of counts). Start at the bottom of the ballot and vote last the candidate you least want to succeed and work up by default from there. Not wishing to push that too hard in case you were aware of it already.:)




ps that hyperlink is twaddle

seamus

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Start at the bottom of the ballot and vote last the candidate you least want to succeed and work up by default from there.

Just to clarify that, the candidate you least want to succeed is not the candidate you want most to lose. If you specifically don't want a candidate to win, put no mark beside them. Only put a mark beside those you want or would prefer got in.

robindch

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Start at the bottom of the ballot and vote last the candidate you least want to succeed and work up by default from there. Not wishing to push that too hard in case you were aware of it already.

As Seamus points out, no, that's wrong.

You start by putting "1" against your favorite candidate, "2" against your next favorite and so on until the only people left unmarked are people whom you definitely don't want to get elected. You then put down the pencil, fold the ballot paper and drop it in the box.

Genghiz Cohen

Doesn't it work the other way?
I vote X 1 and Y 2, so once the remaining votes are to be divided up, A B and C are all on equal terms?
But I hate B because B stands for Bastard, so I give that Bastard a 7 because he sucks. then A and C are, effectively, joint third.

So ends my understanding.

Galvasean

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Doesn't it work the other way?
I vote X 1 and Y 2, so once the remaining votes are to be divided up, A B and C are all on equal terms?
But I hate B because B stands for Bastard, so I give that Bastard a 7 because he sucks. then A and C are, effectively, joint third.

So ends my understanding.

That is how I've voted in the past. Big dirty 7 for FFail.

Mistress 69

In reply to Robindch and Seamus

I still have to dissagree and here is why:

Imagine a county like Wicklow in a General election. Lets say that there are 18 candidates on the ballot paper which is nearly always the case here. What I used to do was tick the 2 or 3 from the party I wanted to win, drop the pencil and leave. This left 15 or 16 unticked boxes. Once the guys I voted for reached the quota or were eliminated my ballot paper would then count for nothing in the remaining counts. Bear in mind that some guys who are absolutely useless get in on the 4th 5th or 6th counts. Full use of a ballot paper could be effective in keeping said guys out of office, by transfer of excess votes over the quota to anybody other than the guys you dont want in.

seamus

OK, to be fair it's a technicality. If there's only one you won't vote for, then it doesn't matter whether you leave it blank or give them a 7 cos your vote can't reach them.

But where you have multiple candidates that you dislike, you leave them blank which means that your vote will only ever go to candidates that you prefer. If all your preferred candidates are eliminated, then the other guys don't get your vote anyway.

I always think of it a lot like the CAO form. Don't just stick down one option if you have multiple preferences, cos you might not get that one. But don't put down anything you're not interested in, because you might accidentally get one of them.

Full use of a ballot paper could be effective in keeping said guys out of office, by transfer of excess votes over the quota to anybody other than the guys you dont want in.

That's what we're saying. And to be fair I understood what you were saying, but usually saying something like, "The person you least want to succeed" is another way of saying "The person you hate the most". So I was just clarifying that if you hate someone, don't put any number beside their name.

sensibleken

seamus wrote: »

But where you have multiple candidates that you dislike, you leave them blank which means that your vote will only ever go to candidates that you prefer. If all your preferred candidates are eliminated, then the other guys don't get your vote anyway.

.

but the point of this method of voting is that that means your vote counts for nothing. including keeping out your least favourite candidate.

In PR if your first three are elliminated then the game becomes who do you not want to have the job. so just to make sure dana was the absolute last person you would like to be president you may say

4. james blunt
5. satan
6. jim davidson
7. fred west
8. a ficus
9. dana

i definetely think filling it out all the way down is the best idea but after a few its really an academic exercise

seamus

I don't think any of us are saying anything different

robindch

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Full use of a ballot paper could be effective in keeping said guys out of office [...]

Doesn't work that way.

Once your vote gets put into a pile for somebody who gets elected, that's the end of your input into the contest.

Things get more fun when there aren't clear winner(s) in, say, the first round of voting. In this case, the unfortunate politician who has the least number of '1' votes is tossed out of the competition and their ballot papers are picked up and redistributed amongst the remaining candidates. But this time, instead of piling up according to who's listed as preference '1', the vote counters distribute according to who's listed as preference '2'. If there still isn't a winner after doing this, then the lowest-scoring politician is eliminated again, he joins the earlier eliminee in the bar, and the votes from the second eliminee are distributed, but this time according to who's been marked preference '3' on the ballot. If there's no number '3' marked, then your ballot is discarded.

This means that a vote marked '2' counts just as much as a '1', if the election goes to a second round, as most do. And so on, so that by the time you get to the 5th, 6th, 7th rounds of voting, the counters are distributing votes for people that nobody really wanted elected.

However, this also means that if you vote, say, Gerry Adams as your number 17 preference (ie, last on the list), and if the vote goes to 17 rounds of redistribution, then your vote will be as important as a first-preference vote in the first round of counting. I believe that politicians have got in on the last possible round of voting, so if you fill every box on the ballot paper, thereby including votes for people whom you definitely don't want, well, your vote could be the one that pushes them over the line.

So, as I said above, you don't put numbers against those whom you definitely don't want to get in, and you number everybody else in order of preference.

.

seamus

There are technical limitations such that there are only a maximum number of possible rounds - if there are seven candidates there can't be seven rounds, there are some set formulas for working out the maximum number of rounds. But in the absence of a mathematician, the only safe thing to do is not stick a number beside those people that you definitely do not want to get in.

Newaglish

You only leave the space blank if you have zero preference between the candidates. In this election, there are 7 candidates but I really only want 2 to be elected (Norris or Higgins). If I were to just vote for who I wanted, I would have this:

Dana
Davis
Gallagher
2 Higgins
McGuinness
Mitchell
1 Norris

Now, imagine the scenario where on the first count, my vote is counted for David Norris but he gets the lowest number of votes and is eliminated. In round 2, my vote is transferred to Michael D. Higgins. Now, say for example Michael D. is now at the bottom of the list after Round 2 - he is eliminated and his votes are transferred in Round 3.

Now we're in Round 3 and the field looks like this:

Dana
Davis
Gallagher
McGuinness
Mitchell

I haven't voted for any of these people. But looking at it, I'd probably prefer someone inoffensive and bland like Mary Davis, over a religious nutjob and all-round unpleasant person like Gay Mitchell. What if Mary Davis were to be eliminated this round being just a few votes behind Gay Mitchell? It'd be a bit of a shame because she could have outlasted him AND benefitted from his transfers if she had a few more third-preferences.

Repeat this a few times till you're left with:

Dana
McGuinness

Well sweet Jesus. Even if you voted 1-5 on the other candidates, through some horrible twist of fate you're left with this selection. Now, under no terms do I want either of these people to be my president. Buuut, if I had to choose, I'd probably choose the Christian singer over the terrorist (take a moment to reflect on the quality of our candidates here). In order for me to make sure I have a choice in this scenario, I would have to have marked a 6 beside Dana's name on the ballot paper.

Hopefully that will make sense as to why you should always (unless you really, really have zero preference between the remaining candidates) mark all the way down the ballot paper. Obviously your final 7th preference is meaningless because there will only be one person left by the time your other preferences have been eliminated.

Makey sensey?

Newaglish

robindch wrote: »

Doesn't work that way.

Once your vote gets put into a pile for somebody who gets elected, that's the end of your input into the contest.

That's not strictly true - if it's a 4-seat election for example and my first preference candidate has 1.5 times the quote, his excess is distributed amongst the remaining candidates in Round 2.

The selection of the bundles of votes for this distribution I think is random (or there is possibly a very complicated system that I'm not aware of).

robindch

Newaglish wrote: »

You only leave the space blank if you have zero preference between the candidates. [...] Makey sensey?

Entirely. I'm assuming that a voter has no preference amongst people whom he/she definitely doesn't want to get elected.

FWIW, I usually vote by filling in my positive preferences, usually 1 to five or six, then while noting the names of those politicians whom I definitely don't want elected, and then marking the names of everybody else randomly (I thought about doing it by coin once, but figured I might be misunderstood...)

Newaglish wrote: »

The selection of the bundles of votes for this distribution I think is random (or there is possibly a very complicated system that I'm not aware of).

Once some politician reaches a vote count equal to ((number of voters)/(number of seats) + 1) on some round X of counting, then, if there are seats remaining to be filled, the votes that are still uncounted at that point are added to those belonging to whoever's last at that point (ie, the next person to be eliminated) and the vote counters start counting for round X+1.

Mistress 69

None of this is as straightforward as it seems.... I suspect, so I am off the bus till the AM!




btw... The upcoming election campaign should produce some great fun, even so, it should not be taken so lightly as is the current trend.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0928/1224304855725.html?via=rel?via=rel

Mistress 69

WTF .... WAKE UP ALL.... our presidential election is like an episode of the Sopranos mixed with madmen and a few really good rock bands.... A former paramilitary...probably less invoved than Mr bUSH or Tony, a happy guy from fairyland, another Old Dope SmoKER , A Right wing biggot with a child abuse allegation in the family resulting from a royalty F... over closely followed by The Woman in Red ( airbrushed in photoshop ), an Ex DRAGON and a Mitchellistic realted crime boss....


Always said all kinds of everything could be a bit of a gas!

Turtwig

^^ You're not by any chance married to Strobe are you?

robindch

Mistress 69 wrote: »

a child abuse allegation in the family

Oh dear:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1015/1224305839356.html

sensibleken

"Dana, nobody listens to Dana anymore. You'd have to be mad to listen to her" - Fr Dougal Maguire

Mistress 69

robindch wrote: »

Oh dear:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1015/1224305839356.html

The truth will probably never surface, think I will have another glass of red and a cracker and cheese with Ballymaloe Relish!

Mistress 69

Malty_T wrote: »

^^ You're not by any chance married to Strobe are you?

You probably selected the least technically correct answer.



Adapted from a post by Strobe as used in another thread.

Mistress 69

Dana's Kilcock blowout

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1019/breaking31.html

Sarky

Already assuming it was a conspiracy against her life, I see. Stay classy, Dana.

MissFlitworth

Her campaign team has claimed the tyre appears to have been punctured up to 15 times.

I'm no mechanic but wouldn't a tire that blew out at speed pretty much look like someone had been at it with a knife? Judging solely from bits of tyre littering the motorway at the weekend I'd say you'd be hardpressed to tell with a non-expert eye whether it had been punctured or blew out cos Dana's a tit who didn't check her tyre pressure or what have you before she hit the road

seamus

Yeah, blowouts look like huge gouges down the sidewall and they're often straight (or straight-ish) along a line (due to how tyres are constructed), so they look like the tyre's been slashed with a knife.

As pointed out on AH, I think it says it all when nobody who was with her was capable of changing a wheel - they had to call the AA. That means they are utterly incapable of declaring that this was malicious.

Now, granted someone may have tried to slash the tyre earlier in the day and just been really, really bad at it, so the tyre ended up damaged. But it would take a particularly clever and twisted mind to etch some cuts into the sidewall of a tyre to ensure that it would only fail later on, and not puncture on the spot.

Indicative of her naturally suspicious and Jim Corr-esque way of thinking that she would automatically assume someone intended to harm her.

Edit:
Here's a thread where someone has suffered a blowout that looks particularly devastating:
http://www.wheels-inmotion.co.uk/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t4095.html

As someone else points out in the thread, the bulk of the damage to the tyre is likely caused after the blowout, when you're travelling at high speed running the rim directly against the rubber.

This would likely account for the 15 "cuts" that Dana saw in her tyre.

nozzferrahhtoo

Oddly my own car, a 2009 BMW 318D also broke down just after the toll on the M4 after kilcock. Literally less than 2 minutes after I paid and drove off. It was no small break down either. The entire Turbo injection system died a sudden death.

Thankfully it is a known issue in that make, model and year and BMW fixed it for free which was a relief as the price quoted was over 2500 euro.

But if I were to take one of Dana's paranoia pills I would start wondering if the M4 toll company are deliberately sabotaging cars as they pay the toll for some reason.... perhaps to get even more money from the AA who then have to drive through the toll to get to you

Paranoia can be fun.

Amusing to me however is that she hasnt considered it might be an act of her god.

Dades

It's always dangerous when you've a dodgy rubber.

Not that Dana would approve.

rainbow kirby

Well, like any good Catholic, she didn't pull out...

Mistress 69

Norris better not drive down that way then as there are a couple of old fairy rings around there.:pac:

sensibleken

Holy ****!!!

Ezekeil was right!

"LORD says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock." - Ezekiel 26:4

Has anyone checked Dana to see if shes made of rock?

Genghiz Cohen

sensibleken wrote: »

Has anyone checked Dana to see if shes made of rock?

Inside of her head is...

recedite

Heard her on the radio earlier.... she was saying that when it happened, her car was being overtaken by a lorry (not the other way round) and with the noise of the lorry they didn't understand what was happening (they kept driving on the punctured tyre until they lost control?), then the husband skilfully swerved across the traffic lanes to safety of the hard shoulder (strange; if the lorry was overtaking them, you would think they must have been already driving along in the hard shoulder).
She's definitely a Walter Mitty character.

robindch

Hope she retyres asap.

Galvasean

It would appear the wheels are coming out from under her campaign.

Newaglish

Looks like it's not going to be a Goodyear for Dana.

Sorry, that was treadful.

sensibleken

Newaglish wrote: »

Looks like it's not going to be a Goodyear for Dana.

Sorry, that was treadful.

Christ! these puns are really gonna rubber up the wrong way

Paulownia

Wonder if she buys those cheap tyres up north?:rolleyes:

sensibleken

Apparently she went from right to left. Which scared her most.

Paulownia

It just shows what a dangerous game running for pres is.......... it was sooooooo boring in the old days before retired terrorists and gospel singers hove in to sight to liven things up

Galvasean

Last week: "something TERRIBLE will be published about my family in the papers tomorrow!!!!!!"

Now: "ASSASSINS!!!!!!!!"

What will she come up with next? Tune in next week. Same Dana time. Same Dana channel! :pac:

Mistress 69

Galvasean wrote: »

Last week: "something TERRIBLE will be published about my family in the papers tomorrow!!!!!!"

Now: "ASSASSINS!!!!!!!!"

What will she come up with next? Tune in next week. Same Dana time. Same Dana channel! :pac:

DRS .. Its possibly JFK all over again! :pac:

Sarky

someone take notes, it'll make a great plot for another Deus Ex game.

seamus

OK, a little more irreverent, but I thought this was just another demonstration of her "oddness". Ian Dempsey is dedicating his mornings to asking the more personable questions of the candidates; "what your favourite meal?", "what's your favourite movie" and so forth.

Norris predicatably chooses something obscure. McGuinness chooses Saving Private Ryan "because it has a strong anti-war message". Dana chooses Casablanca. OK, great choice.

"Grace Kelly was just marvellous". Well, it was Ingrid Bergman, but that's OK, a lot of people could make that mistake. But if this was your favourite movie, you'd probably know who it was. But then the cracker, I actually lol'ed at the radio,
"Oh, and I love that great line at the end; 'Play it again, Sam'. Although I understand that he never actually said that, but anyway".

Favourite movie, eh?

Dades

I thought I read somewhere her favourite movie was Dogma? Must have been mistaken.