If, as has been suggested, that option 3 of the "don't mind either way" could be added to the "yes" camp to give credence to the figures, then any passholder who doesn't fill in a ballot form could logically be assumed to be abstaining (rigged poll, not independent etc.) The abstensions are then added to the "No" vote. If option 3 hadn't been included as an option then those abstaining could be deemed to be not bothered either way. NO TO HULL TIGERS
It can be read so many ways, it's a meaningless bag of ****. I don't want the name change. I vote no. Reading anything else into my 'no' is pure guess work.
I voted "NO" to Hull Tigers,and that is all i wanted to vote on. If my "NO" vote is taken to mean anything other than that, then i consider the ballot to be rigged. If when others, vote option 3, and that vote is taken as a "YES", then i will consider the ballot to be rigged. Option 1 voters ? Your'e vote will be added to, by those who chose option 3, and you should consider the ballot to be rigged. Democracy eh ????
If my NO vote were to mean anything else at all, I'd want it to mean a massive thank you very much to the CTWD committee.
Essentially, the correct answer is a combination of all 3 questions. No to Hull Tigers, Allams as owners and we would not be too bothered what they did as owners, given that for the most part what they have done has been good. Lose / Lose.
My view on the 3rd option is that it's inclusion is actually a mistake by the Allams when trying to do something clever. The intention is clearly to combine the "Yes" and "Don't Care" votes to say that the "No" vote is a minority, but if you look at how it's likely to pan out it's more likely to harm the Yes vote than the No vote, and both sides can say that the don't cares don't support the other side. Looking at who will vote each way in the current survey: Yes - people in support of the change No - people against the change DC - everyone else who votes, which will be those who genuinely don't care, and those who are against the change but worried about the Allams walking out (not debating practicalities here) as by voting DC they'll feel they appear to support the Allams (avoiding the damage they fear) without positively backing the change If you take away the DC option for a straight yes or no vote, how many people from that group would vote no? I can't see many where that is the logical way to change, there's no reason you'd vote no in a 2 way vote and not vote no in the current one. There'd be more abstaining from the vote, and there'd certainly be more that would vote yes because they were worried about the perceived consequences of a no vote. So what's happened by including the option is they've unchanged the number of people voting no, reduced the number of people voting yes, and increased the number voting overall. As a hypothetical, if in this 3 way vote there were 40 people against, 30 people in favour, and 30 people who don't care then the no vote would be the biggest individual option, CTWD would be able to say that 70% did not support the change, and obviously AA would be saying 60% weren't against it. So both sides would be claiming majority and it's down to the individual to decide which is the fairer claim. With those same people, the 30 DCs could be 15 that genuinely don't care, and 15 that are against it but scared of consequences. Without the DC option you'd then get 45 in favour and 40 against, with the other 15 not bothering to vote and leaving it to those who do care to decide. AA would actually have an unarguable* majority much more easily by not including it. *ignoring the obvious argument about it being an ultimatum and that making it debateable, I mean in the pure figures that CTWD can't claim a Yes vote for themselves but can argue the DC votes shouldn't count as in favour. -------------------------------------------------- I don't think that's an unreasonable way to predict how both sides will react and will use the results. If I was either side with this I'd be looking to highlight the smallness of the committed vote against rather than the number that voted directly for it. Personally I'd have preferred Yes/No/Don't Care without the whole "with the Allams still here" bollocks attached to intimidate votes by implication. I want to know what % don't care as well as the figure for each side. If it came out 5% in favour, 85% don't care, and 10% against then it'd be a very different situation to 30% in favour, 10% don't care, and 60% against. With the former you'd have to question the value of actually having the debate/campaigning/etc. Take way the DC option and you lose that measure as you polarise the result and potentially allow 2 tiny minorities to determine things. (I don't think it is 2 tiny minorities, but I'd like a fair poll to be able to either support that view or revise my opinion)
