aracer – Member
“Though I do also wonder where you get your information – maybe you should choose better news sources”
Numbers from the BBC, straight from the official counts, but you can find the same from any source you choose.
“So what’s actually bothering you is that they’re reporting results on a “constituency” by “constituency” basis – you think censorship of this information would be preferable?”
It’s hardly censorship to report a referendum fairly and accurately. I’ve explained the problem but here’s some more:
David Cameron calls result “resounding answer that settles the question”- now he should be the last person in the world to claim that 30% is an irrelevant amount of support.
Telegraph runs with this (which also backs up my numbers btw- as if they were ever in any doubt. Slightly different due to results that have come in since but very close):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/av-referendum/8495493/AV-Referendum-results-map.html
Is that map an accurate representation of the result? Of course not. But it’s what people are seeing- “nobody wants AV, just look at the map”.
When people are deciding how to vote (or whether to vote) one of the things that you consider is “Is this winnable”- and 30% is a loss but a solid base, 2% is why even bother voting.