ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Jan 22, 2018 18:08:49 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. Although Miller could have filed a petition, gone through the legal processes and court hearings, and have the election of that third seat in Trinity ward invalidated. (Her petition would undoubtedly have been successful provided that all parties agreed a Special Case that the inclusion of the otherwise good five ballot papers would have given her a plurality over Labour's Andrew Coles.) Voters can view a new election either as "sour grapes" (cf. Winchester) on behalf of the 'loser', or alternatively as a chance to put right a miscarriage of justice (as in Roxbourne ward, Harrow, 1978 - an event I was involved in). There was only one other ballot paper in the whole of Merton that was disqualified for lack of an official mark at the 2002, in Lavender Fields ward. |
|
|
|
Post by martinwhelton on Jan 22, 2018 21:40:24 GMT
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. Although Miller could have filed a petition, gone through the legal processes and court hearings, and have the election of that third seat in Trinity ward invalidated. (Her petition would undoubtedly have been successful provided that all parties agreed a Special Case that the inclusion of the otherwise good five ballot papers would have given her a plurality over Labour's Andrew Coles.) Voters can view a new election either as "sour grapes" (cf. Winchester) on behalf of the 'loser', or alternatively as a chance to put right a miscarriage of justice (as in Roxbourne ward, Harrow, 1978 - an event I was involved in). There was only one other ballot paper in the whole of Merton that was disqualified for lack of an official mark at the 2002, in Lavender Fields ward. Suspect they may well have won a rerun in an election court as there was a similar case the same year in Hammersmith and Fulham, Sands End ward which resulted in another election. The disqualified papers had 4 Tory votes and 1 Labour which would have resulted in Tory success if they had been valid votes. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 22, 2018 21:51:17 GMT
Yes, the Sands End byelection of 2002 was indeed caused when the election of Stephen Hamilton was declared void, and that was because the ballot papers rejected for want of official mark affected the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 22, 2018 22:37:03 GMT
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. The three recounts in Croydon Central in 2005 resulted in the number of votes for the two main candidates going down by a few dozen. The vast majority of the changes were because of votes being disallowed because they didn't have the official mark, and not because valid votes had been put in the wrong candidate's pile. (Although the 3 recounts did result in my votes going up from 190 to 193) |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,720
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 26, 2018 23:06:05 GMT
Of course they should: I purposely spoilt my ballot when there was no candidate I supported in an election. I turned up, I was part of the turnout.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,720
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 26, 2018 23:37:06 GMT
Of course they should: I purposely spoilt my ballot when there was no candidate I supported in an election. I turned up, I was part of the turnout. You didn’t turn out to vote though. As you didn’t vote. Legally you just scribbled on a piece of paper. Tosh, nonsense and balderdash. I walked to the polling station, and voted for "none of the above". A positive vote, that took time out of my day - after work - and was a democratic expression. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,720
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 26, 2018 23:45:17 GMT
Tosh, nonsense and balderdash. I walked to the polling station, and voted for "none of the above". A positive vote, that took time out of my day - after work - and was a democratic expression. Impossible, but if it makes you feel better. No..not impossible; "the number of spoilt ballots" is recorded. Seriously @benji, democracy isn't just crosses by candidates; psephology certainly isn't. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,720
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 27, 2018 0:09:28 GMT
No..not impossible; "the number of spoilt ballots" is recorded. Seriously @benji, democracy isn't just crosses by candidates; psephology certainly isn't. I should’ve made myself clear, it is impossible for you to have voted for ‘none of the above’. The number of spoilt ballots is certainly interesting, but they are not votes. I am interested in the number of people that have turned out to vote. I turned out to vote.. |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jan 27, 2018 11:53:49 GMT
I wonder how many forum members turned out to look at this poll and decided not to vote, given that it's unspoilable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jan 27, 2018 13:44:43 GMT
No you didn’t, you didn’t vote. You went for a jolly walk, scribbled on a paper at the taxpayers expense and then went home! Oh FFS...  He still turned out to vote. It wasn't a valid vote, but he still went to the effort to make his way to the polling station and cast a ballot. He still turned out to vote. You may not like it, but that's what happened. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 27, 2018 14:01:37 GMT
As this is getting into a rather boring yes I did, no you didn't argument,can I introduce a new aspect? I am a postal voter. If I use my postal vote to vote for "none of the above", and I have been known to do so, am I part of the turnout? I would still say yes,but the argument that I have made the effort by walking (or driving) to the polling station no longer applies. I will though have walked to the postbox -about 50 yards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jan 27, 2018 14:10:32 GMT
Oh FFS... He still turned out to vote. It wasn't a valid vote, but he still went to the effort to make his way to the polling station and cast a ballot. He still turned out to vote. You may not like it, but that's what happened. Casting a ballot is not casting a vote. An invalid ballot isn't a vote. Let's see now: a man enters polling station, he is given a ballot paper, examines the options presented, decides that none a worthy of his support, he either marks the paper in such a manner to say that he doesn't support any of the candidates or just leaves it blank (knowing full well it won't affect the final result), and concludes by putting ballot into box. It's an informal/invalid/spoilt vote, but it is still a vote. The voter went through the motions, and even if their "choice" cannot have an impact on the final result, they still went to the effort of participating in the democratic process, so therefore should still be considered as part of the voter turnout, to claim otherwise is just insulting, facetious at best. The only way you can say that someone didn't vote is, and this may blow your mind, is if they didn't actually vote, be it by simply staying at home, going elsewhere, or not sending off any postal votes they may have received! If a person takes receipt of a ballot paper and deposits it into the relevant box, regards what they may or may not have scribbled onto it, they have still voted. At this point I'm just repeating myself, but I do believe I have made my meaning perfectly plain... |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jan 27, 2018 14:13:37 GMT
As this is getting into a rather boring yes I did, no you didn't argument,can I introduce a new aspect? I am a postal voter. If I use my postal vote to vote for "none of the above", and I have been known to do so, am I part of the turnout? I would still say yes,but the argument that I have made the effort by walking (or driving) to the polling station no longer applies. I will though have walked to the postbox -about 50 yards. It's so easy to forgot about the postal voters, and I really shouldn't have as I had one myself for a period. But yes, if one goes to the effort of sending off a postal ballot (once again, regards what they scribbled on to the actual ballot paper), they've turned out to vote, no doubt about it. |
|
|
|
Post by IceAgeComing on Jan 27, 2018 14:16:04 GMT
My feeling is that you should - perhaps there's an argument not to if there's an option available for a person to abstain but even then I'd still count them. Although perhaps both figures should be recorded: in lots of other countries they note the percentage of total black and spoiled votes nationally; in the UK we don't tend to because they've never been included in turnout figures.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,720
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jan 27, 2018 14:39:16 GMT
Let's see now: a man enters polling station, he is given a ballot paper, examines the options presented, decides that none a worthy of his support, he either marks the paper in such a manner to say that he doesn't support any of the candidates or just leaves it blank (knowing full well it won't affect the final result), and concludes by putting ballot into box. It's an informal/invalid /spoilt vote, but it is still a vote. The voter went through the motions, and even if their "choice" cannot have an impact on the final result, they still went to the effort of participating in the democratic process, so therefore should still be considered as part of the voter turnout, to claim otherwise is just insulting, facetious at best. The only way you can say that someone didn't vote is, and this may blow your mind, is if they didn't actually vote, be it by simply staying at home, going elsewhere, or not sending off any postal votes they may have received! If a person takes receipt of a ballot paper and deposits it into the relevant box, regards what they may or may not have scribbled onto it, they have still voted. At this point I'm just repeating myself, but I do believe I have made my meaning perfectly plain...
If you spoil your ballot you haven't 'actually' voted either. It's not the same as staying at home but it's not voting either.This undermines those who go to the effort of expressing their unhappiness in the choice offered, be it in person or by post. If you argue that the only validation of a view is if you use it to put your mark next to the choices offered, then you are suggesting that the power lies with those who print the ballot paper, not those who cast a ballot. The ballot paper may have valid choices in a democracy, or not in an authoritarian regime. The system may well not annouce the spoilt ballots, but the system is only a process. The process is the servant of democracy, not the master of it. |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Jan 27, 2018 15:33:08 GMT
Oh FFS... He still turned out to vote. It wasn't a valid vote, but he still went to the effort to make his way to the polling station and cast a ballot. He still turned out to vote. You may not like it, but that's what happened. Casting a ballot is not casting a vote. An invalid ballot isn't a vote. What is your view of those who turn out to cast their vote for a candidate and think they have, but their ballot is counted as spoilt for reasons which may be beyond their control (or at least their understanding, such as marking the ballot paper twice because they put their first mark into the wrong box or similar)? |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 27, 2018 15:51:33 GMT
This looks as if it could go on for ever not adding much to the sum of human understanding. The ballot on this closed a long while ago and was quite decisive. I would hate to call the losing side of the argument who refuse to let go anti-democratic because I might be mistaken for a Leaver...  |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 27, 2018 16:14:55 GMT
re rubbers in polling booths: Not a solution, I think. A ballot paper where a vote had been rubbed out might still be counted as spoilt if any mark whatsoever remained, and quite right too. And just start to consider the implications if it became commonplace for ballot papers to have one vote rubbed out and replaced by another. It just doesn't bear thinking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 27, 2018 18:09:36 GMT
Oh FFS... He still turned out to vote. It wasn't a valid vote, but he still went to the effort to make his way to the polling station and cast a ballot. He still turned out to vote. You may not like it, but that's what happened. Casting a ballot is not casting a vote. An invalid ballot isn't a vote. I refer the Hon Gentleman to Mrs Tansey. Who I took to vote in my car. Who went into the polling station. Who was handed her ballot. Who indicated her preference and placed her ballot paper into the ballot box. Was she not part of the turnout? Notwithstanding that her decision to sign her name (rather than place a cross) in the box against my name invalidated her vote ... |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 27, 2018 18:17:09 GMT
What is your view of those who turn out to cast their vote for a candidate and think they have, but their ballot is counted as spoilt for reasons which may be beyond their control (or at least their understanding, such as marking the ballot paper twice because they put their first mark into the wrong box or similar)? . Intent is important but the returning officer shouldn’t try to second guess what a persons intentions were, the ballot is still spoilt. As I say there would appear to be an easy solution to this. I think not. Rubbers and polling stations should be kept well apart! There is a perfectly acceptable (and widely accepted) procedure if you accidentally complete your ballot paper incorrectly. Return to the polling officer and explain your problem; they will then issue a replacement (clean) ballot paper. Alternatively, if you "cross out" your cross and insert a clear cross in the correct place it will (in every circumstance I have ever encountered) be regarded as a valid vote. |
|
