[log in to unmask],Net writes:
>From: Graham Ride <[log in to unmask]>
>Your maths is fine, just like 51% in favour of Welsh devolution is
>really
>under 13% when only 25% vote. Which implies an 87% No vote, yet it is
>still
>called a mandate in polito-speak <g>
>Graham
Rubbish.
If 13% vote in favour of something, then 13% are in favour, and if 12%
vote against then 12% are against.
To assume that all those who did not express an opinion were uniformly
against is a massive logical error, perhaps well illustrated by saying
"no, you are wrong, if only 12% vote against the measure than 88% are
in favour - since surely if somebody is against something one can rely
upon him to get out of bed and vote against it".
>>"only 49% of GPs voted for this" type of statement which in turn
>implies
>>that 51% voted against....
>>
>>or is it my maths at fault?
No, your logic. And it is important.
If you were running, for instance, a PCG (no, lets go closer to home
and say if it is the practice partners' meeting) do you assume that
everyone who doesn't turn up is in favour, or against?
Even assuming that the non-attenders are simply demonstrating their
complete faith in you to take their known viewsand interests into
account is somewhat dangerous.
A competent chairman will avoid a committee coming to a decision if it
is unrepresentative through absence, in important matters.
Where it is important, one should make an effort to obtain a vote from
each person, and this is where the traditional organisation of medical
and HA ctees will not do for PCGs, or even for the GPs in them. We, of
course, are all converts to modemocracy, but there are secretive
bastards around who should be eliminated from any position of power of
authority.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|