At 20:39 16/07/2015 +0100, Rachel Cohen wrote:
>Sometimes the relevant question for people who care about statistics is 
>the question of whether a number should be used.

Fair enough, but I don't think that you'll ever convince me that the 
question "why we (anyone outside of a specific trade union) should have a 
say in determining the threshold (at whatever level) for a trade union's 
ballots" is in any way specific to "people who care about statistics".  On 
the contrary, I would strongly suspect that the majority of people who have 
a strong view about that question and/or the answer to it will be people 
who have no specific interest in statistics.  As far as I'm concerned, it's 
no more a statistically-related question than would be asking "why we (...) 
should have a say in choosing the leaders of trade unions"!

>Finally, speaking as someone who has voted for strike action and taken 
>such action, I would have always 'been happier not to be on strike'. Going 
>on strike is sometimes necessary, but usually a last resort and never a 
>positive choice. So my guess is that close to 100% of those who do 
>participate would be 'happier not to be on strike', but for whatever 
>reason feel that they should participate!

I think you're just playing with my choice of words, and also think that 
you know exactly what I meant!!  It goes without saying that few people 
(although, amazingly, not 'no people'!!) are actually 'happy' to go on 
strike, but that's not what I meant.  Let's try a different way of wording 
of the statistic I was talking about ... how about "the proportion of 
people who did not vote but find themselves on strike (because they are 
"adhering to the ballot result") who, had they somehow been 'forced' to 
vote, would have voted against the strike action"?  I'm not pretending that 
it would necessarily be possible to obtain that statistic with any degree 
of accuracy - but, if one could, it would be interesting and helpful to the 
discussion.

One obviously cannot force anyone to cast a valid vote;  even if voting is 
somehow 'mandatory', if it is a secret ballot, one cannot force people to 
provide a valid vote.  So, how about .... set the 'win' threshold as >50% 
(which sounds 'very democratic') but make it clear that "no vote" will be 
interpreted as a "Yes" vote (for strike).  No-one could claim that it was 
in any way biased (politically or otherwise) against strike action, but it 
might just get all those " 'No' voters who don't usually vote" rushing to 
the metaphorical ballot box, with a potentially dramatic effect on the 
outcome of the ballot!

Kind Regards,


John

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington,       Voice:    +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services       Fax:      +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford,    E-mail:   [log in to unmask]
Buckingham  MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************