The Official After Hours Election Day Thread *Mod Note in OP*

Mint Sauce

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?

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.

Jesus Wept

phasers wrote: »

it's never stopped me before.

I predict a bumper weekend for Micky D.

Degag

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.

Gay Mitchell so.... was it so hard to say???

Degag

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.

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.

starbelgrade

I heard on the radio today that if you want to vote for Sean Gallagher, they don't give you a polling card... instead you have to pop a five grand cheque in the box made out to Fianna Fail.

Local-womanizer

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.

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.

starbelgrade

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.

I think both options are relevant.

One of them shows the percentage of AH posters who didn't bother to vote.

The other shows the number of AH posters who made the effort to turn up to vote, but decided to spoil their vote.

Mint Sauce

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.

Sorry. Thats what it looked like.

Wouldn't it make more sence to see who voted for who

The final opition though does give an indication of how many people not bothered by the vote.

phasers

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.

Local-womanizer

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.

Times have changed, it will be a gay couple this year!

Cookie_Monster

Can't vote (for obvious reasons) but wouldn't anyway, but since I'd be down there for the referendums I'd scribble RON on the ballot for prez.

strobe

hondasam wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why we should vote yes or no in the referendum, what will it change?

There is a big thread about it here Sam, if that's any help.

Cookie_Monster

irish-stew wrote: »

The final opition though does give an indication of how many people not bothered by the vote.

but what if they're not bothered to vote in the AH poll either :P

Sunnyisland

If I am still on this earth tomorrow I shall be voting martin mcguinness and also voting no in both referendums.

starbelgrade

I don't think Sean Gallagher's figures add up.

And for that reason, I won't be investing in him.

Jesus Wept

Why has Gallagher always polled poorly on boards.ie
Do his supporters not use t'internet?

starbelgrade

The-Rigger wrote: »

Why has Gallagher always polled poorly on boards.ie
Do his supports not use t'internet?

Most of them don't even have bank accounts.

Local-womanizer

Definitely a No on the Oireachtas Bill for me!

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.

Yea it says they have to have "Due regard to" the principles or fair procedure, that is not good enough, they should have to adhere to them. Then it goes on to say it is not possible to state definitively what role if any the courts would have in the procedures adopted by the house.

Fuck that!

Morlar

Martin McGuinness.

starbelgrade

What's Norris going to do when he doesn't get elected?

I mean, who's he going to talk to when there's no cameramen around?

WoollyRedHat

I just heard there on the radio that Dana has been receiving free **** from other heads of state, including Obama... what's going on here ey? Is it her birthday or something? And even if it was, a €5,000 vase? What on earth is the point in having a €5,000 vase?!

tonycascarino

1 McGuinness
2 Higgins
3 Norris
4 Dana
5 Davis
6 Mitchell

Local-womanizer

tonycascarino wrote: »

1 McGuinness
2 Higgins
3 Norris
4 Dana
5 Davis
6 Mitchell

tonycascarino wrote: »

1 McGuinness
2 Higgins
3 Norris
4 Dana
5 Davis
6 Mitchell

HEY!

You can't vote twice!! Or 3 times as it is now!

heyjude

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.

So your argument is, if judges pay is reduced, even if all other public service wages are being reduced at the same time, then judicial independence would be endangered and they would be more prone to corruption.

I would ask, is it not true that judges are appointed according to to their political affiliations ? Would you see a diehard Fine Gael supporter appointed to the judiciary by a Fianna Fail government or vice versa ? No, you wouldn't, so does this not endanger judicial independence too and is this method of judicial selection, not also open to corruption ?

Judges also have to be part of the society they serve and if we're cutting the pay of low paid public servants, how just would it be for high earners such as judges to be exempt from the same pain ?

I accept that pay cuts for judges alone shouldn't be allowed for the reasons you give, but as part of a universal public service pay cut, I see a valid argument for them.

As for the anti-corruption argument, I would argue that its the caliber of the people involved that prevents corruption and not the amount,within reason, that they are paid. Picking judges according to their party political preferences is a bad starting point. Our politicians are among the best paid in Europe, yet allegations of corruption have remained. Some people will be corrupt no matter what they earn.

mikemac

Caramel

It's not as if we haven't elected rodents before

Liam Byrne

1. Higgins

No inclination to vote for any of the undesirables, even in attempting to keep some out, a vote for any of the others is something my conscience won't let me do because they don't deserve a vote.

hondasam

strobe wrote: »

There is a big thread about it here Sam, if that's any help.

Cheers, reading it now.

my predictions.
Michael D
Sean Gallagher
Martin McGuinness
Gay Mitchell
David Norris
Dana
Mary Davis

tonycascarino

Local-womanizer wrote: »

HEY!

You can't vote twice!! Or 3 times as it is now!

..Don't know what happened there tbh

starbelgrade

I think there should be a referendum to reduce the pay to politicians.

It could be done in an honour system style.. you basically write down what you feel they should be paid & then the average across the board is taken & that becomes their basic wage.

Somehow, I think we would then see an entirely different calibre of person enter the political system.

Sparks43

realies wrote: »

If I am still on this earth tomorrow I shall be voting martin mcguinness and also voting no in both referendums.

2 out of 3 aint bad

But the judges pay should get cut so thats a yes from me

Whatever your feelings or beliefs please get out and vote

It is our right as a free Country and its nice that the pleasant people from Germany and Brussels still let us choose our figurehead:eek: