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

Degag

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

See, I don't think they should be providing the info on what the things are about when you're gone to vote; by that stage, you should have at the very least read over the info which came through your door. There was names on each one ("Judges pay" for example). After that, it's up to you to educate yourself on the wider ramifications of allowing them to alter judges wages and launch their own investigations.

I disagree. I think that it should be stated which one is which. (And i'll trust that it was anyway as Irish Stew said) Someone could be very well read on the articles, what they stand for and the ramifications of voting either yes or no but simply not know the actual names of them. Also think of pensioners. Doubt they'd be able to remember which is which.

mikom

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I was going to vote when McGuinness and Norris were polling well. Now it looks like neither are going to win I am going to spoil my vote

edit: saw explanation.

staker

Someone give me a good reason to get up off my arse and go out to vote.
I'd not be voting on the presidency,I've no relations who are judges and that last referendum I don't fully understand.

Seriously, what effing difference will it make?

Lord TSC

Teletext page 120 is now "Unavailable" :P

Rte on it though had declared MDH as the winner though. I wonder if it's just a testing page or what.

Lord TSC

staker wrote: »

Someone give me a good reason to get up off my arse and go out to vote.
I'd not be voting on the presidency,I've no relations who are judges and that last referendum I don't fully understand.

Seriously, what effing difference will it make?

For me, the difference is that when the result is announced, people who couldn't be arsed to vote shouldn't get to complain about results if they didn't bother trying to influence them. If you don't care about any of them though, there's no real point. Maybe a low turnout will result in the whole thing being thrown out and redone or something.

My name is URL

staker wrote: »

Someone give me a good reason to get up off my arse and go out to vote

The fact that you have the right to vote should be enough to make you value and exercise that right. It's up to the individual at the end of the day, and people have a right to refrain from voting just as you have the right to a vote.

As for whether or not it makes a difference, well one voice won't make much of a difference but it's still far better than having no voice at all.

Stinicker

Voted 1 for Martin McGuinness and 2 for Michael D; and Yes to both referendums.

MagicMarker

Teletext? Is it the 90's again?

Mint Sauce

staker wrote: »

Someone give me a good reason to get up off my arse and go out to vote.
I'd not be voting on the presidency,I've no relations who are judges and that last referendum I don't fully understand.

Seriously, what effing difference will it make?

Well go and at least vote no, so that someone else at least doesn't make the dicission for you.

mikom

MagicMarker wrote: »

Teletext? Is it the 90's again?

If the FF candidate gets in then.......... YES.

Sunnyisland

staker wrote: »

Someone give me a good reason to get up off my arse and go out to vote.
I'd not be voting on the presidency,I've no relations who are judges and that last referendum I don't fully understand.

Seriously, what effing difference will it make?

There is nothing on tv at the moment




Seriously your having a say in who represents this country and in the referendums just vote no :D:p

Sunnyisland

staker wrote: »

Someone give me a good reason to get up off my arse and go out to vote.
I'd not be voting on the presidency,I've no relations who are judges and that last referendum I don't fully understand.

Seriously, what effing difference will it make?

Because 99 is not 100 and that single one will make a difference.

staker

My name is URL wrote: »

The fact that you have the right to vote should be enough to make you value and exercise that right. It's up to the individual at the end of the day, and people have a right to refrain from voting just as you have the right to a vote.

As for whether or not it makes a difference, well one voice won't make much of a difference but it's still far better than having no voice at all.

TBH, I get what you're saying and I've always voted down through the years,just that it doesn't feel like I have a voice any more

realies wrote: »

There is nothing on tv at the moment




Seriously your having a say in who represents this country and in the referendums just vote no :D:p

I honestly might as well be sticking a pin on a map, it'll be pure instantaneous voting

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

For me, the difference is that when the result is announced, people who couldn't be arsed to vote shouldn't get to complain about results if they didn't bother trying to influence them. If you don't care about any of them though, there's no real point. Maybe a low turnout will result in the whole thing being thrown out and redone or something.

Fair enough

QUOTE=irish-stew;75168948]Well go and at least vote no, so that someone else at least doesn't make the dicission for you.[/QUOTE]

Good answer, that swings it for me tbh

Liam Byrne

Degag wrote: »

....Article 29 and Article 30 or whatever they were called?

That wasn't diesel that SG's donor / MMG's phone buddy was smuggling - it was Tippex!!! :eek:

alchemist33

staker wrote: »

Someone give me a good reason to get up off my arse and go out to vote.

Because if you don't vote no, Michael Healy Rae can call you a "Lard-arse Nazi" and you can't do anything about it.

A.Partridge

smokingman wrote: »

1- Norris
2 - Higgins

I voted Norris because the possibility of the pope kissing the ground in front of a gay man when he arrives next year puts a smile on my face. :cool:

Yeah..:pac: and Norris kissing the Pope's ring in return.

Dotrel

I don't care who wins so long as it's not Gallagher.

His FF past and and questionable attitude to paying his debts aside, I just can stand the idea of having to look at his Thumb-For-A-Head too much more.

hiram

Heyyyy.... a few seconds ago Mary Davis had 3 votes, and now she has 2....WTF!!!

kelty

1 - Higgins
2 - McGuinness
3 - Norris
.
.
.
7 - Gallagher (Links to FF not for me)

Yes to both referendums

10green bottles

hiram wrote: »

Heyyyy.... a few seconds ago Mary Davis had 3 votes, and now she has 2....WTF!!!

We found out that she is a mason :P

bleg

1. MDH
2. DN
3. GM

No further preferences. No to both referendums.

bleg

When's the exit poll released? Tonight or tomorrow?

OPENROAD

meh

1. Mary Davis

2.Michael D.

3. David Norris

Yes and No

Niles

Interesting to note the slight differences between this poll and the one in the Politics forum, with there being a slight preference for McGuinness over Norris here, the opposite being the case in the Politics forum. Broadly similar results otherwise.

K-9

realies wrote: »

Rereading the posts I mean Gay the tantrum mitchell 3rd from last after Dana and MDavis.:):)

Probably, I can't see him polling higher than Norris, even FG'ers hate him!

As for MMG, depends on the collapse of Gallagher's vote. I don't see it the same as Adi Roche's collapse as there's a FF element to his support and they still finished 3rd in the last election, far closer to Labour than SF. McGuinness has stayed relatively level in the polls since he declared, not really picking up much support, whereas Gallagher picked up Norris, Mitchell and even Dana drops in support. 2nd will depend on the Gallagher collapse and how much he can get of it. He really should be 3rd at a minimum after Norris's terrible campaign.

It'll be interesting to see if MMG breaks the tradition of little transfers to SF, he should really.

As for the Boards poll, FF and FG were underestimated in the Boards GE poll, particularly FF, and SF over represented, this poll looks the same to me.

I'd say the Indo poll with SG on 20%, MMG on 17 mightn't be too far away and transfers probably will decide 2nd.

Horsebox9000

Degag wrote: »

Was it just me or should information regarding the two referendums should actually have been on the ballot paper? I mean how many people actually knew the difference between Article 29 and Article 30 or whatever they were called?

Saying that, there may have been info up on the wall or something but i didn't look cause i was voting yes to both anyway.

Seriously? If you had taken the time to read right underneath that it tells you it's about the judges pay in clear writing.
FFS, I had a joint before I went in and I could notice that.

hiram

10green bottles wrote: »

We found out that she is a mason :P

Ahh, Right!! I just hope all the female Masons wont be upset....no, wait...:cool:

Degag

Horsebox9000 wrote: »

Seriously? If you had taken the time to read right underneath that it tells you it's about the judges pay in clear writing.
FFS, I had a joint before I went in and I could notice that.

I didn't take much of a look because i was voting yes to both. Obviously i didn't look at all!

Abi

suicide_circus wrote: »

1 mdh
2 dn

Judge's pay: yes
Parliamentary enquiry: no

^ This.

10green bottles

Horsebox9000 wrote: »

Seriously? If you had taken the time to read right underneath that it tells you it's about the judges pay in clear writing.
FFS, I had a joint before I went in and I could notice that.

There was :eek:
Have to say that i missed that too(i wasn't looking for it because i had already read the Referendum Comission's blurb) and i've been stone cold sober this 3 weeks !!