YES 51% N0 49%

[Just_My_Opinion]

For my money id go 65% no 35% yes

You gimme 13/8 on that mr bookmaker ??

I would lay that all day long..........least I'll make money from this agreement.

[headscrewedon]

A tiny majority is a recipe for disaster,thresholds should be introduced to get agreements in.

75% in favour on a 75% turnout as a bare minium?

If those targets had to be met for a yes vote to be carried, what would happen if it was 74.9% in favour on a 74.9% turnout ? Would that mean, under your proposed criteria, it would be considered a No vote ?

Just imagine the uproar if Royal Mail were to turn round on Thursday evening, just as the ballot papers were about to go out, and say 'we'll only consider this ballot to be a No vote if at least 75% of CWU members vote, and at least 75% of those actually vote no as well'. They'd be rightly crucified for 'moving the goalposts', 'vote-rigging' and far worse.

Don't get me wrong, I will be very unhappy if this ballot results in a Yes vote. I'll be particularly angry at those who didn't vote at all . But I will accept the decision, even if it is an exceedingly close result. That's democracy.

Let's just assume we do get a narrow No vote. Would we see people posting on here alleging that the CWU somehow pulled the ballot papers of likely Yes voters, in order to skew the result ? Or demanding a re-count ? I bet we wouldn't !

I respect the right for people to hold a different view to me and, if they see fit, vote Yes to a crap agreement. What makes me absolutely mad is the ones who do not vote at all. How the feck can they moan if the deal goes through ? Equally, how can they moan if they are asked to vote again for a strike (not very likely, admittedly) after we get a No vote ?

Vote Yes or vote No ... but FFS, VOTE !!!

[OnAFlyer]

Around 55-60% yes - never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

[Straight4ward]

headscrewedon wrote "Vote Yes or vote No ... but FFS, VOTE !!!"

Eloquently put Sir.

But to reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, it will be very interesting to see just how many do bother to scratch their mark as it were on the ballot paper.

[drb]

Around 55-60% yes - never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.

Agreed!!!!!!!!

[Big Daz]

A tiny majority is a recipe for disaster,thresholds should be introduced to get agreements in.

75% in favour on a 75% turnout as a bare minium?

If those targets had to be met for a yes vote to be carried, what would happen if it was 74.9% in favour on a 74.9% turnout ? Would that mean, under your proposed criteria, it would be considered a No vote ?

Just imagine the uproar if Royal Mail were to turn round on Thursday evening, just as the ballot papers were about to go out, and say 'we'll only consider this ballot to be a No vote if at least 75% of CWU members vote, and at least 75% of those actually vote no as well'. They'd be rightly crucified for 'moving the goalposts', 'vote-rigging' and far worse.

Don't get me wrong, I will be very unhappy if this ballot results in a Yes vote. I'll be particularly angry at those who didn't vote at all . But I will accept the decision, even if it is an exceedingly close result. That's democracy.

Let's just assume we do get a narrow No vote. Would we see people posting on here alleging that the CWU somehow pulled the ballot papers of likely Yes voters, in order to skew the result ? Or demanding a re-count ? I bet we wouldn't !

I respect the right for people to hold a different view to me and, if they see fit, vote Yes to a crap agreement. What makes me absolutely mad is the ones who do not vote at all. How the feck can they moan if the deal goes through ? Equally, how can they moan if they are asked to vote again for a strike (not very likely, admittedly) after we get a No vote ?

Vote Yes or vote No ... but FFS, VOTE !!!

The answer is yes, it would be classed as a no vote.

Such a system would need to be agreed by conference and RML would be aware that is CWU policy.

Such a system could focus minds to creating agreements that will carry wide spread support and large turnout.

[headscrewedon]

The answer is yes, it would be classed as a no vote.

Such a system would need to be agreed by conference and RML would be aware that is CWU policy.

Such a system could focus minds to creating agreements that will carry wide spread support and large turnout.

With all due respect, Big Daz, such a system would be a recipe for permanent state of flux. You'd never get 75% of ballot papers returned if people knew that not even bothering to cast a vote would, in effect, be highly likely to scupper any agreement .

Anyway, if 75% of a 75% turnout vote Yes under your system, that works out at 56.25% of the total electorate in favour. Still not 'widespread support' by most people's understanding of the phrase, IMHO.

It could just as easily be argued that RML could hold a board meeting and advise the CWU that it is now Group policy that major change will be implemented unless 56.25% of union members vote No

A straight-majority vote such as is currently used at least ensures there IS an outcome, one way or another. Both sides can save face: RM can claim that the ones who didn't use their vote were not opposed to the agreement (or they'd have voted No, right?), and our lot can similarly claim that the ones who didn't use their vote were not in favour of the agreement (or they'd have voted Yes, surely?) and so everybody can claim to have won the vote

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Anyway, if 75% of a 75% turnout vote Yes under your system, that works out at 56.25% of the total electorate in favour. Still not 'widespread support' by most people's understanding of the phrase, IMHO.

In Parliamentary elections that's considered a landslide.

For instance Labours Landslide Election victory of 1997 represented a swing of 10.3% from the Conservative to Labour but Tony Blair's victory had been achieved on the lowest turnout - 71.2% - since the war, and the party had taken a modest 43.2% share of the vote.

56.25% on a 75% turnout would be an undreamed of result for most Political parties.

[headscrewedon]

56.25% on a 75% turnout would be an undreamed of result for most Political parties.

Granted, but isn't that mainly because there's more than two parties the electorate can vote for ?

We only have to say yay or nay !

Perhaps we should 'modernise' our upcoming ballot papers so that there are now four options:

"Yes"
"No"
"Don't Know"
and finally
"I've been on strike, losing money in the process, yet I still can't be @rsed to express an opinion on this deal"

[TrueBlueTerrier]