Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Not Mike Brown&#039;s Sock" data-source="post: 1038444" data-attributes="member: 72041"><p>Electoral commission has it at about 19% here, up 6% from last year - <a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/public-attitudes" target="_blank">https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/public-attitudes</a> (last use of the word fraud, jus cntrl F and skip down). </p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/voter-identification-pilots/may-2019-voter-identification-pilot-schemes/impact-voters-confidence" target="_blank">https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/voter-identification-pilots/may-2019-voter-identification-pilot-schemes/impact-voters-confidence</a> This is also interesting, but as they say, it is risky to take conclusions from such a small sample size. </p><p></p><p>I'd argue that in your NASA analogy, trying to educate people equates to making the checks around elections more rigorous. If people want to believe dumb ****, prove to them they are wrong. It is so easy to conceptualise how voter fraud could work in our elections at present, especially on that tiny individual level, that it can easily be weaponised to create a trump esque scenario. Don't leave ourselves open to that risk</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Not Mike Brown's Sock, post: 1038444, member: 72041"] Electoral commission has it at about 19% here, up 6% from last year - [URL]https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/public-attitudes[/URL] (last use of the word fraud, jus cntrl F and skip down). [URL]https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/voter-identification-pilots/may-2019-voter-identification-pilot-schemes/impact-voters-confidence[/URL] This is also interesting, but as they say, it is risky to take conclusions from such a small sample size. I'd argue that in your NASA analogy, trying to educate people equates to making the checks around elections more rigorous. If people want to believe dumb ****, prove to them they are wrong. It is so easy to conceptualise how voter fraud could work in our elections at present, especially on that tiny individual level, that it can easily be weaponised to create a trump esque scenario. Don't leave ourselves open to that risk [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
Top