We had a long serious thread not long ago about democracy and voting n stuff.
Nicola Sturgeon deputy leader of the SNP won in yesterdays elections with a majority of 700.
On radio 4 interview she was asked her opinion of the 1200 'spoilt' votes.
Her response was that 'few of those spoilt votes expressed any indication that one party was preferred.......many of those papers were blank.........'I think this is due to the confusion many voters faced with the new system' she said
what cobblers.....if they were confused they wouldnt leave it blank? they would have made an incorrectly marked choice or something.
OK it is not proven that they were all deliberate non votes..........
This is more of a case for having the option 'non of the above'
This is also an example why it is not, as many claim worth voting and spoiling because then it counts as a non vote, because it obviously isnt counted as such, I will be classified as 'confused'
I can understand a politician trying to skew the truth, but when the R4 interviewer (I think it was Andrew Marr) allows them to get aways with it (1200) spoilt papers (mostly blank) allowed to be described as confused rather even suggeswted to her that it might be a protest against all the parties.
At the very least even if he went along with 1200 confused voters.....so confused that they mostly left it blank, surely he should have queried whether if she won by 700 whether the confusion due to a new 'confusing' system should demand a revote.
But he didnt
Because as always the only topic that they want to discuss is a 2 party fight in this case labour vs SNP...nothing else is important or significant..........and this was highbrow R4 ffs
This is why I am so disamoured of the electoral process, no significance is attached to the results other than first past the sodding post.......*******s