Help Tactical voting steer required

[fred c]

"The will of 69% of the 66% who voted. Which is the will of 46% of the people of Hartlepool. All done in my head and thus not  absolutely accurate."

Yep you got it 69% of the 66% that voted......I can't see how even you can include the 34% who didn't bother to get their a***'s out to vote.

69% voted leave....31% voted remain......34% didn't bother to vote.

That's democracy for you

[akarjl2]

 correct

[mk1]

I can't see how even you can include the 34% who didn't bother to get their a***'s out to vote.
69% voted leave....31% voted remain......34% didn't bother to vote.

That's democracy for you

In rounded numbers so not 100% accurate:

46% voted Leave.
21% voted stay
34% did not vote.

Thats maths for you.

[Inspector Knacker]

No, that's manipulative maths from you and your remain friends. You know the system is based on those who vote and to try this con is a sign of desperation. Doubtless if the figures were reversed 2016 you'd look like the cat who got the cream with every justification...But you didn't you lost. The cat who got the mouses tail and it's still stuck in your craw.

[fred c]

46% voted Leave.
21% voted stay
34% did not vote.

So 46% voted to leave......21% voted to remain......Ok so we can count the 67% of the electorate that bothered to vote.

So 34% couldn't be bothered to vote, so why do we need to incorporate the 34% of non participating individuals into any equation about a decision that requires a vote to come to a conclusion on how to formulate a policy

[Inspector Knacker]

So 34% couldn't be bothered to vote, so why do we need to incorporate the 34% of non participating individuals into any equation about a decision that requires a vote to come to a conclusion on how to formulate a policy

Nowt new. It's just muddying the waters, builds*#t baffles brains logic,  beloved of the 'I lost but the majority are wrong' congregation of the church of remain.

[mk1]

It's just muddying the waters................................

............so why do we need to incorporate the 34% of non participating individuals.................
............. that's manipulative maths...................

One has to wonder why the long-established (and politically neutral) rules of arithmetic are under attack. I guess if you are convinced  you are part of a mythical  'overwhelming majority'  evidence to the contrary is always going to come as a bit of a shock.

[kevplumb]

am i the only one missing something here those figures add up to 101% 

[Hartlepudlion]

I agree with Kevplumb 101%.

You got it wrong again mk1. According to the rules of arithmetic 100% is the max. At least it  was in my school. I suppose if you have a degree, that's close enough.

[mk1]

am i the only one missing something here............

Yes you did indeed miss something. This:

In rounded numbers so not 100% accurate:

Though it is the average no one has ever had 2.4 children.

[mk1]

According to the rules of arithmetic 100% is the max. At least it  was in my school. I suppose if you have a degree, that's close enough.

Perhaps swapping  a good pair of reading glasses for the degree might be a better option?

[Inspector Knacker]

It's just muddying the waters................................

............so why do we need to incorporate the 34% of non participating individuals.................
............. that's manipulative maths...................

One has to wonder why the long-established (and politically neutral) rules of arithmetic are under attack. I guess if you are convinced  you are part of a mythical  'overwhelming majority'  evidence to the contrary is always going to come as a bit of a shock.

The 'long established and politically neutral rules of mathematics' are being twisted by YOU to suit your own agenda.
Doubtless you think it's clever but only you think it.
I note your reference to the 'overwhelming' majority, your contempt bubbles as you imagine yourself as some enlightened Don Quixote figure tilting at the Windmill of the the great unwashed. I doubt but you'd ever be part of any overwhelming majority, you appear to believe you are above that sort of thing..

[Inspector Knacker]

According to the rules of arithmetic 100% is the max. At least it  was in my school. I suppose if you have a degree, that's close enough.

Perhaps swapping  a good pair of reading glasses for the degree might be a better option?

Depends what the degree is in.

[akarjl2]

Though it is the average no one has ever had 2.4 children.

When it comes to intelligence I can think of at least one politician in aaartlepool (hint) who's parents did= not a full shilling....

[mk1]

When it comes to intelligence I can think of at least one politician in aaartlepool (hint) who's parents did= not a full shilling....

You don't get out much do you?
Most of the politicians in Hartlepool are of limited intellect. The SCAB Cabal  barely reach double-digit IQ as a group and the UKIP councillors were hilariously thick. Politics has become so tribal that blind loyalty to a single issue/party/ movement is the only thing that matters and if that means you have to do and say obviously  stupid things for your cause then stupid things will be done and defended to the death no matter how blatant the stupidity.