|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jan 20, 2018 8:51:56 GMT
A subject that has cropped up more than once on this forum, most recently on the "Ask the Forum thread", and is causing a bit of debate there. I thought it might be interesting to run a poll on it.
My own personal view that to vote is to express a preference, and to spoil your ballot means you're not voting, and therefore this should not be included in turnout figures. But I understand that some local authorities and foreign countries do include spoilt ballots when calculating their turnout figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by Right Leaning on Jan 20, 2018 9:01:15 GMT
Turnout in my opinion is Turned out. Someone has bothered to make their way to a polling station to put forward an opinion even if that is a plague on all your houses.
Some spoilt papers may also be spoilt because someone does not know what to do or be confused, two crosses instead of one.
So I feel all ballot papers issued should count towards turn out.
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 20, 2018 9:37:12 GMT
Agree with Right Leaning Steve on this. Some spoilt papers are attempt to write in an alternative candidate, or to explain why they are voting for whoever. Obviously their vote cannot then be counted, but they have turned up and , literally, made their mark, so yes they are part of the turnout.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Jan 20, 2018 11:49:16 GMT
I agree with Steve and Yellow Peril. By taking the trouble to go to a polling station, giving your details to the clerk, making a mark on the ballot paper and placing it in the box you are identifying with the democratic process and should be regarded, however minimally (and at most elections the spoiled papers will be unlikely to alter the overall turnout figure anyway), as being in a different category to all the people who couldn't be bothered to undertake those actions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 11:59:45 GMT
There were 9k spoilt ballots in Leicesters mayoralty about 10% of the vote and more than the Greens, UKIP or the Lib Dems
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Jan 20, 2018 14:13:29 GMT
Hmm - tricky one that! If you include those 9k in the turnout figures then that gives an ostensibly greater legitimacy to the crap system that most of them were presumably protesting about having been imposed on their city.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,687 
|
Post by Jack on Jan 20, 2018 14:50:12 GMT
Turnout in my opinion is Turned out. Someone has bothered to make their way to a polling station to put forward an opinion even if that is a plague on all your houses. Some spoilt papers may also be spoilt because someone does not know what to do or be confused, two crosses instead of one. So I feel all ballot papers issued should count towards turn out. Steve This is pretty much everything I was going to say. If you've taken the time to even just show your distaste, there's no reason why you shouldn't be included in the figures. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jan 20, 2018 14:57:19 GMT
For the Greater Manchester Mayor there were quite a few rejected papers, possibly either out of confusion due to having two choices (though if there was a cross to just one candidate or both choices for one they would be accepted?) - More of a protest I think from people in the City of Manchester who voted against an elected mayor in a referendum a few years back, and places with a strong identity like Salford which would rather not be absorbed into Manchester. I think if rejected votes was a candidate it would have got more votes (it was in the thousands) than both Independent candidates, so clearly people went out of their way to try to send a strong message as overall turnout was abysmal as well.
There certainly weren't many spoil papers in the EU referendum lets just say, which used the same borough boundaries, and at General Elections probably about 100 or so, not the hundreds that they counted for the Mayor election.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 20, 2018 15:42:44 GMT
If we have a campaign to spoil ballot papers in large numbers because people do not believe the election should be taking place at all, we do need to record the number of spoilt papers and that needs to be given due publicity.
I do not see that that legitimises the election (aka "crap system") if those numbers are then included in the turnout figures.
I do agree btw, that an option to abstain printed on the ballot paper would always be a good idea. Until that happens we ought to allow people to spoil their paper and take due note of it
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 20, 2018 15:58:11 GMT
Turnout in my opinion is Turned out. Someone has bothered to make their way to a polling station to put forward an opinion even if that is a plague on all your houses. Some spoilt papers may also be spoilt because someone does not know what to do or be confused, two crosses instead of one. So I feel all ballot papers issued should count towards turn out. Steve This is pretty much everything I was going to say. If you've taken the time to even just show your distaste, there's no reason why you shouldn't be included in the figures. You've cast your vote. you just haven't cast it for one of the candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 21, 2018 20:48:51 GMT
For the Greater Manchester Mayor there were quite a few rejected papers, possibly either out of confusion due to having two choices (though if there was a cross to just one candidate or both choices for one they would be accepted?) If somebody has only voted in the first preference box then their vote is a valid vote for that candidate. If somebody has voted for the same candidate in both boxes then their vote is a valid vote for that candidate. If a first preference has been expressed, then the second preference boxes do not come into play unless and until there is a second round. If somebody has only voted in the second preference box then it could be debated, but since the voter has expressed a clear preference, common sense dictates that it is a valid vote for said candidate and should be counted in their first preference total. The particular design of the Supplementary Vote ballot papers makes it quite easy for voters who are used to FPTP. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 20:51:09 GMT
A subject that has cropped up more than once on this forum, most recently on the "Ask the Forum thread", and is causing a bit of debate there. I thought it might be interesting to run a poll on it. My own personal view that to vote is to express a preference, and to spoil your ballot means you're not voting, and therefore this should not be included in turnout figures. But I understand that some local authorities and foreign countries do include spoilt ballots when calculating their turnout figures. A spoilt ballot is still an expression by the voter of their democratic right, so yes they should I think. |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Jan 21, 2018 21:44:00 GMT
Good to see the forum coming to a clear and sensible decision.  |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 21, 2018 22:42:00 GMT
Hmm - tricky one that! If you include those 9k in the turnout figures then that gives an ostensibly greater legitimacy to the crap system that most of them were presumably protesting about having been imposed on their city. Most of the spoilt papers I've seen for both Newham and London's mayors seem to be more down to confusion with the voting system, both because of the two columns but also because of different instructions on other ballot papers for simultaneous elections. For the Greater Manchester Mayor there were quite a few rejected papers, possibly either out of confusion due to having two choices (though if there was a cross to just one candidate or both choices for one they would be accepted?) Putting crosses in both columns' boxes for the same candidate is a legitimate first preference and I have seen a few How To Vote type leaflets actually advocating this, mainly because they thought helping their voters get a valid first preference in was the higher priority. However a single cross in the second column is definitely a spoil (and I saw many ruled out in 2016). I happen to have some results from the last London Mayor & Assembly elections to hand. I can't off the top of my head remember where 2nd preference only goes ("Unmarked" or "Uncertain"?) but "Voting for too many" has between 3 and 4 times as many for the Mayor as for the constituency and list, strongly supporting a confusing system/ballot paper rather than a protest against the GLA. The spoils are categorised as: Want of official mark Writing identifying voter Unmarked Uncertain Voting for too many No formal protest gets counted as such and the messages on ballot papers do not make it back to campaigns, especially the essays that nobody is able to read in time. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jan 21, 2018 23:22:02 GMT
Hmm - tricky one that! If you include those 9k in the turnout figures then that gives an ostensibly greater legitimacy to the crap system that most of them were presumably protesting about having been imposed on their city. Most of the spoilt papers I've seen for both Newham and London's mayors seem to be more down to confusion with the voting system, both because of the two columns but also because of different instructions on other ballot papers for simultaneous elections. For the Greater Manchester Mayor there were quite a few rejected papers, possibly either out of confusion due to having two choices (though if there was a cross to just one candidate or both choices for one they would be accepted?) Putting crosses in both columns' boxes for the same candidate is a legitimate first preference and I have seen a few How To Vote type leaflets actually advocating this, mainly because they thought helping their voters get a valid first preference in was the higher priority. However a single cross in the second column is definitely a spoil (and I saw many ruled out in 2016). I happen to have some results from the last London Mayor & Assembly elections to hand. I can't off the top of my head remember where 2nd preference only goes ("Unmarked" or "Uncertain"?) but "Voting for too many" has between 3 and 4 times as many for the Mayor as for the constituency and list, strongly supporting a confusing system/ballot paper rather than a protest against the GLA. The spoils are categorised as: Want of official markWriting identifying voter Unmarked Uncertain Voting for too many No formal protest gets counted as such and the messages on ballot papers do not make it back to campaigns, especially the essays that nobody is able to read in time. I've always wanted to know what this 'Official Mark' is and why one would or should I say wouldn't have one. At the declarations I've seen, the number is virtually always 0, so why bother? I thought originally it meant 'blank' as in the 'official mark' being a cross, but that was soon ruled out as it has a category of its own, and of course it doesn't have to be a cross, as long as it's clear... And I agree the rejected votes aren't read into that much if at all, with the only exception being in Bercow's seat where they are in the thousands and he has made remarks on this. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 21, 2018 23:34:25 GMT
I've always wanted to know what this 'Official Mark' is and why one would or should I say wouldn't have one. At the declarations I've seen, the number is virtually always 0, so why bother? I thought originally it meant 'blank' as in the 'official mark' being a cross, but that was soon ruled out as it has a category of its own, and of course it doesn't have to be a cross, as long as it's clear... There is a tale behind why the number of ballot papers rejected for want of official mark has fallen to next to nothing. Until recently the 'Official Mark' was an arrangement of holes punched in ballot papers when they are issued - the precise arrangement being decided in private before the poll. It was there to stop elementary ballot box stuffing (although it would be easily detected through other means). However it was often forgotten by busy polling clerks, and voters would not know to remind them, and it would result in good votes being accidentally invalidated. It also led to otherwise valid election results being avoided - most notoriously Winchester. So the practice was changed. Now the official mark is a design printed on the ballot papers (set for the whole constituency or ward). You'll find it in the top left-hand corner of this example:  Now it's impossible for polling station staff to forget, it's very unlikely to find a ballot paper rejected for not having the official mark on it. In practice those that are rejected on this ground are those that have been torn and the bit with the official mark on it has become detached. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Jan 22, 2018 0:10:54 GMT
I've always wanted to know what this 'Official Mark' is and why one would or should I say wouldn't have one. At the declarations I've seen, the number is virtually always 0, so why bother? I thought originally it meant 'blank' as in the 'official mark' being a cross, but that was soon ruled out as it has a category of its own, and of course it doesn't have to be a cross, as long as it's clear... There is a tale behind why the number of ballot papers rejected for want of official mark has fallen to next to nothing. Until recently the 'Official Mark' was an arrangement of holes punched in ballot papers when they are issued - the precise arrangement being decided in private before the poll. It was there to stop elementary ballot box stuffing (although it would be easily detected through other means). However it was often forgotten by busy polling clerks, and voters would not know to remind them, and it would result in good votes being accidentally invalidated. It also led to otherwise valid election results being avoided - most notoriously Winchester. So the practice was changed. Now the official mark is a design printed on the ballot papers (set for the whole constituency or ward). You'll find it in the top left-hand corner of this example: Now it's impossible for polling station staff to forget, it's very unlikely to find a ballot paper rejected for not having the official mark on it. In practice those that are rejected on this ground are those that have been torn and the bit with the official mark on it has become detached. Fascinating, never noticed that, only the 'serial number' of the paper (which always lead me to assume it wasn't really secret because in theory someone could rummage through and link the paper's number which the clerk had written down). I assume postal votes will have this Official Mark too and also, perhaps discouraging (photo)copies at the same time. Edit: Found it, my 'official mark' - and no wonder I didn't notice, was a little pie-chart. I thought it was just a 'logo' of an election put on there by the council! |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on Jan 22, 2018 8:50:38 GMT
Most years in Winchester I would get several ballot papers rejected for want of the official mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Jan 22, 2018 17:18:29 GMT
Most years in Winchester I would get several ballot papers rejected for want of the official mark. It also stopped Maria Miller MP being elected to Merton Council in 2002 when she the lost in Trinity ward by one vote as 5 ballot papers were disqualified for not having the official mark thanks to the diligence of the current general secretary of the Labour Party Iain McNicol. The difference was enough to change the result in Labour's favour. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 22, 2018 18:01:12 GMT
Fascinating, never noticed that, only the 'serial number' of the paper (which always lead me to assume it wasn't really secret because in theory someone could rummage through and link the paper's number which the clerk had written down). I assume postal votes will have this Official Mark too and also, perhaps discouraging (photo)copies at the same time. Postal votes usually have a different design for the official mark. Only one ballot paper per envelope will be accepted and a copy of the ballot paper won't be valid if it comes out of the ballot box. |
|
