Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
So, in summary, your proposition is by not doing something at somewhere where they were observing, they could have potentially affected something at somewhere else where they weren’t observing, thus potentially changing something that they couldn’t see or confirm was being changed, whilst having no idea if the possible figure of 12% was happening?
The general principle of you can’t properly measure natural behaviour by not being there to measure it…
btw, the Electoral Commission disagrees with your position on reporting any potential issues…
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...eform-watchdog |
Usual nonsense. It's about MEASURING the level of incidents if no inventions are made. Interventions would reduce the level of incidents, but the level of incidents where there was no intervention would obviously be higher. How much higher would be completely unknown because nobody is monitoring it.
If you have no interventions for shoplifting as in parts of the US, there ends up being a free-for-all. Not everybody has the desire to shoplift, but with no interventions you get an idea of how many would shoplift.
Quote:
|
However, John Ault, director of Democracy Volunteers, said it was “a normal international standard not to issue a comment until after voting has finished”.
|