Election poll: how are you voting in the General Election?

Ren2k7

gandalf wrote: »

Absolutely online polls can be "loaded" by shills of a number of parties. In the past SF seemed to be the leaders in this area but FG seem to be carrying out this sort of carry on as well in recent times.

It is interesting from just the boards demographics point of view. The SF percentage looks lower than I would expect it to be on boards normally.

From my own vantage point I see Boards as being chock full of FG supporters. Other sites like The Journal are admittedly Shinner central in the comments section. Though the fact that they are all Facebook/Twitter accounts where you have to register your mobile number to comment would suggest that virtually all are genuine accounts.

gandalf

Ren2k7 wrote: »

From my own vantage point I see Boards as being chock full of FG supporters. Other sites like The Journal are admittedly Shinner central in the comments section. Though the fact that they are all Facebook/Twitter accounts where you have to register your mobile number to comment would suggest that virtually all are genuine accounts.

Ah no you can have multiple twitter accounts (I have two, one personal and one professional). There are definitely a lot of shill accounts on TheJournal and sites like it.

I wouldn't say that boards is full of FG supporters, what I would say is there is a very strong anti-SF element here (which you seem to think that automatically makes everyone a FG Supporter which is not the case). I would be one of those who is staunchly against SF getting into power in Ireland. There is also a very strong pro-SF element here which I was exposed to when I modded Politics (years ago).

Ren2k7

gandalf wrote: »

Ah no you can have multiple twitter accounts (I have two, one personal and one professional). There are definitely a lot of shill accounts on TheJournal and sites like it.

Did you miss where Journal requires a valid mobile number for verification? No "shills" are going to go to the effort of getting multiple phone numbers just to post numerous pro-SF comments on some minor news website. And if you DO believe this is the case then all I can say is LOL!

gandalf wrote: »

I wouldn't say that boards is full of FG supporters, what I would say is there is a very strong anti-SF element here (which you seem to think that automatically makes everyone a FG Supporter which is not the case). I would be one of those who is staunchly against SF getting into power in Ireland. There is also a very strong pro-SF element here which I was exposed to when I modded Politics (years ago).

Are there any pro-SF (or at least SF sympathetic) mods on this forum? Whatever way you want to look at it Boards is FG central. Look at how many people voted for FG and its offshoot Renua.

Ozymandius2011

Ren2k7 wrote: »

From my own vantage point I see Boards as being chock full of FG supporters. Other sites like The Journal are admittedly Shinner central in the comments section. Though the fact that they are all Facebook/Twitter accounts where you have to register your mobile number to comment would suggest that virtually all are genuine accounts.

I have always seen boards.ie as fairly middle class and Dublin centered - or at least more so than say politics.ie. As the Scottish referendum showed (and arguably the Home Rule party's success until 1918 when the working class had the vote), middle class voters are risk averse because they have more to lose.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Detailed breakdown of this weeks Irish Times poll here. It shows a massive class divide for the first time in an Irish election. It also has FF and Labour level in Dublin at 11%. Among the wealthiest AB group (nationally), voters want the govt re-elected 47-46, while among the poorest DE group, its against 72-19, and the against are ahead in all these other social class groups with at least 62% against.

The answer to "Who do you want your favoured party to form a coalition with?" question is interesting. Labour does the best there, which suggests they may pick up a good level of transfers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jack Killian

Scofflaw wrote: »

The answer to "Who do you want your favoured party to form a coalition with?" question is interesting. Labour does the best there, which suggests they may pick up a good level of transfers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

They'd need to ditch Burton first; although it seems like the electorate will do that for them.

gandalf

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Did you miss where Journal requires a valid mobile number for verification? No "shills" are going to go to the effort of getting multiple phone numbers just to post numerous pro-SF comments on some minor news website. And if you DO believe this is the case then all I can say is LOL!

No it doesn't? If you sign up using Facebook or Twitter it doesn't ask for a mobile number.

Are there any pro-SF (or at least SF sympathetic) mods on this forum? Whatever way you want to look at it Boards is FG central. Look at how many people voted for FG and its offshoot Renua.

No idea I have not been involved in that side of boards for years now. I know one of the mods was a GP member after that I didn't really care who they supported. TBH from a modding point of view what your political affiliation was didn't matter. Moderation is really a fancy name for forum janitor or referee. You cleaned up the crud on the threads and separated the bold kids who couldn't behave and fought with each other.

gandalf

Jack Killian wrote: »

They'd need to ditch Burton first; although it seems like the electorate will do that for them.

Not sure that Alan Kelly will make them any more palatable tbh!!

Didn't see that original post by Ozymandius2011 that Scofflaw quoted (I assume it might be from another thread). One interesting item to note is that the demographic that typically has the worst record of voting is the DE one.

The key to this election is if they can be mobilised in sufficient numbers.

seamus

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Are there any pro-SF (or at least SF sympathetic) mods on this forum?

That doesn't really matter. Moderators operate impartially, they don't censor things about parties they don't vote for.

What exactly would you expect a pro-SF moderator to do? Ban non-SF posters? Sticky SF topics?

Whatever way you want to look at it Boards is FG central. Look at how many people voted for FG and its offshoot Renua.

One-third of 300 people.

That means that two-thirds voted for someone else. I'm not sure how you reconcile that as "FG central".

You appear to be letting your own biase and expectations ("nobody should be voting for FG") to cloud your perception of reality.

seamus

gandalf wrote: »

Didn't see that original post by Ozymandius2011 that Scofflaw quoted (I assume it might be from another thread). One interesting item to note is that the demographic that typically has the worst record of voting is the DE one.

Incredibly telling:


If that C2 & DE vote doesn't mobilise, SF could end up behind Labour in the real poll.

I think people are massively overegging the ability to FF to make a serious comeback this time around.

sjb25

Well I used to be a f the government person no way would I vote FG lab any of them I voted SF last time back then I was on the dole had virtually no money honestly was really really struggling was no jobs That I could get I had to move home to parents away from my child now I've a good well enough paid job in public service iv a nice house all together again my son has everything he ever needs we are planning wedding I'm not telling anybody else what to do I'm just one person but the way I see it is my life has got better in the life of this government so good enough reason to have changed the way il will vote il be voting FG this time round

DSN

My local labour candidate seems like the most intelligent & most genuine of the bunch I have to choose from. He has stood up to his party & Govt on matters affecting the country in general not just been about his home town. As I say the best of the bunch. I do like the green candidate very genuine I probably give him my No. 2. but bit naïve in my opinion when it comes to economics & that. I wouldn't give anything to FF or FG or SF cant stomach any of them.

gandalf

seamus wrote: »

I think people are massively overegging the ability to FF to make a serious comeback this time around.

FF will make a comeback of kinds, they will definitely pick up a few seats in Dublin. Unfortunately they have a massive organisation in place which allows them to get a lot of feet on the ground in constituencies. As I said this is going to be an extremely interesting election because there are so many unknown variables.

I am now a floating voter and I will not be voting for FG, Labour, FF, Renua or SF. If the SD were running in DSW they would have my number one vote. I have a general idea on who I am voting for based on a combination of their party policies and their individual history on a very local issue that effects my family (normally I would frown at making a decision on who to vote for in a national election based on a local issue but this is something I feel very strongly about).

TripleC

Many thanks for posting Seamus!! Very interesting indeed.

Two aspects stand out for me.

Firstly, I thought FG would be ahead of FF in the farming vote. Granted there have been controversies over Milk prices, fodder, incomes etc over the past number of years. However, I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the farmers were quieter and therefore more content then usual. Having said that, some of FF policies recently have almost been redolent of "rural socialism" so maybe thats where they have gained traction.

The other telling stat is the numbers of voters in C1 but also C2 and AB voting Independent. This is where I think FGs manifesto missed an opportunity, from an electoral point of view. They seem to have gone for a scatter gun approach tailoring something everybody, even voters unlikely to ever vote for them. Many C1 and AB voters think of themselves as paying everything into the system and receiving nothing from the system. So whilst FG did make moves towards a "everybody must pay something" Social Insurance model rather then the current system where a portion of the workforce subsides everybody else, it got little attention. Instead the promises to increase the OAP and Social Welfare became the focus of most publicity. I feel if that had positioned themselves a little further to the right and focused on cutting Welfare and taxes perhaps balanced by greater Capital spend they may have actually maintained and gained more support.

Lockstep

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Did you miss where Journal requires a valid mobile number for verification? No "shills" are going to go to the effort of getting multiple phone numbers just to post numerous pro-SF comments on some minor news website. And if you DO believe this is the case then all I can say is LOL!

I dunno, the Journal seems to be SF central. Even after Adams woeful Leaders' Debate performance you still had the comments section full of posters going on about how great he was.
Likewise, in their election poll, they have SF winning

You don't need a mobile phone for posting on the Journal. All you need is a throwaway Facebook or Twitter account and you can vote multiple times from different devices.

Ren2k7 wrote: »

Are there any pro-SF (or at least SF sympathetic) mods on this forum? Whatever way you want to look at it Boards is FG central. Look at how many people voted for FG and its offshoot Renua.

I dunno why our political views are relevant to modding. Clearly our voting demographic is out of sync with the national polls: there is no way FG, SocDems or the Greens will get anything like these numbers but it's not intended to be a national poll. Rather, it's to gauge how our posters are leaning.

Jack Killian

Lockstep wrote: »

I dunno, the Journal seems to be SF central. Even after Adams woeful Leaders' Debate performance you still had the comments section full of posters going on about how great he was.
Likewise, in their election poll, they have SF winning

You don't need a mobile phone for posting on the Journal. All you need is a throwaway Facebook or Twitter account and you can vote multiple times from different devices.



I dunno why our political views are relevant to modding. Clearly our voting demographic is out of sync with the national polls: there is no way FG, SocDems or the Greens will get anything like these numbers but it's not intended to be a national poll. Rather, it's to gauge how our posters are leaning.

One small point. I signed up to the Journal using my Facebook account and it STILL asked me for my phone number when I tried posting.

Too much info to reveal to anyone (FB doesn't even have my phone no) so I gave up on posting.

eire4

Jack Killian wrote: »

You wrote off SDs claiming that they couldn't hack it in the list of main parties.

Watching tonight's TV debate FG would be lucky to have Donnelly; he gave Enda a lesson in how to be a leader and how to think fairly and speak.

I agree. I hope the Social Democrats do well and build themsleves a base they can grow from.

Slick50

Are boards running a virtual election like they did for the 2011election. That was very interesting to see how things were shaping up.

Irish_rat

The economy was practically in ruins before FG took over.

They have brought stability and growth.

As much as I hate the jobsbridge scheme it gets people out and working.

Our debt is reducing but it is still hampering investment in public service and infrastructure.

It's going to take time so I'll judge FG after their next term. 5 years is not enough time to implement all the policies they have promised but really need to sort out the health service big time.

A metro system in Dublin should not be put on the back-burner. The homeless situation and housing supply needs to be addressed.

Of course assmung external conditions are good for the medium term at least.

Anyone but FF IMO. Don't want to return to the Stone Age again.

feargale

Which Sinn Fein are we being asked to vote for, the left wing one here or the pro-business one in the USA?

bladespin

Depends on how big G feels on the day but ask nicely as he didn't like the way Seany asked yesterday.

legendary.xix

I always had an opinion that the FG/Lab coalition in the 90's did a good job when they were in power and that they were unlucky to lose out in the next elections. My own humble option at the time of the '97, '02 and '07 elections was that people had made a mistake in their voting but I respect people's decisions, it is a democracy! The amount of poeple that voted for the '07 government and then a year later they were full of criticism.

FG/Lab have not done well enough to retain my vote. Irish Water was one of the biggest projects they took on and in my own humble opinion they managed it very badly. I think it is fair enough to rate them on one of the biggest projects they undertook. They lost my trust and vote with the way the project was mishandled. Systems have to be put in place to provide water. They are costs that have to be covered. I'm not against the principle of paying for that service. Again I can only repeat in my humble opinion they completed mishandled the project.

I won't be voting for any party or people who were part of recent governments. I'll be giving my own humble vote for people outside of that group. I've taken the time to research all the candidates in my constituency. When I cut out recent government parties and independents that I did not agree with, I was left with a list of 6. I've got them all listed 1 to 6 in how I will vote on the day.

Some people spoil their votes. I don't agree with that. My first preference will be a radical vote. It's very anti the establishment but also someone I'm comfortable with giving my vote. That candidate will most likely be eliminated in the early counts. I've looked into my next preference votes carefully. I hope it will be one small step to getting the calibre of person I want to see representing my area.

TCDStudent1

1. Fine Gael
2. Fine Gael
3. Labour
4. Green
5. Independent


100% decided on 1 - 3. Might reverse the 4 & 5 order. Personally, I think the current government have done a good enough job (although far from perfect). I think its just asking for trouble to go looking for a different government. So this time, I am going to vote for the government to get re-elected. I feel it is important to continue with a stable government. And for me FG / Lab reflects the most stable coalition (certainly more so than FG / FF who I could definitely see falling out over something trivial while in government).

TCDStudent1

TripleC wrote: »

Snap, I actually met her about 10-12 years ago at a social event and found her to be quiet likable and personable. I was unsurprised when she had a meteoric rise in politics because she struck me as being very ambitious (in a positive way). However, I was slightly shocked when she emerged as a leader of the anti-abortion......from talking to her I had formed the opinion that she was a progressive young lady.

C

In fairness, she seems to be. The abortion issue has really held her back. I don't agree with her on her abortion beliefs but I very much admire her for sticking to those beliefs. It would have been in her career's better interests if she didn't stick to those beliefs so publicly.

charlie14

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

1.

So this time, I am going to vote for the government to get re-elected. I feel it is important to continue with a stable government. And for me FG / Lab reflects the most stable coalition (certainly more so than FG / FF who I could definitely see falling out over something trivial while in government).

I can see your logic.

In government with FG, Labour can always be relied upon to roll over and abandon their promises.

Not only spineless and gutless but morons as well.

Asking for number two`s for a right wing party, while that same party is targeting their seats.

Lovely Bloke

Dublin North West

I'm voting for Fianna Fail then non party and/or non-leftist candidates.

So that means Paul McAuliffe and Cormac McKay

Hilden

I'll be voting number 1 Green and its a toss up between Labour and Soc Dems for 2 and 3. The Greens seem to be the only ones with some sort of long-term vision for this country. They see planning for a sustainable future as a necessary priority not just something you do because Europe tells you to do it. They don't really have an asses roar of winning a seat so it'll be Soc Dems for similar reasons or Labour because they may lose the seat which would be sad given all the hard work over the years. Kinda hard to decide given the stupidity of the current government and I may be excusing that by voting for them. As for the rest I ain't voting AAA (populist protest party with nothing positive to give), Sinn Fein (Moany, opaquely funded organisation who'll lock the county in a border poll rather than do anything positive for the country), Fine Gael (Gombeen men, Landlords, strong farmers, Business party), Fianna Fail (well if you lost your job in the last few years you know why) or independant (the only people they are for is themselves).

budgemook

I've decided to go #1 Social Democrats and #2 Green Party (Shtate of the weather lads).

I'm not too sure how transfers work, can someone explain it? For example, Mary Lou is in my constituency. I don't really want to vote for her but she is a shoe in and if I gave my number 3 then would she transfer that elsewhere? For example could she transfer it to SD (would she be inclined to)? I really have no idea how the transfers work.

Godge

budgemook wrote: »

I've decided to go #1 Social Democrats and #2 Green Party (Shtate of the weather lads).

I'm not too sure how transfers work, can someone explain it? For example, Mary Lou is in my constituency. I don't really want to vote for her but she is a shoe in and if I gave my number 3 then would she transfer that elsewhere? For example could she transfer it to SD (would she be inclined to)? I really have no idea how the transfers work.

If you don't want somebody elected, vote all the way down for everyone else except that person.

If you vote 1 Social Democrat, 2 Green and 3 Mary Lou in Dublin Central, Mary-Lou will get your vote if she needs it as the other two don't have a chance and will be eliminated. If she is already elected, the vote will go to your number 4.

budgemook

Godge wrote: »

If you don't want somebody elected, vote all the way down for everyone else except that person.

If you vote 1 Social Democrat, 2 Green and 3 Mary Lou in Dublin Central, Mary-Lou will get your vote if she needs it as the other two don't have a chance and will be eliminated. If she is already elected, the vote will go to your number 4.

It's not really that I don't want her elected, I just don't really want to vote for her. I agree the Green candidate doesn't have a chance really. You seem fairly certain about SD?

charlie14

budgemook wrote: »

I've decided to go #1 Social Democrats and #2 Green Party (Shtate of the weather lads).

I'm not too sure how transfers work, can someone explain it? For example, Mary Lou is in my constituency. I don't really want to vote for her but she is a shoe in and if I gave my number 3 then would she transfer that elsewhere? For example could she transfer it to SD (would she be inclined to)? I really have no idea how the transfers work.

I don`t really get what you are saying.

It`s not compulsory to vote for every candidate on the ballot paper.

If you don`t vote for a candidate there is no transfer to worry about.

budgemook

charlie14 wrote: »

I don`t really get what you are saying.

It`s not compulsory to vote for every candidate on the ballot paper.

If you don`t vote for a candidate there is no transfer to worry about.

It might be that what I am saying makes no sense. Let's say I knew candidate A was going to get the most votes. Candidate B is who I wanted to get elected so I gave them my number 1. Candidate B is an outsider who will struggle to get elected. Then let's say I assumed Candidate A would transfer un-needed votes to Candidate B. Would it be worth giving Candidate A number 2?

charlie14

budgemook wrote: »

It might be that what I am saying makes no sense. Let's say I knew candidate A was going to get the most votes. Candidate B is who I wanted to get elected so I gave them my number 1. Candidate B is an outsider who will struggle to get elected. Then let's say I assumed Candidate A would transfer un-needed votes to Candidate B. Would it be worth giving Candidate A number 2?

The simple answer before you over think yourself into a home for the bewildered.

Vote in order of preference, but omit those you do not want elected.

budgemook

charlie14 wrote: »

The simple answer before you over think yourself into a home for the bewildered.

Vote in order of preference, but omit those you do not want elected.

Okay, forget why I want to know. How does the vote transfer system work?

oscarBravo

Over-thinking STV is similar to over-thinking CAO preferences.

Who would you most like to see elected? Give them your number 1. Who would your second preference be? Give them number 2. And so on. If you would rather not see someone elected, don't give them a preference. It really is that simple.

bladespin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Over-thinking STV is similar to over-thinking CAO preferences.

Always think of the CAO application each time there's an election lol, thought it was just me.

charlie14

budgemook wrote: »

Okay, forget why I want to know. How does the vote transfer system work?

Vote in order of your preferences and you`ll be grand.

budgemook

I found the answer HERE.

So candidates themselves have no influence over where the transfers go, the voters decide this with their #2, #3 etc.

That's all I wanted to know really

Jack Killian

budgemook wrote: »

I found the answer HERE.

So candidates themselves have no influence over where the transfers go, the voters decide this with their #2, #3 etc.

That's all I wanted to know really

Did you really think the candidates could dictate and overrule the votes ?

The only bit I'm unsure about is where the transfers come from; are the "surpluses" chosen at random ? I would have thought that it would be more representative if the percentages were allocated proportionally, e.g. if Candidate A has 250 votes over the quota and 50% of all of their votes were for Candate B then 175 votes would go to Candidate B ?

That seems to apply, but then it says

....only the votes that brought them over the quota are examined in the surplus distribution, that is, the parcel of votes last transferred to the elected candidate.

charlie14

Jack Killian wrote: »

Did you really think the candidates could dictate and overrule the votes ?

The only bit I'm unsure about is where the transfers come from; are the "surpluses" chosen at random ? I would have thought that it would be more representative if the percentages were allocated proportionally, e.g. if Candidate A has 250 votes over the quota and 50% of all of their votes were for Candate B then 175 votes would go to Candidate B ?

That seems to apply, but then it says

It`s to do with all ballots being randomly mixed before counting starts Jack.

All candidates No 1 votes are bundled together, and if a candidate exceeds the qouta on the first count,the surplus is taken from the top of his bundle and from those being randomly mixed at the outset are taken as being representative off the whole.
No 2s are then distributed from these.

The same process for all later counts.

The system you are thinking off is more representative and is used in Australia, and strange as it may seem, I believe Scotland also.

Hope that helps.

FreudianSlippers

I'm a bit shocked at how many people don't understand our election process. Nothing against anyone here, but surely this should be covered at some stage in school?!

Grudaire

It is.. CSPE, or whatever that's been renamed to!

seamus

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm a bit shocked at how many people don't understand our election process. Nothing against anyone here, but surely this should be covered at some stage in school?!

Nope, not for me anyway. Never remember anyone ever covering the constitution, elections, the different organs of government, etc. We learned Amhran and bhFiann and that was about it.

I was in my early 20s before I knew the difference between the Dail, the government and the Seanad, because I went and read up on it myself. None of this stuff was ever covered for me either in primary or secondary school (80s and 90s).

Jack Killian wrote: »

Did you really think the candidates could dictate and overrule the votes ?

I remember when Mary Robinson was elected, there was a lot of talk about how Austin Currie "gave" Robinson his transfers when he conceded defeat, allowing Robinson to win.

Granted, I was only a child at the time, but I remember thinking that candidates could "give" their votes to other candidates if they agreed they were out of the running.

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm a bit shocked at how many people don't understand our election process. Nothing against anyone here, but surely this should be covered at some stage in school?!

A good few years since secondary level, but it appears as if civics may have been taken off the curriculum ?

charlie14

seamus wrote: »

Nope, not for me anyway. Never remember anyone ever covering the constitution, elections, the different organs of government, etc. We learned Amhran and bhFiann and that was about it.

I was in my early 20s before I knew the difference between the Dail, the government and the Seanad, because I went and read up on it myself. None of this stuff was ever covered for me either in primary or secondary school (80s and 90s).
I remember when Mary Robinson was elected, there was a lot of talk about how Austin Currie "gave" Robinson his transfers when he conceded defeat, allowing Robinson to win.

Granted, I was only a child at the time, but I remember thinking that candidates could "give" their votes to other candidates if they agreed they were out of the running.

That is actually quite shocking.

That in a democracy our education system ignores even the basics of the electoral system, and then people are amazed by tribalism in voting.

Zzippy

charlie14 wrote: »

It`s to do with all ballots being randomly mixed before counting starts Jack.

All candidates No 1 votes are bundled together, and if a candidate exceeds the qouta on the first count,the surplus is taken from the top of his bundle and from those being randomly mixed at the outset are taken as being representative off the whole.
No 2s are then distributed from these.

The same process for all later counts.

The system you are thinking off is more representative and is used in Australia, and strange as it may seem, I believe Scotland also.

Hope that helps.

Are they actually randomly mixed? How does that explain the way tallymen and reporters know which way a certain box/polling station has voted? Or are they randomly mixed after being counted the first time, before any transfers can be made?

seamus

^^
I think he means each box which is opened is randomly mixed before being counted.

charlie14

Zzippy wrote: »

Are they actually randomly mixed? How does that explain the way tallymen and reporters know which way a certain box/polling station has voted? Or are they randomly mixed after being counted the first time, before any transfers can be made?

When the boxes are opened the number of votes are checked against the voting register for each box to ensure they both tally.

When doing this the votes are placed face up so the tallymen and reporters can see them.

They are then randomly mixed before counting starts.

charlie14

seamus wrote: »

^^
I think he means each box which is opened is randomly mixed before being counted.

It means all votes after being counted to ensure the register for each box tallies with the votes cast in that box, are then randomly mixed together before the count of the No1 votes begins.

budgemook

seamus wrote: »

Nope, not for me anyway. Never remember anyone ever covering the constitution, elections, the different organs of government, etc. We learned Amhran and bhFiann and that was about it.

I was in my early 20s before I knew the difference between the Dail, the government and the Seanad, because I went and read up on it myself. None of this stuff was ever covered for me either in primary or secondary school (80s and 90s).
I remember when Mary Robinson was elected, there was a lot of talk about how Austin Currie "gave" Robinson his transfers when he conceded defeat, allowing Robinson to win.

Granted, I was only a child at the time, but I remember thinking that candidates could "give" their votes to other candidates if they agreed they were out of the running.

This!

That's exactly what had me thinking someone could give their votes that they didn't need away.