3 ms·

Some MEPs are now saying they accidentally voted the wrong way because the voting order was changed and they were confused: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Vote

by ngold 8y ago

Some MEPs are now saying they accidentally voted the wrong way because the voting order was changed and they were confused: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad 13 of them registered a correction to their vote on amendments, with 10 of those intending to vote for amendments. However, the corrections aren't used to affect the outcome. Edit: checking Techdirt's math: Official vote: 312 for, 317 against, 24 abstained MEPs that registered a voting correction (blank for abstain): Name Voted Intended Gerolf Annemans for Johannes Cornelis van Baalen against for Dita Charanzová for Martina Dlabajová for Antanas Guoga against for Eva Joly for Jo Leinen ? for Peter Lundgren against for Michèle Rivasi for Kristina Winberg against for Marek Plura for against Marita Ulvskog for against Daniel Buda against After corrections: 320 for, 314 against, 20 abstained So the vote would have had the opposite result if the corrected votes were used.

40dslf 8y ago
Tough titty no? Or are they going to do like with Brexit and keep voting until they get what they want?
- vidarh 8y ago
  Democracy can literally be described as keep voting until we get what we want. That it is seemingly considered ok to ridicule people for wanting to make use of their democratic rights to try to overturn decisions is worrying.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
    I think this is really about a more specific idea: that something will be voted about until it's turned around, but then it will be final, because it has been voted. It's kind of like how laws that don't get passed but have a strong lobby behind them always re-surface every few years in slightly different form, but once they pass, they're here to stay. I think it should always be an option to vote again if the general opinion on a subject changes. That works in both directions though.
self_awareness 8y ago
Here's an article that covers this info: https://gizmodo.com/report-european-parliament-screwed-up-their-chance-to-1833595723 https://gizmodo.com/report-european-parliament-screwed-up-th... Although I'm not sure if I'm not against the law here, linking a copyrighted material like a criminal
- dingaling 8y ago
  You didn't include any of the copyrighted article. You summarised the contents in your own words. You hyperlinked to the article just like the WWW is meant to work. Now wasn't that easy, remaining compliant with Article 11? So what's all the fuss about? The fuss arises from news aggregators who hate outbound links because they take eyeballs away from their own site of scraped content.
  - self_awareness 8y ago
    Actually the link itself includes a part of the article, and it's possible to tell what's the content of the article by looking at the link itself.
laacz 8y ago
There is a nuance. They cast their vote any way they see fit, then change it to appeal to the public, knowing that changing vote won't change the outcome, yet PR would be good.

by ngold 8y ago

40dslf 8y ago

Tough titty no? Or are they going to do like with Brexit and keep voting until they get what they want?

vidarh 8y ago
Democracy can literally be described as keep voting until we get what we want. That it is seemingly considered ok to ridicule people for wanting to make use of their democratic rights to try to overturn decisions is worrying.
- DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
  I think this is really about a more specific idea: that something will be voted about until it's turned around, but then it will be final, because it has been voted. It's kind of like how laws that don't get passed but have a strong lobby behind them always re-surface every few years in slightly different form, but once they pass, they're here to stay. I think it should always be an option to vote again if the general opinion on a subject changes. That works in both directions though.

self_awareness 8y ago

Here's an article that covers this info: https://gizmodo.com/report-european-parliament-screwed-up-their-chance-to-1833595723 https://gizmodo.com/report-european-parliament-screwed-up-th... Although I'm not sure if I'm not against the law here, linking a copyrighted material like a criminal

dingaling 8y ago
You didn't include any of the copyrighted article. You summarised the contents in your own words. You hyperlinked to the article just like the WWW is meant to work. Now wasn't that easy, remaining compliant with Article 11? So what's all the fuss about? The fuss arises from news aggregators who hate outbound links because they take eyeballs away from their own site of scraped content.
- self_awareness 8y ago
  Actually the link itself includes a part of the article, and it's possible to tell what's the content of the article by looking at the link itself.

laacz 8y ago

There is a nuance. They cast their vote any way they see fit, then change it to appeal to the public, knowing that changing vote won't change the outcome, yet PR would be good.