Jump to content

Why don't you vote in this poll?

helene_t

By helene_t
in The Water Cooler

 Share

With whom do you agree?  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. With whom do you agree?

    • Sceptic and/or Mike777
      1
    • Cherdano and/or Gnome
      7
    • They both (all) have equally valid points
      0
    • I'm not sufficiently informed about the issue
      3
    • I'm biased because of a relation with one of the four
      0
    • I'm biased because I hold shares in a ballot machine factory
      0
    • I abstained because otherwise helene would nail me
      2
    • My religion does not allow me to vote
      2
    • I have zero bridge credentials
      11
    • As a contrarian I only vote in polls with a "no" option
      1
    • I saved my ballot ticket for writing an interesting hand on the back
      2
    • I voted but I won't tell you for whom
      1
    • I abstained for some other reason
      3
    • I abstained but I won't say why
      5
    • I don't understand this poll
      10
    • Other
      6

Recommended Posts

paulg

paulg

Posted
Posted

Americans, democracy and voting that does not attain it. Was that the problem?

 

Time to come back into the Commonwealth and get it right ....

 

By BBC Scotland's political editor

 

On the night of the Scottish elections in May, I was angry. Angry on behalf of the voting public.

 

What a guddle! They couldn’t get the postal ballots out in time, the voting papers for Holyrood were so complicated that folk couldn’t make sense of them - and, if people contrived to overcome these hurdles, then the authorities couldn’t count the blasted votes with their brand shiny new system.

 

[...]

 

But still one phrase jumps out from Mr Gould’s excellent and thorough report. The voter, he says, was “treated as an afterthought” in planning and organising the May 3 elections.

 

The prime concern of politicians was . . . politicians. Quite.

 

And the instant reaction of the political parties? Blame rivals, exonerate themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
helene_t

helene_t

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I did vote in this poll, but I had a hanging chad so my vote went to Buchanan.

Helene, Did you use the designer of Florida's election ballets by any chance?

No, I couldn't get it running under Wine. On advice from Gerardo I downloaded an open-source clone instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mr1303

mr1303

Posted
Posted

Well, I voted for Arend and Matt, since on this issue I think they are right. If your position is one where you are expected to produce an opinion based on the balance of the individual argument and not because of pre-biases, if you have significant pre-biases, then you should not be in a position to make the decision.

 

Whether or not people who declare themselves unable to make a fair decision should be replaced or not is another issue, and I shall not comment on this at this time.

 

As an example, take the case of a murder prosecution. You happen to be the mother of the defendent. Are you suitable to sit on the jury to decide whether or not the accused is guilty?

 

How about the mother of the victim?

 

I think this proves that in some cases abstaining is appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sceptic

sceptic

Posted
Posted
As an example, take the case of a murder prosecution. You happen to be the mother of the defendent. Are you suitable to sit on the jury to decide whether or not the accused is guilty?

 

How about the mother of the victim?

 

I think this proves that in some cases abstaining is appropriate.

 

They dont abstain the step down and another juror found???????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cherdano

cherdano

Posted
Posted
As an example, take the case of a murder prosecution. You happen to be the mother of the defendent. Are you suitable to sit on the jury to decide whether or not the accused is guilty?

 

How about the mother of the victim?

 

I think this proves that in some cases abstaining is appropriate.

 

They dont abstain the step down and another juror found???????????

Maybe there is a difference between a BoD that has to make many decisions, and a jury that essentially only has to make one decision?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mr1303

mr1303

Posted
Posted

What's the difference? Apart from whether or not the abstainer is (should be) replaced or not, which as I said in my previous post, was an issue that I was not commenting on.

 

If your argument is that those who abstained should be replaced by someone else, that is a fair point. I do not have enough information on the case (or more specifically on the USBF rules and regulations etc) to comment on the feasibility of this.

 

If your argument is that people should always vote in situations regardless of other circumstances then I disagree.

 

Mike said the following:

 

"Matt I was just thinking of this situation.. Say one of these women was your daughter....Fully disclose this but vote...do not abstain......

 

Voting for your daughter is fair.....it is not unfair or unjust...

 

If people do not like it....kick me out of office....."

 

As far as I can tell, Mike's view is that a juror who is related to the defendent (or victim) would be a suitable juror. It is my view that he or she would not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sceptic

sceptic

Posted
Posted

People on a comittee should always vote on the things that concern the comittee, if they do not, then what is the point of being on the comittee

 

I just find it hard to accept, that someone who cant make a fair decision based on the facts is on a comittee

 

I have worked with lots of people that make decisions as soon as a hard one comes up they are off like a shot, life is full of hard decisions, if you are not prepared to do what is right then I think that shows lack of character.

 

The trouble with abstainers is that the decision that gets made if it turns bad, can then hide behind the abstain and desolve all responsibility and this is what my main gripe is, you see it all the time with politicians and comittee members....

 

A judge will stand down from a case if he or she is in conflict or personally involved, but they are replaced, I have no issue with this at all

 

I agree in the post why Jan Martell and the other lady abstained, I just have issue with the reason she had to abstain, in a complaint, she should never have been involved at all, even I know that and I am not a lawyer, she should never have been on the comittee dealing with complaints at all as they are the next point of the procedure and can not be involved

 

as for the guy at the end, he is letting the comittee down, what sort of team do the USA run. they are technically holding him to ransom, do not vote or we will make your wifes life difficult, because this seems to be the issue that effected him

 

 

sounds like cowardice to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jtfanclub

jtfanclub

Posted
Posted
As far as I can tell, Mike's view is that a juror who is related to the defendent (or victim) would be a suitable juror. It is my view that he or she would not be.

Jurors are different- they are random people who are not made responsible for anything.

 

I would say that absoutely, a judge should be able to rule on a relative who is a defendant. If they can't, they aren't much of a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...