Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
actual product may differ from illustration

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                     

Frag the election

sabotage the election of your opponents in their strongholds
  (+4)
(+4)
  [vote for,
against]

Note: the opportunity to register candidates in the upcoming UK general election has now passed.

So apparently, in an election if the candidate of one of the registered parties dies, the election in their constituency is postponed.
This obviously opens the door to a denial of service attack.

One party merely needs to register candidates on death's door (or willing to make the ultimate sacrifice) in all the 'safe' constituencies of their electoral opponents, and these seats can be removed from contention.
The delay seems to be about a three weeks, which should be just enough time for the formation of a government and passing any bills of particular interest.

If you think that sounds unlikely, bear in mind that in the 2010 election, a candidate for the Thirsk and Malton constituency died, and the election there was delayed until the 27th May, while David Cameron was confirmed as Prime Minister on the 11th of May.

Loris, Nov 14 2019

Dead people who won elections https://www.mentalf...o-still-got-elected
The lesser of two evils, sometimes... [RayfordSteele, Nov 16 2019]

[link]






       // willing to make the ultimate sacrifice //   

       What, willing to move to wales ?   

       That's a very VERY big ask ... now, if it were just dying or something, that might get volunteers ...
8th of 7, Nov 14 2019
  

       //if the candidate of one of the registered parties dies// exactly how dead do they need to become?
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2019
  

       //exactly how dead do they need to become?//   

       Looking at the footage of some currently serving as MPs, I'd go for 'all the way dead and then some'.
st3f, Nov 14 2019
  

       //exactly how dead do they need to become?//   

       Deader than Audley End Disco Centre on a weeknight.
Loris, Nov 14 2019
  

       That's pretty darned dead. It also gives you away as:
(a) a disco person who doesn't work weekdays
(c) a near-neighbour of the Buchanan estate.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2019
  

       You're slumming it at Audley End house, Max?   

       I've been through Audley End once. Didn't stay.
Loris, Nov 14 2019
  

       There's a house there? We only saw the grounds and a groundsman's cottage.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2019
  

       The real downside of this idea is that no actual politicians die. If it were possible to kill off the opponent's candidate, not only would the election be postponed, but they'd have to find a new one.   

       But there might then be a "sympathy vote" - thus it makes most sense to kill a candidate who has no chance of winning anyway.
8th of 7, Nov 14 2019
  

       Just keep doing it? they've got to run out of candidates & party members eventually.. additional upside, you might end up culling enough of the herd to counter immigration, increase wage levels (by decreasing the supply of employees) & reduce our impact on the environment . bring the nation together again? by getting rid of those who disagree with the others .. that was where you were headed right? ;p
Skewed, Nov 14 2019
  

       ..THE.ROMANS.DID.NOT.BVILD.A. MIGHTY.EMPIRE.BY.IVST .CALLING.MEETINGS ..THEY.DID.IT.BY. RVTHLESSLY.SLAUGHTERING .ALL.WHO. DARED.OPPOSE.THEM..
8th of 7, Nov 14 2019
  

       Yes, but have you BEEN to Rome? Bloody Ities as far as the eye can see, and the price of a pizza is frankly ludicrous.   

       Also the Romans, for all their might, failed to invent the U. This is why they had to make all their roads straight, and also explains why they never created the vacvvm cleaner.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2019
  

       Fragging was slang in the Vietnam War for assasinating one of your own officers during a firefight when the action could be concealed. Don't forget that Jo Cox MP was murdered. Sorry to dampen the enthusiasm here for untimely deaths etc.
xenzag, Nov 14 2019
  

       //THE.ROMANS.DID.NOT.BVILD.A. MIGHTY.EMPIRE.BY.IVST .CALLING.MEETINGS//   

       You sure? it's a lot easier to 'ruthlessly slaughter all who dare oppose you' if you can get them all in one place first.
Skewed, Nov 14 2019
  

       It feels like the coin toss it's an entirely underutilized tie breaker mechanism in these electoral spots we find ourselves in.
theircompetitor, Nov 14 2019
  

       //Fragging was slang in the Vietnam War for assasinating one of your own officers during a firefight when the action could be concealed. Don't forget that Jo Cox MP was murdered. Sorry to dampen the enthusiasm here for untimely deaths etc//   

       1) Yes. Fragging is arranging for the death of a member of 'your side' in action. Isn't it a remarkable coincidence that I'd have chosen such an apposite name for the idea?   

       2) The idea itself is obviously about /timely/ deaths. There is only one person here slathering after some murdering. And that's kind of his thing.
Well, maybe we humour him a bit too much. But at least you can say he's not bigoted - he just hates everybody.
  

       First 8th decried the cat-lovers.
I thought it an affectation.
Then he scoffed at the Students.
It's not an unusual sentiment.
Then he decried the intelligentsia
I raised an eyebrow.
When he repudiated the politicians
I evaluated only the level of vitriol.
By the time he spurned the trade unionists
I had it confirmed as a pattern.
  

       When he rebuffed the French
I waited, and
Yes, the Germans too.
And the Italians, Spanish, and Greeks etc.
And the Welsh in particular for some reason.
When he put me on his list
I thought it long enough to make little difference
And there was no-one left for him to assimilate.
Loris, Nov 15 2019
  

       Yes, but you can see his point about the Welsh.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       //There is only one person here slathering after some murdering.// Actually you are the person who has posted an idea about murdering a politician [Loris], because to frag someone means to kill them. As I have pointed out, a politician has already been murdered in the UK, so your 'idea' is in poor taste. Could you not concentrate instead on making something useful, like a new piece of equipment for a flea circus?
xenzag, Nov 15 2019
  

       //poor taste.// Well, that clearly rules it out as an HB idea then.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       Read the idea xenzag you idiot.
Loris, Nov 15 2019
  

       //so your 'idea' is in poor taste// -- the pot was just covered in carbon nanotubes
theircompetitor, Nov 15 2019
  

       [Loris] Please control your tendency to personal insults. Read your own title. If you don't want me to think it's in poor taste after an MP was actually murdered, then post something that's more inventive, and less controversial. If you really don't care what I think, then don't respond to my comments.
xenzag, Nov 15 2019
  

       [xen], the idea makes it clear that this is not about murdering MPs.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       //[Loris] Please control your tendency to personal insults.//   

       /You/ just accused me of inciting murder. Also of being uninventive.   

       //Read your own title.//   

       What does it say? Oh yeah, "Frag the election".
Does it say to kill people? No it doesn't, because an election is not a person.
  

       Now you should read the idea and learn what it's about.   

       //If you don't want me to think it's in poor taste after an MP was actually murdered, then post something that's more inventive, and less controversial.//   

       a) this /is/ inventive.
b) Jo Cox was murdered in 2016 - over 3 years ago. It's hardly current. More MPs were murdered before that.
c) This idea isn't about killing people. You really ought to read it. The closest this comes to murder is suicide (which I believe should be a legitimate option for people to take) but the intent is clearly that people who are about to die anyway would be registered for MP candidacy. With their permission, obviously.
d) It's not controversial (at least, not for the reason you're offended) - you're just very easily offended.
e) I could easily go through your ideas and complain about each one in the same manner. Here are two examples chosen by nothing-up-my-sleeve metrics:
The top one in the list on your user page is currently "-- -- - .-. ... . / ...- .- .--. .. -. --." (morse vaping). Don't you know that people have recently died from vaping-related causes?
Your most recent idea is "Tartan Brush Roller". Tartan is part of the cultural heritage of the Scots. Their traditions are not your wallpaint. End this cultural appropriation!
  

       //If you really don't care what I think, then don't respond to my comments.//   

       I do care that you're wrong on the internet.
Loris, Nov 15 2019
  

       [xen] the idea is one thing (& clearly about selecting a candidate with a soon to peak terminal condition (or a client of a certain Swiss 'resort' happy to time things appropriately), no murder involved), the (somewhat) humorous commentary of the annos is another, you've confused the two & charged at the wrong person on your high horse, simples, you should apologize to [Loris], your complaints (of him, here) are unfounded.
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       //Also of being uninventive//   

       That was what really got your goat wasn't it ;)
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       //which I believe should be a legitimate option//   

       I don't (but that's just me), I worry (that if legal) it would make the (under the table) 'murder' of some vulnerable people potentially too easy.
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       //your complaints (of him) are unfounded// I only ever made comments about the quality of the actual idea and not about the person [Loris] posting it, yet personal insults were directed towards me. In consequence I have nothing to apologise for, and won't be making any.
xenzag, Nov 15 2019
  

       Well, I've already said my piece on that spat.
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       To be honest I quite like the idea that when a person has "already" died in some manner you can never talk about any related subject ever again.
It's like a full spectrum Godwin's Law.
  

       Let us call it the xenzag gambit.   

       More seriously, on the legality of suicide:
//I don't (but that's just me), I worry (that if legal) it would make the (under the table) 'murder' of some vulnerable people potentially too easy.//
  

       That's certainly a common concern, but with the right legal framework and oversight I think this risk can be reduced to practically nothing.
The other worry people have is that more people would just kill themselves on a whim - and I should be clear that's not what I'm talking about. There would be a process, and this would involve registering intent ahead of time.
The cost of not having suicide as a straightforward option (without risk of consequences for other people involved) is pretty significant in terms of suffering.
Loris, Nov 15 2019
  

       I might perhaps agree in principle (but only for those with a terminal condition occasioning considerable pain, certainly not for any psychological conditions, even more so for mere depression) .. but I find it hard to imagine any practical controls that would make it truly 'safe' from potential abuse, how can you avoid intentional conditioning (or even bullying) over time of those who wouldn't choose this for themselves into accepting it?
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       //mere depression// How about a "mere brain tumour" or a "mere paraplegia"?
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       My answer to that is covered I think by //only for those with a terminal condition occasioning considerable pain//.   

       To flesh that out to (fully) represent my views I should maybe add "untreatable" (before "terminal") & "unmanageable physical" (before "pain").   

       A brain Tumor isn't necessarily terminal & Paraplegia isn't, neither necessarily occasion any pain so my answer for those two is clearly (depending on treatability, type & complications) for a Tumor "it depends, you'd have to look at it case by case", & for Paraplegia "no".
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       // but I find it hard to imagine any practical controls that would make it truly 'safe' from potential abuse,//   

       Nothing is ever going to be 100%, but I think it could be close. I don't think I can document right here and now a full process, but other countries have managed it.   

       //...certainly not for any psychological conditions, even more so for mere depression//   

       While I think depression would certainly need care, I wouldn't want to rule it out.
Non-physical pain is still pain.
Above all I think it should be the person's actual choice which should be respected.
  

       The thing which I most fear is dementia. It's coming for me. Why should someone else get to say that I can't end when I want to? It's most unreasonable.
Loris, Nov 15 2019
  

       //only for those with a terminal condition occasioning considerable pain//   

       There are somatic conditions that occasion considerable pain but cannot be treated and are not fatal. They will torture the victim indefinitely. Some people can take that, some can't. The same goes for some mental conditions.   

       I'm not entirely sure how we got from elections to assisted suicide but, since we're here, I'll sit down and rest my feet for a bit. It seems blindingly obvious that if someone wants to end their own life; and maintains that desire for a reasonable period of time; and is not being coerced; and is not operating under false information; and is old and aware enough to understand what they are doing; then clearly they should be allowed to do so. To say that they actually have to fill certain tick-boxes before they're "allowed" to strikes me as inappropriate and, in many cases, simply barbaric.   

       We allow suicide. To not allow anyone to help a suicide is ridiculous - it's saying "you can do it yourself, but nobody can help make it easier for you; if you want to but can't kill yourself because you're paralysed, tough shit". If society has a hypothetical problem with "slippery slopes", then society needs to discuss that with the (thankfully small) numbers of people whom it prefers to leave under indefinite torture.   

       We should extend the same compassion to humans as we do to cats and dogs, with the bonus that the human can actually state their preference.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       //There are somatic conditions that occasion considerable pain but cannot be treated and are not fatal//   

       //They will torture the victim indefinitely. Some people can take that, some can't//   

       Noted, true, that may be the only difficult area for me where it's perhaps a little murky & I feel some conflict or have any difficulty in providing a definitive yes or no personal opinion on this subject .. if it's a condition that really prevents the individual doing the job themself if they want to.   

       But if anyone can do it themself I've no qualms at all maintaining the position that assistance should always be illegal in their case.
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       //We allow suicide//   

       This may be a bit semantic (but words 'are' important), no, we don't, not really, we (quite rightly) 'decriminalised' attempted suicide on the very sensible grounds that punishing someone for self-harm is a ludicrous thing to do, that means it's not a crime, that doesn't mean it's legal.   

       Or that we 'allow' it, not in any sense of the word that suggests any degree of tacit approval or encouragement.   

       [Crosses fingers & hopes he got the terminology right, hasn't misremembered anything & is right]   

       [Waits to be slapped down with links 'proving' he's wrong]
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       Now I'm reading 'Frag the Erection' which is quite funny.
xenzag, Nov 15 2019
  

       //no, we don't, not really// Well, semantics aside, 10/10 people will tell you "it's allowed". What is surprising is that it was ever illegal. I suppose the question comes down to who has ultimate authority over your body. I'd suggest that it's you.   

       btw Loris, don't bail out early for fear of dementia. Even if it's familial, chances are we can fix up your genes in 15-20 years from now.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       //I'd suggest that it's you//   

       I wouldn't disagree, but that you wrote that (in this conversation) suggests you've not understood my objections to legalising it at all.   

       That is precisely where my concern lies, my authority over my body, I'd rather risk not being able to do it if I want to (though I can't see any situation were I would) than accept any (potential) risk (at all) of someone else doing it for me against my will..   

       Then getting away with that murder by saying "but it's what he wanted"
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       //I see as an inherent danger in any legislation legalising 'assisted' suicide// Then that's a problem of legislation, not a problem that should leave people in endless agony. What is required is that assisted suicide is performed only by certain people, and that there is unambiguous and unforced consent from the patient.   

       If a person can think, they can communicate, even if only with an eye-blink. If they can't think, then I would argue that they cannot want (at that time) to end their life.   

       In the case of dementia, a person might want - while they are still healthy - to be euthenised if they degenerate past a certain point; but if they can't express that wish when they have reached that point, then I don't think they *have* that wish, and so the issue doesn't arise. Thinking "I wouldn't want to live like that" is not the same as thinking "I don't want to live like this".   

       You are putting hypothetical risks ahead of the welfare of a small handful of people who want their suffering to end, but who must wake up every day knowing that it won't. That is like watching a man burn to death because he hasn't signed a form to say he wants the fire put out.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       //that may be the only difficult area for me where it's perhaps a little murky//   

       Now we're just getting circular [Max], because I can just point you back up to that previous anno for my full response to what you just said :)
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       //Then getting away with that murder by saying "but it's what he wanted"//   

       It seems straightforward to record a declaration of intent either way. If it's not for you, rule it out.   

       //btw Loris, don't bail out early for fear of dementia. Even if it's familial, chances are we can fix up your genes in 15-20 years from now.//   

       But it's not my genes that need fixing, it's my brain.
To be clear, I only have fears, not certainties. And a notoriously awful memory.
  

       //You are putting hypothetical risks ahead of the welfare of a small handful of people ...//   

       The thing is, I don't think it's that small a handful.
Loris, Nov 15 2019
  

       // it's not my genes that need fixing, it's my brain// No, if anything needs fixing, it's your genes (nothing personal). Gene variants determine whether or not you'll get dementia, and certain variants are highly protective. Those are the ones you want. Don't let anyone offer to give you a cheap CRISPR upgrade at a knock-down price, as it'll probably kill you. Wait a few years for the next generation of editing technology.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       // it's not my genes that need fixing, it's my brain//   

       //No, if anything needs fixing, it's your genes//   

       Would loose or tight fit help..   

       Though I think we do have some stem cell therapies that show promise when it comes to repairing (rather than preventing) the damage as well?
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       Dementia starts with DNA, which is simple. The downstream biology is fantastically messy.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       So, from an electoral ruse, we've covered potential threats to politicians; the Romans; the Vietnam war; Audley End; assisted suicide; mice; the relative merits of genetic versus phenotypic interventions for Alzheimer's; discos; morse vaping; cultural appropriation and pizza. That is a result, although I'm not sure what kind of result it is.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2019
  

       You forgot the relative merits of loose or tight fit jeans.
Skewed, Nov 15 2019
  

       Sp. "Euthanased"   

       Carry on.   

       No! Wait! When I said "Carry on", I didn't mean ...
pertinax, Nov 16 2019
  

       Wouldn’t work in the states. We have a habit of voting for dead people. Link...
RayfordSteele, Nov 16 2019
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle