Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 5]
Discussion
Gladers01 said:
Most counties in this country seem to end in Shire and named after the county town such as Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire etc with a few exceptions like Wiltshire and Hampshire, why is this and why do we not have a Kentshire or Surreyshire for example? 
Any non-metropolitan county is a shire county. The word (sort of) means 'self governing'.Some counties existed or were named before the idea of 'shire' came about so never adopted it as part of their name. For example, Essex was a region before it was a county, its name morphing from 'Kingdom of East Saxons'. County Councils as regions of defined political governance only came into being in the late 19th century. Where no pre-existing name for the region existed, they adopted the same of the main town, followed by 'shire'.
StevieBee said:
Gladers01 said:
Most counties in this country seem to end in Shire and named after the county town such as Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire etc with a few exceptions like Wiltshire and Hampshire, why is this and why do we not have a Kentshire or Surreyshire for example?
Any non-metropolitan county is a shire county. The word (sort of) means 'self governing'.Some counties existed or were named before the idea of 'shire' came about so never adopted it as part of their name. For example, Essex was a region before it was a county, its name morphing from 'Kingdom of East Saxons'. County Councils as regions of defined political governance only came into being in the late 19th century. Where no pre-existing name for the region existed, they adopted the same of the main town, followed by 'shire'.
It's about time some bright spark came up with a solution to online voting in the upcoming general election.
I believe everyone should be obliged to vote, with 'none of the above' being an option. And I get that some vulnerable people could face coercion, but surely this could be overcome in some way.
I believe everyone should be obliged to vote, with 'none of the above' being an option. And I get that some vulnerable people could face coercion, but surely this could be overcome in some way.
Edited by Pitre on Tuesday 18th June 14:10
Pitre said:
It's about time some bright spark came up with a solution to online voting in the upcoming general election.
I believe everyone should be obliged to vote, with 'none of the above' being an option. And I get that some vulnerable people could face coercion, but surely this could be overcome in some way.
I don't think people should be forced to vote, because abstaining is as much a right as voting is. What I think we instead need is more of effort to engage voters such that they *want* to vote and feel that their vote counts and that it means something. So, encourage rather than force. I believe everyone should be obliged to vote, with 'none of the above' being an option. And I get that some vulnerable people could face coercion, but surely this could be overcome in some way.
Forcing people to vote when they don't think it will make a blind bit of difference is the kind of solution more in keeping with Russia or North Korea, in my opinion. Which is just my opinion and you are free to disagree.
Pixel Pusher said:
Does anti perspirant only work on arm pits?
Could you cover your entire body with it and not sweat at all?
There's no reason not to.Could you cover your entire body with it and not sweat at all?
Antiperspirants work by blocking the pores sweat comes out of so will work on anywhere that sweats but only reduces the amount you sweat, not eliminate it completely. Deodorants can also react with sweat to kill bacteria (the cause of the smell) and/or release perfume.
Of course some deodorants are just smelly sprays... Depends on the product.
When you live in hot climates you generally put deodorant on your front and back as well.
StevieBee said:
Gladers01 said:
Most counties in this country seem to end in Shire and named after the county town such as Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire etc with a few exceptions like Wiltshire and Hampshire, why is this and why do we not have a Kentshire or Surreyshire for example?
Any non-metropolitan county is a shire county. The word (sort of) means 'self governing'.Some counties existed or were named before the idea of 'shire' came about so never adopted it as part of their name. For example, Essex was a region before it was a county, its name morphing from 'Kingdom of East Saxons'. County Councils as regions of defined political governance only came into being in the late 19th century. Where no pre-existing name for the region existed, they adopted the same of the main town, followed by 'shire'.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
I don't think people should be forced to vote, because abstaining is as much a right as voting is. What I think we instead need is more of effort to engage voters such that they *want* to vote and feel that their vote counts and that it means something. So, encourage rather than force.
Forcing people to vote when they don't think it will make a blind bit of difference is the kind of solution more in keeping with Russia or North Korea, in my opinion. Which is just my opinion and you are free to disagree.
This, voting is a right and should not be an obligation (or burden).Forcing people to vote when they don't think it will make a blind bit of difference is the kind of solution more in keeping with Russia or North Korea, in my opinion. Which is just my opinion and you are free to disagree.
Australia forces you to vote and all it does is increase the spoiled ballot count and the donkey vote.
A donkey vote is where you rank candidates by the order they appear on the ballot paper (or just put an X in the first box if you only need to select 1). This makes the top box of the ballot paper highly coveted in Australia.
captain_cynic said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
I don't think people should be forced to vote, because abstaining is as much a right as voting is. What I think we instead need is more of effort to engage voters such that they *want* to vote and feel that their vote counts and that it means something. So, encourage rather than force.
Forcing people to vote when they don't think it will make a blind bit of difference is the kind of solution more in keeping with Russia or North Korea, in my opinion. Which is just my opinion and you are free to disagree.
This, voting is a right and should not be an obligation (or burden).Forcing people to vote when they don't think it will make a blind bit of difference is the kind of solution more in keeping with Russia or North Korea, in my opinion. Which is just my opinion and you are free to disagree.
Australia forces you to vote and all it does is increase the spoiled ballot count and the donkey vote.
A donkey vote is where you rank candidates by the order they appear on the ballot paper (or just put an X in the first box if you only need to select 1). This makes the top box of the ballot paper highly coveted in Australia.
A lot of people simply cannot be arsed to go and vote.
Pitre said:
But that's exactly why I said you could vote for 'none of the above' which is effectively not voting.
A lot of people simply cannot be arsed to go and vote.
I think those are two separate things. A lot of people simply cannot be arsed to go and vote.
I do agree that we should have an option to actively abstain (as in the "none of the above" that you mention) rather than spoiling the ballot paper. And so make a differentiation between "turned out to vote and actively abstained" and "did not vote".
However, I do not think compulsory voting is the answer. And, as captain_cynic points out, it would cause its own set of issues.
Pitre said:
But that's exactly why I said you could vote for 'none of the above' which is effectively not voting.
A lot of people simply cannot be arsed to go and vote.
Not really.A lot of people simply cannot be arsed to go and vote.
I don't see the benefit. You're just saying I've voted for my vote to be ignored. If that's what you want why not just stay home?
Plus it does not address the issue of donkey votes.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Pitre said:
It's about time some bright spark came up with a solution to online voting in the upcoming general election.
I believe everyone should be obliged to vote, with 'none of the above' being an option. And I get that some vulnerable people could face coercion, but surely this could be overcome in some way.
I don't think people should be forced to vote, because abstaining is as much a right as voting is. What I think we instead need is more of effort to engage voters such that they *want* to vote and feel that their vote counts and that it means something. So, encourage rather than force. I believe everyone should be obliged to vote, with 'none of the above' being an option. And I get that some vulnerable people could face coercion, but surely this could be overcome in some way.
Forcing people to vote when they don't think it will make a blind bit of difference is the kind of solution more in keeping with Russia or North Korea, in my opinion. Which is just my opinion and you are free to disagree.
I think there should always be a "None of the above" option and if that garners the largest amount of votes, there should be another election and none of the candidates can stand again.
AstonZagato said:
I agree that we should make people feel their vote counts.
I think there should always be a "None of the above" option and if that garners the largest amount of votes, there should be another election and none of the candidates can stand again.
I imagine people will get pretty sick of elections and vote to change that back in short order. I think there should always be a "None of the above" option and if that garners the largest amount of votes, there should be another election and none of the candidates can stand again.
It'll just end up with the parties having a whole bunch of disposable candidates that will just follow orders. If anything that will further entrench tentwo party system.
captain_cynic said:
AstonZagato said:
I agree that we should make people feel their vote counts.
I think there should always be a "None of the above" option and if that garners the largest amount of votes, there should be another election and none of the candidates can stand again.
I imagine people will get pretty sick of elections and vote to change that back in short order. I think there should always be a "None of the above" option and if that garners the largest amount of votes, there should be another election and none of the candidates can stand again.
It'll just end up with the parties having a whole bunch of disposable candidates that will just follow orders. If anything that will further entrench tentwo party system.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff