telstarbox
Established Member
What % of the vote (as opposed to the number of seats) will UKIP achieve in the election? (NB poll is anonymous)
Last edited:
What % of the vote (as opposed to the number of seats) will UKIP achieve in the election? (NB poll is anonymous)
Just a small point but no poll on here is anonymous.
I can't see names on it. Anyway what's wrong with a seat prediction? It's not the same as vote intentions.
You can't see names on it but like private messages it isn't anonymous to anybody who can get into the database.
This is an issue with any computer system though. I highly doubt anyone is bothered enough to hack into the system to find out.
If only the administrators can see your vote, that is anonymous to all intents and purposes.
Not really if then they decide to inform others via various methods.
I am talking generally here not specifically about this forum.
It's pretty trivial anyway, who cares what anybody voted.
It honestly depends on the system being used - there are ways to make these things anonymous to everyone, which is how banks work, and they're usually pretty trivial to implement. Obviously banking systems are far more complex, but total anonymity is relatively easy to ensure. Of course encryption is never entire foolproof, but as I said I doubt anyone would bother hacking in to see these results.
As I have already said it's nothing to do with hacking at all.
The administrators of a site have the ability to see everything written on it, it's all on the site data-base which they have full access to.
They in turn can give access to as many people as they want to, either full access or partial.
Just a small point but no poll on here is anonymous.
There were 368,194 posts made in the last year (April 2014-March 2015 inclusive), that's approximately 1,000 per day. Therefore, it's best to assume that the moderation team have not read any post or thread unless it's reported to us, so if you wish to ask us questions please do so using the Contact Us form or via PM, thanksCan an administrator clarify please?
There's no ability within the forum software to do this, and moderators do not have access to the database.I'm pretty sure that this has come up before. Yes, I'm sure that the admins (and perhaps moderators, I can't remember for certain?) can read everything on this site, including PMs and indeed the results of hidden polls. This is true on most if not all forum platforms used online.
According to Electoral Calcalus 13.6% is the polling average for UKIP.
I forecast UKIP will win Clacton and only Clacton at the next election as their support will disappear to help the Tory or Labour side in the marginals they could have won. South Thanet has too much competition for most clown like MP that Farage will hopefully!
That was my prediction in a post some while ago too - Carswell has a lot of support in Clacton and, much though I disagree with his views, appears to be a decent man, not something you can say about many of their main candidates (or the women either).
If they do get another seat, I think it may well be in Greater Manchester.
An interesting poll I've seen, looking at the split of the vote by newspaper readership
Poll obtained from The Times, published on their ****ter feed.
Not many surprises here. UKIP not looking to get too much of support all things considered, even from the only newspaper that publicly support them The "World's Greatest Newspaper" itself, The Daily Express (only 27% of their readership).
Quickly crunched the numbers, and overall it's close to 15%, although these should be interpreted with caution, not least because non-newspaper readers are not included, neither are other parties (such as the SNP).
Based on that those figures the endorsement by The Independent (my newspaper of choice when south of the border) of a continuation of the current LibDem/Conservative coalition is clearly based on principles rather than commercial gain, much as I may disagree with it.
I saw people on Twitter say that because of the high vote numbers for UKIP they were considering heading to the US. This seems a bit silly - they want to go from a country where maybe 2 elected politicians belong to a racist party to one where 50% do.
I'll never know why wishing to control immigration is racist but never mind, it's what happens when people lose the argument. I mean, isn't it terrible, thinking 300,000 extra people each year might just be causing too much strain on public services and introducing too much cultural change in some areas of the country which in turn, causes division when there is not sufficient time to integrate with the local community.This seems a bit silly - they want to go from a country where maybe 2 elected politicians belong to a racist party to one where 50% do.