December 29, 2016 at 10:09 am
chrisn-585491 (12/29/2016)
On the flip side there's even more great open data sets to build analysis skills on. Everything from census to the stars, if you want some real data to play with, it's available in all sorts and forms.
There are indeed. It's neat to see how many open sets are available.
December 29, 2016 at 2:32 pm
Eric M Russell (12/29/2016)
chrisn-585491 (12/29/2016)
On the flip side there's even more great open data sets to build analysis skills on. Everything from census to the stars, if you want some real data to play with, it's available in all sorts and forms.:w00t:
I can't believe you just said that !!!
You think the positive flip side to all this is that we now play with it??
No. I'm speaking of the various legal open data sets. Ones from FCC, NCUA, NASA, ADS-B* data and that ilk.
(The other disclosures just verified my lack of faith in "security" and validate my experience of human nature.)
* Speaking of ADS-B, for less than a $100 investment you can explore 4 hobbies at once: Radio, Aviation, Computers and Data...
January 4, 2017 at 7:05 am
djackson 22568 (12/29/2016)
Geoff.Sturdy (12/29/2016)
SteveI'm Sure King George III and Lord North held the same opinion of the colonial revolt in 1775/6
Brussells, Paris,Nice and Berlin were "unexpected and shocking" - Brexit and Trump were failures of the polls to take account opinions outside of London (UK brexit) and Trump (east/west coast USA) - so I would consider them failures of data accquision and analysis
Not to disagree with your point, but my opinion is more along the lines that deliberately lying to people is not the same thing as failing to do proper analysis.
Every time Trump caught up in the polls, they changed the methodology to exclude likely conservative voters and pad the democrat side. That is lying and cheating, or in other words, the status quo for the global main stream media. Don't let the little people know the truth, you may lose power.
I think it is noteworthy that over here in the UK on BBC Radio 4 they interviewed a father (Trump voter) and son (Clinton voter) where the father said of his fellow Trump voting friends that when a pollster called that they hung up whereas the son's Clinton voting peers were eager to share their opinion. In their experience the father's generation leaned both to voting for Trump and refusing to engage with pollsters and the son's generation leaned both to voting for Clinton and to engaging with pollsters. This correlation, if ignored, obviously skews the polls.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 4, 2017 at 7:42 am
Geoff.Sturdy (12/29/2016)
we in the UK voted to remove our country from the EU - pretty much for the same reasons that the founding fathers rebelled against Imperial rule from London - the ability to determine our own place in the world .Also , like the US election , we were tired of the "great and the good" telling us what was good for us when our own experiences told us otherwise. This was a collective revolt of the forgotton people on both sides of the Atlantic.
You absolutely do not speak for all of us in this regard.
January 4, 2017 at 8:05 am
Beatrix Kiddo (1/4/2017)
Geoff.Sturdy (12/29/2016)
we in the UK voted to remove our country from the EU - pretty much for the same reasons that the founding fathers rebelled against Imperial rule from London - the ability to determine our own place in the world .Also , like the US election , we were tired of the "great and the good" telling us what was good for us when our own experiences told us otherwise. This was a collective revolt of the forgotton people on both sides of the Atlantic.You absolutely do not speak for all of us in this regard.
+ 1
I'm as patriotic as the next person but I happen to believe the best interests of the UK are served by remaining in the EU. We have our own place in the world, a place which is actually bolstered by being part of the globe's biggest trading bloc. My own experiences have told me that being part of the EU is a good thing. I've travelled and worked all over the continent because of the EU. I've studied with, worked with and made friends with people from many countries who were welcomed here as part of EU schemes. I've had the opportunity to take part in those schemes myself. I benefit from employment and environmental protections that have been 'imposed' by the EU. It certainly has its drawbacks but, as a country, I would much rather be in a position to change a flawed system from within than trying to make the best of a very bad job on the outside. Don't get me wrong, if the decision had been whether to join or not in the first place I'm pretty sure my answer would be no. However, there is a world of difference between a messy acrimonious divorce and deciding not to get married at all.
How to post a question to get the most help http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537
January 16, 2017 at 5:55 pm
BWFC - Wednesday, January 4, 2017 8:05 AMBeatrix Kiddo (1/4/2017)
Geoff.Sturdy (12/29/2016)
we in the UK voted to remove our country from the EU - pretty much for the same reasons that the founding fathers rebelled against Imperial rule from London - the ability to determine our own place in the world .Also , like the US election , we were tired of the "great and the good" telling us what was good for us when our own experiences told us otherwise. This was a collective revolt of the forgotton people on both sides of the Atlantic.You absolutely do not speak for all of us in this regard.
+ 1I'm as patriotic as the next person but I happen to believe the best interests of the UK are served by remaining in the EU. We have our own place in the world, a place which is actually bolstered by being part of the globe's biggest trading bloc. My own experiences have told me that being part of the EU is a good thing. I've travelled and worked all over the continent because of the EU. I've studied with, worked with and made friends with people from many countries who were welcomed here as part of EU schemes. I've had the opportunity to take part in those schemes myself. I benefit from employment and environmental protections that have been 'imposed' by the EU. It certainly has its drawbacks but, as a country, I would much rather be in a position to change a flawed system from within than trying to make the best of a very bad job on the outside. Don't get me wrong, if the decision had been whether to join or not in the first place I'm pretty sure my answer would be no. However, there is a world of difference between a messy acrimonious divorce and deciding not to get married at all.
I sort of agree with Beatrix and BWFC. And definitely not with Mr sturdy. I'm somewhat dismayed that my fellow Brits voted the way they did for primarily racist reasons - for some reason they believed the people who told them Brexit would reduce immigration of Muslims, Arabs, Indians etcetera as well as of common market nationalities. I don't think most of them were actually stupid enough to believe in either the money saving the leave campaign promised them or the catastrophic economic effects story the remain campaign gave them. But they clearly were fooled into believing that leaving the EU meant leaving the council of Europe so that we could take up a position of human rights that even Russia hasn't adopted, and that a majority apparently thought that would be a good thing is pretty awful too, the good news is that they probably won't get what they were promised on that issue.
It's a (small) consolation that my fellow-Scots voted strongly against Brexit, as did the Northern Irish. The attitude of the current goernment to those nations is going to make for a big crisis sooner or later - particularly in Northern Ireland where the current peace agreement depends on things which the UK government apparently intends to do away with as part of its Brexit process. Scotland probably wants out of the Union now because the politicins lied at the last referendum, pesuading the Scots to vote to retain the Union because it was their only chance of remaining in the EU, making it clear that they, the remainder of the UK, would excercise itheir right to veto a new EU member if a separated Scotland tried to join. well, at some point in 2019 they will have giev up that right, let's see what happens then.
End of the Union before the end of 2019 seems possible - maybe leaving "The United Kingdom of England and Wales".
Tom
January 17, 2017 at 12:10 am
TomThomson - Monday, January 16, 2017 5:55 PM...Brits voted the way they did for primarily racist reasons - for some reason they believed the people who told them Brexit would reduce immigration of Muslims, Arabs, Indians etcetera as well as of common market nationalities...
Tom, I have to take exception to that. I am sure that some did exactly as you say but every person I have discussed this with who voted leave did not have immigration as an issue that they were either bothered about nor has one of them believe that leaving the EU would change this. This is another perpetuated myth to chastise and shame the way some people voted. As "proof" they just roll out one racist in front of the TV cameras for evidence.
For the record, I voted remain. Nothing to do with immigration policies either.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 18, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Gary Varga - Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:10 AMTomThomson - Monday, January 16, 2017 5:55 PM...Brits voted the way they did for primarily racist reasons - for some reason they believed the people who told them Brexit would reduce immigration of Muslims, Arabs, Indians etcetera as well as of common market nationalities...
Tom, I have to take exception to that. I am sure that some did exactly as you say but every person I have discussed this with who voted leave did not have immigration as an issue that they were either bothered about nor has one of them believe that leaving the EU would change this. This is another perpetuated myth to chastise and shame the way some people voted. As "proof" they just roll out one racist in front of the TV cameras for evidence.
For the record, I voted remain. Nothing to do with immigration policies either.
Well, several pro-leve racists were rolled out before the TV cameras during the campaign, not least Farage with his racist anti-Sottish, anti-Polish, anti-Arab, and anti-almost-eveone-but-the-English remarks. I also watched clearly racist remarks from Gove. They weren't the only ones. And why would it have to be TV? Murdoch's press was swamped with despicable racist rubbish. And I heard a lot of racist claptrap in the pubs and on the streets. I hear none of it from the people i used to work with - and I suspect you don't hear any because you're still working full time in a technical field and most of the people you have contact with have intelligence and education levels much higher than the average for England. There has been (according to several English police forces) a notable increase in hate-crime against non-English people since the referendum result was announced, but I suppose that you will say there is no connection, it's just coincidence.
For the record, one of my sons voted leave, one remain, and the other didn't vote. My wife and I voted remain also nothing to do with immigration - the one who didn't vote may end up applying for spanish nationality (but as he's married to a Czech he can live anywhere in the EU anyway). In my case it was at leasy partly because for a long time now it's been European regulations that have prevented our home secretaries from passig laws tha would turn the UK into the sort of police state than would meke the former communist regime in East Germany a brilliant upholder of human rights. I may well ditch England and go home to Scotland and campaign for an end to the union with England. Or maybe apply for Spanish nationality (I might be able to persuade them I'm eligible by time spent in Spain). Or French (they might give me it if they reckoned they'd get my tax instead of the UK getting it - very mercenary, the French). Or move to NI and campaign to leave the Union and join the rest of Ireland. I would probably do none of those things in the (extremely unlikely, sadly, in my view) event that our current prime minister acquires the guts to defy the extreme right part of the party and do the sensible Brexit I think she actually wants instead going for the hard Brexit nonsense that she has been talking about to keep the lunatics at bay.
Tom
January 19, 2017 at 1:57 am
TomThomson - Wednesday, January 18, 2017 1:49 PM...I suppose that you will say there is no connection, it's just coincidence.
Nope. The percentage of idiots remain the same. They just believe that their unchanged views have become acceptable. We have to remember that football hooligans, generally speaking, cared nothing for football. And the most famous homophobic, facist skinhead in the 80s was and is gay. What has happened is that the media (yes, not just TV Mr Pedantic!!!) have expressed an unacceptable view, as often is the case, but now on an entirely unpalatable subject.
Apart from at work in a progressive liberal environment, the views I hear are also of my mother and here friends. And my friends not in IT. And people in pubs etc.
The campaign by politicains, the media and so called experts was less than poor. It was misinformation on the grandest scale. Only in the last couple of days were there people publically providing information that was fact and evidence based. Even the govenment spent millions on a ridiculous pamphlet that was biased and twisting facts. And then there was the bus.
I am sick of people claiming that it is unfair because that majority vote of 52% is less than half the population.
I am sick of people claiming that anyone who voted leave is ignorant.
I am sick of people claiming that anyone who voted leave is racist.
I am sick of people claiming that anyone who voted leave is selfish.
I am sick of people claiming that anyone who voted leave is wrong.
And I voted remain.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 19, 2017 at 9:39 am
Gary Varga Thursday 19 Jan
What is unfair is that it's one rule for an English majority in 2016 when it was a completely different rule for a Scottish majority in 1979.
And also of course that the English politicians lied to Scotland in the recent independence referendum, saying the UK would remain in the EU and an independent Scotland wouldn't be allowed to join it, and now they are reneging on that clear commitment to remain in.
We Scots remember 1979 - we had a big majority of those who voted in the devolution referendum, but because the YES vote was fewer than 40% of all eligible voters it was treated as insufficient to justify a major change, and the devolution act was abandoned, leaving us stuck without devolution for another couple of decades. Now the LEAVE votes amount to less than 40% of the eligible voters (less than 30% of the population, but I've never seen the proportion of population mentioned by anyone but you) so now less that 40% is plenty to force a major change because it's right wing Englishmen that want it, and to hell with the majorities agains LEAVE in Scotland, NI, and Gibralter. Now a very short time after Scotland was bludgeoned into voting to stay in the Union by an English threat to veto any application from an independent Scotland to join the EU, we have voted by large majority (62% as opposed to lthe leave majority of much less than that in England) that does represent more than 40% of the eligible voters in Scotland but we're being dragged out of the EU against our will by a bunch of English politicians who will do anything as long as Murdoch likes it. Try thinking hard about that, instead of listening to English extreme right-wing politicians, and you'll see how a Scotsman can see this so-called "overwhelming majority" as nothing more that a deliberately false description of the result. Less than 52% of votes is NOT an overwhelming majority, and in fact there is a very solid precedent for saying that less that 40% of eligible voters is not enough to mandate any major change (and the 1979 devolution would have been a pretty minor change compared to leaving the EU).
Anyway, if the PM continues as her latest story indicates and we have a real hard Brexit instead of something softer we will probably discover in about 27 months' time that the remain campaign's prophecies of economic doom and disaster weren't scare-mongering after all, because we will effectively lose access to the common market. This isn't because the tariffs imposed would keep us out. That idea is nonsense - the pound has fallen enough that even when account is taken of our increased sterling costs due to the lower pound our prices including those tariffs although higher than before in sterling would be lower in Euros or whatever currency an EU country uses. We will lose access because we will have removed from our law a pile of regulations and standards and there's no reason certifications from a British government body should be accepted if the standards and regulatory conformance being certified is no longer part of British law.
Tom
January 19, 2017 at 10:05 am
TomThomson - Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:39 AMI am sick of people claiming that it is unfair because that majority vote of 52% is less than half the population.What is unfair is that it's one rule for an English majority in 2016 when it was a completely different rule for a Scottish majority in 1979.
And also of course that the English politicians lied to Scotland in the recent independence referendum, saying the UK would remain in the EU and an independent Scotland wouldn't be allowed to join it, and now they are reneging on that clear commitment to remain in.We Scots remember 1979 - we had a big majority of those who voted in the devolution referendum, but because the YES vote was fewer than 40% of all eligible voters it was treated as insufficient to justify a major change, and the devolution act was abandoned, leaving us stuck without devolution for another couple of decades. Now the LEAVE votes amount to less than 40% of the eligible voters (less than 30% of the population, but I've never seen the proportion of population mentioned by anyone but you) so now less that 40% is plenty to force a major change because it's right wing Englishmen that want it, and to hell with the majorities agains LEAVE in Scotland, NI, and Gibralter. Now a very short time after Scotland was bludgeoned into voting to stay in the Union by an English threat to veto any application from an independent Scotland to join the EU, we have voted by large majority (62% as opposed to lthe leave majority of much less than that in England) that does represent more than 40% of the eligible voters in Scotland but we're being dragged out of the EU against our will by a bunch of English politicians who will do anything as long as Murdoch likes it. Try thinking hard about that, instead of listening to English extreme right-wing politicians, and you'll see how a Scotsman can see this so-called "overwhelming majority" as nothing more that a deliberately false description of the result. Less than 52% of votes is NOT an overwhelming majority, and in fact there is a very solid precedent for saying that less that 40% of eligible voters is not enough to mandate any major change (and the 1979 devolution would have been a pretty minor change compared to leaving the EU).
Anyway, if the PM continues as her latest story indicates and we have a real hard Brexit instead of something softer we will probably discover in about 27 months' time that the remain campaign's prophecies of economic doom and disaster weren't scare-mongering after all, because we will effectively lose access to the common market. This isn't because the tariffs imposed would keep us out. That idea is nonsense - the pound has fallen enough that even when account is taken of our increased sterling costs due to the lower pound our prices including those tariffs although higher than before in sterling would be lower in Euros or whatever currency an EU country uses. We will lose access because we will have removed from our law a pile of regulations and standards and there's no reason certifications from a British government body should be accepted if the standards and regulatory conformance being certified is no longer part of British law.
"Try thinking hard about that, instead of listening to English extreme right-wing politicians"? Really? Somewhat patronising, very unlike you and totally uncalled for. This is the kind of assumptive vitriol I am talking about.
I have never used the term "overwhelming majority"
As for "unfair is that it's one rule for an English majority in 2016 when it was a completely different rule for a Scottish majority in 1979" this should have been clearly set out by all sides and the government BEFORE the referendum. I do understand that different rules have been applied at different times. I agree that a single definition, or at least one selected from a fixed set of definitions, for results should be stated in advance and used.
In stating that "English politicians lied to Scotland in the recent independence referendum, saying the UK would remain in the EU and an independent Scotland wouldn't be allowed to join it" you are probably correct or they just stated the context of that time. The Brexit referendum was not on the cards at that time. Of course, it could be the former as I am somewhat cynical.
There were many places with "majorities agains LEAVE" but it was an overall decision. Always would be. How could it be otherwise? Any other places come to my mind? Yes. London for example. Yes, London in England. (My turn to be patronising???)
And it has already been stated that the vast majority of "a pile of regulations and standards" will not be revoked. I think that the claim that these will be removed is as much to be believed as the NHS funding statement on the side of the bus i.e. unbelievable.
It seems like too many people are selecting what facts they want to portray after the result. Too little facts were discussed before.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 20, 2017 at 5:13 pm
Gary Varga - Thursday, January 19, 2017 10:05 AMTomThomson - Thursday, January 19, 2017 9:39 AMI am sick of people claiming that it is unfair because that majority vote of 52% is less than half the population.What is unfair is that it's one rule for an English majority in 2016 when it was a completely different rule for a Scottish majority in 1979.
And also of course that the English politicians lied to Scotland in the recent independence referendum, saying the UK would remain in the EU and an independent Scotland wouldn't be allowed to join it, and now they are reneging on that clear commitment to remain in.We Scots remember 1979 - we had a big majority of those who voted in the devolution referendum, but because the YES vote was fewer than 40% of all eligible voters it was treated as insufficient to justify a major change, and the devolution act was abandoned, leaving us stuck without devolution for another couple of decades. Now the LEAVE votes amount to less than 40% of the eligible voters (less than 30% of the population, but I've never seen the proportion of population mentioned by anyone but you) so now less that 40% is plenty to force a major change because it's right wing Englishmen that want it, and to hell with the majorities agains LEAVE in Scotland, NI, and Gibralter. Now a very short time after Scotland was bludgeoned into voting to stay in the Union by an English threat to veto any application from an independent Scotland to join the EU, we have voted by large majority (62% as opposed to lthe leave majority of much less than that in England) that does represent more than 40% of the eligible voters in Scotland but we're being dragged out of the EU against our will by a bunch of English politicians who will do anything as long as Murdoch likes it. Try thinking hard about that, instead of listening to English extreme right-wing politicians, and you'll see how a Scotsman can see this so-called "overwhelming majority" as nothing more that a deliberately false description of the result. Less than 52% of votes is NOT an overwhelming majority, and in fact there is a very solid precedent for saying that less that 40% of eligible voters is not enough to mandate any major change (and the 1979 devolution would have been a pretty minor change compared to leaving the EU).
Anyway, if the PM continues as her latest story indicates and we have a real hard Brexit instead of something softer we will probably discover in about 27 months' time that the remain campaign's prophecies of economic doom and disaster weren't scare-mongering after all, because we will effectively lose access to the common market. This isn't because the tariffs imposed would keep us out. That idea is nonsense - the pound has fallen enough that even when account is taken of our increased sterling costs due to the lower pound our prices including those tariffs although higher than before in sterling would be lower in Euros or whatever currency an EU country uses. We will lose access because we will have removed from our law a pile of regulations and standards and there's no reason certifications from a British government body should be accepted if the standards and regulatory conformance being certified is no longer part of British law.
"Try thinking hard about that, instead of listening to English extreme right-wing politicians"? Really? Somewhat patronising, very unlike you and totally uncalled for. This is the kind of assumptive vitriol I am talking about.
I have never used the term "overwhelming majority"
As for "unfair is that it's one rule for an English majority in 2016 when it was a completely different rule for a Scottish majority in 1979" this should have been clearly set out by all sides and the government BEFORE the referendum. I do understand that different rules have been applied at different times. I agree that a single definition, or at least one selected from a fixed set of definitions, for results should be stated in advance and used.
In stating that "English politicians lied to Scotland in the recent independence referendum, saying the UK would remain in the EU and an independent Scotland wouldn't be allowed to join it" you are probably correct or they just stated the context of that time. The Brexit referendum was not on the cards at that time. Of course, it could be the former as I am somewhat cynical.
There were many places with "majorities agains LEAVE" but it was an overall decision. Always would be. How could it be otherwise? Any other places come to my mind? Yes. London for example. Yes, London in England. (My turn to be patronising???)
And it has already been stated that the vast majority of "a pile of regulations and standards" will not be revoked. I think that the claim that these will be removed is as much to be believed as the NHS funding statement on the side of the bus i.e. unbelievable.
It seems like too many people are selecting what facts they want to portray after the result. Too little facts were discussed before.
Gaz, I guess you haven't heard the speech May made on Tueesday. She stated that a completely new Free Trade Agreement with the EU would be agreed within 2 years and anyway if it weren't we could get by fine without one. She appears to be a bit unaware of what she's talking about - talks of leaving the single market at the same time of having a freet trade agreement with the EU (which would make it a member of the single market); maybe she just intends leaving the customs union and staying in the single market - but that implies retaining freedom of movement, since that's built into European law as a condition of membership of the single market and it's one of the laws that can't be changed if any member objects. She also says there'll be an end to freedom of movement but we'll still maintain the Common Travel Area with Ireland (so people can presunmably just come into Britain via Ireland if they are anywhere in the EU).
I didn't mean to sugest that you called the majority "overwhelming", that was some of the Tory ministers.
One thing that makes me utterly distrustful of politicians is that English MPs of all parties are claiming that Brexit is not grounds for a further Scottish independence referendum. As it was the fear that England would use its veto to prevent Scotland joining teh EU that swung people into voting no, Brexit looks to me like something that effectively invalidates the result so a new referendum on Scotland's exit from the parliamentary union is likely to happen pretty soon and I suspect the result will be different from last time.
Tom
January 20, 2017 at 7:42 pm
I don't live in Europe, but a 52% vote is a majority no matter where you live.
Another altruism is that politicians lie. I don't care if we're talking about Brexit or a local election in a city in South Dakota. It's a fact of life.
The media, assumptive language, and baseless lies is a conversation that causes my blood to boil...and this is where I walk away.
January 21, 2017 at 6:40 am
Ed Wagner - Friday, January 20, 2017 7:42 PMI don't live in Europe, but a 52% vote is a majority no matter where you live.
Another altruism is that politicians lie. I don't care if we're talking about Brexit or a local election in a city in South Dakota. It's a fact of life.The media, assumptive language, and baseless lies is a conversation that causes my blood to boil...and this is where I walk away.
52% of votes cast counted as a minority in the 1979 devolution referendum for Scotland, since it wasn't a big enough majority. 52% of votes being YES is usually a NO majority in any referendum in Switzerland since by law all eligible voters not voting are counted as NO votes (obviously if 100% of eligible people vote and 52% of them vote YES the YES votes win - but who ever heard of a 100% voter turnout?). So your statement that 52% is a majority wherever you live is clearly not true, unles you mean 52% of all eligible voters rather than 52% of votes. The Brexit referendum's "majority" was about 37% of eligible voters, which is not a majority in a referendum in Switzerland (because it is not at least 1 vote more than 50%) and was not a majority in Britain (because it was less than 40%) when English politicians didn't want it to be but now it is a majority in Britain because English politicians do want it to be.
Even in the USA 52% of votes in favour of a constitutional amendment used to be not an adequate majority in the USA and I haven't heard of any recent amendment to Article 5 to change that, (two thirds in each house required to send the amendment to the states; three quarters of all states have to ratify to enforce the amendment). two thirds is rather more than 52%, and so is 75%. Similar rules (the actual numbers vary from country to country) apply pretty-much throughout Europe except in Britain.
Tom
January 21, 2017 at 11:51 am
TomThomson - Saturday, January 21, 2017 6:40 AMEd Wagner - Friday, January 20, 2017 7:42 PMI don't live in Europe, but a 52% vote is a majority no matter where you live.
Another altruism is that politicians lie. I don't care if we're talking about Brexit or a local election in a city in South Dakota. It's a fact of life.The media, assumptive language, and baseless lies is a conversation that causes my blood to boil...and this is where I walk away.
52% of votes cast counted as a minority in the 1979 devolution referendum for Scotland, since it wasn't a big enough majority. 52% of votes being YES is usually a NO majority in any referendum in Switzerland since by law all eligible voters not voting are counted as NO votes (obviously if 100% of eligible people vote and 52% of them vote YES the YES votes win - but who ever heard of a 100% voter turnout?). So your statement that 52% is a majority wherever you live is clearly not true, unles you mean 52% of all eligible voters rather than 52% of votes. The Brexit referendum's "majority" was about 37% of eligible voters, which is not a majority in a referendum in Switzerland (because it is not at least 1 vote more than 50%) and was not a majority in Britain (because it was less than 40%) when English politicians didn't want it to be but now it is a majority in Britain because English politicians do want it to be.
Even in the USA 52% of votes in favour of a constitutional amendment used to be not an adequate majority in the USA and I haven't heard of any recent amendment to Article 5 to change that, (two thirds in each house required to send the amendment to the states; three quarters of all states have to ratify to enforce the amendment). two thirds is rather more than 52%, and so is 75%. Similar rules (the actual numbers vary from country to country) apply pretty-much throughout Europe except in Britain.
I was talking about a majority of votes. Tom, you've taught me something new, so thank you. I've never heard of counting voters who don't vote as NO votes, but it would certainly change things - a lot. I guess most of the elections (corrupt elections excluded, of course) figure that if you don't voice an opinion by voting, your opinion doesn't count - literally. There are some voting systems, such as (in the US) Constitutional amendments and overriding a presidential veto, that requires more than a simply majority. I'm sure other countries have their own situations where more than a simple majority is required in some cases. So, while anything > 50.0% qualifies as a majority, it may not qualify to pass legislation.
I've never in my life heard of anything even close to 100% voter turnout. In minor US elections, we're lucky to hit 20% turnout. Presidential elections get more, but nowhere close to 100%. Then again, the percentages reported are based on the number of registered voters. Since not all people even register to vote, the actual percentage will never be know. On a personal note, I registered to vote as soon as I was able and I've never missed an opportunity to vote in my life, even including the minor ones.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply