It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.
Only if it was the women who were dumb enough to vote in FF again in the last election. Sadly there were plenty of dumb men who also did the same.Given that men and women vote for political parties and candidates in the same proportion as men, would it make any difference to the policies pursued by governments if only men voted?
Only if it was the women who were dumb enough to vote in FF again in the last election. Sadly there were plenty of dumb men who also did the same.
Every candidate had an exactly 50/50 split in support? I'm a bit surprised. Where did you hear it?But given that 50% of the votes each candidate received at the last election were cast by women, why would the result have been any different if men hadn't voted?
Every candidate had an exactly 50/50 split in support? I'm a bit surprised. Where did you hear it?
It may have an influence on who stood or would stand for election. You might find more single issue candidates running for universal suffrage, for example.
It's a lot more credible that parties would, overall, have a roughly even gender balance among supporters (to within a few percentage points, I suppose - I'd be interested to see the background to this). But did you read the same about individual candidates, or geographical spread?I don't say exactly, but I do remember reading that political parties had the same level of support amongst men and women. If that is the case, statistically if one sex completely abstained we should expect the same result as if both sexes were voting.
My apologies for the misinterpretation.Your second point is a misinterpretation of what I wrote. It could make no difference to the candidates or the campaign, if the decision to abstain was spontaneous: i.e. not pre-meditated.
When women could not vote in the U.K. the argument of the Suffragettes was that giving the vote to women would somehow result in better policies.It would make a huge difference. Without giving the vote to all adult citizens we wouldn't have been allowed to join the European Project.
Also politics today would be dominated by the question of giving women the vote.
You never said approximately either.....your wording gives the impression that it was an exact split
ah it's all good.......you should know by now though, pick your words carefully on P.ieI apoligise for not making my post clear. I meant there is very little statistical difference in male/female support for parties.
Of course it would be absurd to suggest that each candidate received an exactly equal number of votes from each sex.
It's probable that brown eyed people vote the same way as blue-eyed people but it's not an argument for not letting them vote at all.
I'm sure you realise that the facts as you present them do not support that conclusion at all.I am not suggesting we disqualify women from voting; I am just pointing out that they seem to vote the same way as men do. The Suffragette argument that women voters would somehow change politics for the better turned out to be illusory.