Ruling on SISC voting sufficiency.

Vote buying sub-committee meeting in progress.  Member's identities concealed for national security reasons.

Vote buying sub-committee meeting in progress. Identities concealed for national security reasons.

At a recent meeting of the vote-buying sub-committee of The Award Winning Myrtleville Swimmers ™ ® © Not A Club, the matter of the proposal made to Sandycove Island Swim Club members, prior to the winning of the Award leading to the name change to The Award Winning Myrtleville Swimmers ™ ® © Not A Club, was considered.

Many views were expressed by committee members, ranging from – “Feck ’em, we have it now.” (Fair point, Kieran), to – “Ah sure, say thanks anyway, there’s hardly anyone left down there at this stage.” (Good man, Bernard, always thinking of others).

Taking all submissions into account, the committee ruled as follows on our obligation to honour the offer made to buy votes for the ILDSA Award:


“Notwithstanding the appreciation expressed by our members for the votes received from SISC members in the recent successful “Great Leap Forward to the Award” campaign, this committee was unable to determine to its satisfaction the sufficiency of these specific SISC votes being of sufficient, satisfactory sufficiency to have successfully assisted in determining the aforementioned successful outcome.

Furthermore, it is noted that senior members of the SISC committee sought to abrogate the strict terms of our offer, to wit:

  1. Mr. Ned Denison sought to re-use old images of himself letting it all hang out, rather than participate in a new photo-shoot of him skinny-dipping around the Island with Mr. Molnar. Member Russell was very let down by this.
  2. Ms. Angela Harris sought to not have Member Lowry wear his pink wet suit while following her around sprinkling fairy dust at the Sandycove Challenge.  This amendment to the terms was felt to be particularly cruel, as Member Lowry rarely gets a chance to get the pink suit out and he was really looking forward to it.  He also objected to being called “creepy” for wearing it.

Taking these points into account, the Committee ruled the offer was rescinded and The Award Winning Myrtleville Swimmers ™ ® © Not A Club was not obliged to honour it.”

The issue of whether this might now mean we couldn’t trick SISC members into voting for us in future was considered.  However, as generations of political parties have been ignoring pre-vote promises and relying on the electorate to forget, it was decided that we’d just offer even better promises next time to bribe the voters.  In fact, when all was said and done, the whole offer – like most pre-vote promises – was just…. well really, it was a load of…

A big load of Bolix.

A big load of BOLIX.

1 thought on “Ruling on SISC voting sufficiency.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s