On a massive turn out of over 90%.
Get the whole of Argentina involved too...
It's the only way to ensure a statistically significant sample size.
that'll save money
Thank fuck those bunch of nutters live 7,000 miles away...
Isn't there a falklander who posts on here? Their posts were really interesting in the last thread on this.
i don't think there is anything wrong with celebrating such a thing.
Trolling worthy of CG
and misread the ballot sheet.
I doubt there is much else to do for fun in the Falklands...
They were convinced everyone there was on board
They have no mandate to demand it back if the population are 100% (99.8%) against it.
It's like us holing onto Scotland or the Rock of Gibralter after they voted unitely against UK rule.
It makes things fucking awkward.
but that's Argentina's take on it.
Not a thing.
doesn't mean anything.
If there is a group of people and 99.8% of them want something - no matter how small the group (within reason as 2 people this makes no sense) there is enough of them to be certain of what they want.
That is not under debate. It's very clear what they want. If you compare this % to say a % outcome in a UK wide election, then the stats become meaningless.
That's where you're confused.
But if someone from another town/country/school slags it off you'll defend it to the hilt
and 99.8% said they want to be part of UK - and that doesn't count?!
but 1,513 also isn't 90% of 2,000. either way. too small to say i think
of those eligible to vote.
That's 75% of the entire population. Probably more for actual voter turnout. That's amazing for any vote, ever. Of this mass turnout, only 3 people voted against?
And you're still saying it's too small?
I can't see a scenario in any election ever about anything where it could be bigger.
Of course it matters. You can't rule out what an entire electorate say because there's not that many of them.
Anyway, by the time you get into the hundreds, percentages are a fine indication of the result.
If you're looking at 3 people, then percentages aren't.
But we're looking at 1513 votes. The entire electorate.
a determinative say in your own life decisions because the sample size of one is statistically insignificant.
it's the entire electorate.
when weighted properly gives an error rate of only +/- 3%
It's 2%, 1000 is 3%. More here... http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4318
ipsos mori political monitors are done with just over a thousand people, and those are deemed pretty accurate at measuring a population of 65m+.
also I'm pretty sure you get diminishing bonuses going beyond a thousand?
Listen to him when it comes to stats
I shit him.
Now Japes is saying there's a population of 2841 and only 1513 voted?
so I assume that's what was meant.
that's my point
Your sample size of people ^thising you is less than double figures. You're making a mockery of your own argument here
I'm a sham
And thus by your logic, local democracy is meaningless.
low turnouts are definitely a problem though. you can't really gauge public opinion properly based on low turn outs. like with the PCC elections
it doesn't stop you spewing it out and then throwing a fit if someone says it's garbage
but just in case you're not and are having a trans-ischemic attack or something then wait for it to pass and think about what you're saying.
It's not a sample - it's all of them. It's a little like suggesting that if one woman says no to sex you can disregard her view on the basis that there's not enough women in the sample group for it to count.
might start using that
and I said in my above post that the eleigilbe to vote was gonig to be less than this (it turns out it's 1700) so I can't see what I said wrong.
Admittedly, it was assumption, but the maths is still right.
the total population of the islands is around 2800, but that includes kids, the military and those who are effectively disenfranchised (less than 7 years residency). That accounts for the 1100 or so who aren't in the electorate
so turnout is above 90%.
This is good stuff :)
I just made the assumption it'd be slightly less than 2000. All these figures posted here came after what I wrote.
I guess it's oil contractors or something. Unless they're really fecund down there.
Cat_Race really trolled the fuck out of this thread. CG couldn’t get close to this in a politics thread nowadays.
it's like going on to a bus and shitting yourself
and if anyone gags going 'lol! trolled!'
The shitting yourself stunt is less crushingly dull.
I'm fucking king of the trolls!
of it, theres oil involved
it has little to do with voting.
i guess argentina just has to bide its time, until the uk military capability has degraded to the effect that they could not hold the islands
also i like how argentina dismissed the vote results weeks before it had even take place as they knew what the outcome would be. I cant even remeber what excuse they used to dismiss the vote but I remember it being stupid
it ISN'T important to them what the outcome is, because they approach it from the position that the people voting have no right to be there.
it's importance is in International Relations.
have no right to be there? that doesnt make sense, fair enough if we were talking about the original people who settled but that was time ago, people have settled there and been born there, its their home
argentinas stance on it just seems stupid to me, i cant see the logic
and my kids have a vote on whether they should stay, I'm sure you wouldn't really care what the outcome was. You'd just want your house back.
of the situation, that would only stand if say last week, british people settled there, they have been there for a long long time, argentinas time to do anything about it has long gone. back to your analogy though, it would only make sense if say 200 years back you and your kids invaded , i did fuck all to get my house back, never mentioned it for 200 years then suddenly decided i wanted it back even though generations of people had been born and lived in it
But that would be the argentine perspective.
no one invaded argentinas house
we're trying to explain why Argentina wouldn't care.
just trying to explain why Argentina won't give a fuck what the outcome of the vote is
Different generation, same country/occupying population.
(I don't give a fig about the Falklands, but it's a pretty straightforward argument, even if it is bollocks)
the Argentine population's ancestors invaded South America centuries ago, guys.
It's your neighbour's house, from before you lived there (iirc)
I agree that from a humanist point of view the people with the most rights in such disputes should be the people/families that might have lived there all their lives, possibly for generations......the proximity of that land to whatever is irrelevant.
It is not as if the current islanders or their forebears actually evicted any argentinians to gain the land....they did not, as far as we are all aware the falklands were uninhabited by humans and therefore no country has a claim to them.......however since there are some people on there that have lived there and their parents also.....then these people are the ones who have the most humanist right to decide their own destiney, if the law does not recognise that then it is wrong.....simples..............however what is right according to humanist principles is NOT the most important thing to almost all governments (including our own and argentina).
So it doesnt really matter what we think or even what the falklanders think (unless the UN gets some sort of proper backing to do the right thing in all cases)
Perhaps Argentina could win the a PR battle by convincing the falklanders to all want to leave by offering them all £1,000,000 to leave, that's only £2billion after all. And suggest that the oil extraction be carried out by a conglomerate of Argentine and British companies (Britains expertise in extracting oil from high seas being rather useful.......(this is not gulf of mexico drilling operation))
About 1500 people that is, not 90%
there now let's do it properly
When I went to Argentina for a few weeks, I just couldn't get over how much of a huge issue this still is there. The guy from the council who gave us a lift everyday wore his Malvinas veterans badge, and actually had a Malvinas sign in the back of the van we were travelling in...
it's an issue that is only whipped up when desperate right-wing governments in both countries need it to be, and Argentina's had a fair few of those over the years. Fortunately for their government at the moment, we have one too, against which they can carry out their sabre-rattling.
Even you can't use this against the Coalition. Even you.
Who do you think called the vote and has been reacting to the Argentinian taunts? Who's been pressing for (and getting) lots of jingoistic articles in the press over here? Who's really not trying to defuse the situation?
Do you really think they would ever do anything without the UK government giving them approval to do so? In this instance it's pretty well accepted that the UK government encouraged them to hold the vote in the first place.
You'd have to be pretty dim to think that it would lay the matter to rest.
It allows the UK Government to legitimise the Self-determination argument internationally.
And if they really wanted to legitimise the self-determination argument, they'd have made sure that it was UN-backed.
Pre 2009 there were no taunts to react to, so well done Brown kept his mouth shut whilst no one was listening to him anyway. Interestingly Kirchner's husband (the previous president til 2007) didn't really *taunt* at all. Are you really saying that someone like Blair wouldn;t have used them if they existed? Really?
With due repect, I don;t know where they articles are *really* coming from, and either do you.
(Blair, whilst still in office saying the war was right, with no provocation to do so from the Argentinians:
How do you diffuse the current situation? Ignore the Argentinans everytime they say something silly? Maybe, but you're going to get asked the question by the press, and the current line is that it is up to the islanders, and we'll defend against territorial annexation. Which is what we'd say about Shetland, or Wales, or Manchester if the question was asked.
and that's why it took me aback- i'd expect it now.
So that's (presumably) why Blair wrote that article.
The referendum was just unnecessary, that's all.
But what I say surely goes against it? It's clearly very much in the forefront of the minds of normal argentine people.
Bread and circuses, innit?
And then leave Argentina the desolate pile of rocks that it keeps banging on about?
Did something get deleted?
and spent a couple of weeks there last year/year before. He said it was awful. Grey, muddy, boring, freezing cold. Like a shit, unusually large northern commuter village deposited off the tip of the actual fucking antarctic.
So all that's left is its strategic location atop possible oil reserves. Argentina are basically claiming it via proximity alone(?), where the British claim is based on what looks like simply being last man standing in an absurd succession of retreating imperial powers using the infallible method of leaving a plaque behind to let everyone know not to mess with their stuff while they're gone. And, of course, successfully leaving behind an actual population who identified as British. But even if the islanders are just a strategic lever, a tool to be used by our government to continue to claim sovreignty, does that disqualify the wishes of the inhabitants? Invasion, and inhabitation, isn't that just how it goes? Weird times. Can't really see how this is ever going to resolve itself, especially as it's the go-to hot button for feisty Argentine leaders to distract their populace from any internal problems with every couple of years.
Entirely agree with the last sentence...though plenty of the Argentines I met when I was there recently (whilst still insisting on Argentina's right to the Malvinas), are more angry as the ineptitude of their own government over the past few decades...
in order to not be hypocrites
as a Falkland Islander it has been an incredible 24 hours. Bit of a mix of comments here (couple of which are quite offensive) but I'd hope that the referendum result will highlight our right to self determination and that we deserve the right to choose our own future. It's been a difficult couple of years with a large aggressive neighbour of 40 million people bullying a population of 3000 trying effectively to install an economic blockade on us. People now feel really positive about the future thanks to the result.