maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311 
|
Post by maxque on Jun 14, 2018 10:17:48 GMT
I'm surprised no party proposed yet to like in Canada, to not have to bother with telling (parties can come every hour at the polling station to get a list of the numbers who voted).
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Fashioned Leftie on Jun 14, 2018 10:25:41 GMT
Many years ago I was telling with our candidate who had been a councillor for the area for at least 20 years. We were stood, as we had always done, in school grounds outside the entrance to the voting room but well away from school activities. Suddenly a man marched around the corner declaring himself to be the headteacher and that if we did n't leave his school this instant he would be calling the police. Our candidate engaged him in conversation, but he was having none of it. Eventually we decided to stand outside the school gate.
What this guy did n't realise was that our candidates' wife, was Chair of Governors at the school. He was only the "acting" head. Save to say he did not get a permanent appointment.
|
|
|
|
Post by catking on Jun 14, 2018 10:28:31 GMT
I'm surprised no party proposed yet to like in Canada, to not have to bother with telling (parties can come every hour at the polling station to get a list of the numbers who voted). Presumbaly because the admin burden that places on every polling station would be prohibitive. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Jun 14, 2018 10:33:34 GMT
I'm always amused by the myths many voters believe about elections.
Some are convinced that the secret ballot isn't real and that political parties can find out how they voted afterwards.
Others insist angrily that we're not allowed to campaign on polling day and that it is illegal.
But my favourite is the burning anger some voters get when they find out you know their name. Some simply refuse to accept that political parties can have access to the unredacted electoral roll. Having grown sick of arguing with the angriest voters about this point who have chased me down the street after receiving a mail merged piece of literature, I now respond to the question "how do you know my name?" with the answer "I rummaged through your bins" before walking off.
Please forgive me for observing that all of that is deeply silly on your own part also. One tries to present well as a party officer of any rank or none. For that moment you represent the party to others. So you should be neat, tidy and pleasant. You are not on a mission to correct misunderstandings or mad views held by others. Never argue because you cannot win without enraging or distressing the voter and he will not thank you for it, will be less likely to vote for you now and in future, and will cascade those feelings about you and your party throughout his circle. Be general and mild and helpful in response. Say that there is an Electoral register that lists all voters by name and address, that we are merely 'telling' so as to avoid someone knocking on your door in the evening asking you to vote when you have already done so. In face of anger always apologise, shrug and sympathise, AND smile. It turneth away anger. Never get cocky, clever or argumentative yourself. You should know all that! I do know all that and always respond in a mild and helpful manner. It's only when you get people who refuse to accept your patient and polite responses and continue to angrily insist they are right you you desist that I'm referring to.
In the scenario I'm talking about when being chased down the street after leafleting by someone who is clearly furious and beyond reason and certainly not a potential supporter. In those instances, I don't apologise for giving myself some mild amusement
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 14, 2018 10:38:12 GMT
I'm surprised no party proposed yet to like in Canada, to not have to bother with telling (parties can come every hour at the polling station to get a list of the numbers who voted). Presumbaly because the admin burden that places on every polling station would be prohibitive. Well, not 'prohibitive' in Canada it seems. My experience is that in many stations it would be very simple indeed and something to do. But even at a busy station at a busy time it would just involve jotting a number in a sequential list on a pad. You think that to be a 'prohibitive admin burden'? You must live a very quiet life indeed with a job so undemanding as to be nearly non-existent! |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 14, 2018 10:41:20 GMT
I remember having an argument with one voter (after she had voted) who refused to give me her number and interrogated me about why I wanted. She maintained she had an absolute right to secrecy about not just who she had voted for but whether she had voted at all. I pointed out that after the election we would buy from the Returning Officer a copy of the marked register which showed exactly who had voted which she refused to believe.
I'm always amused by the myths many voters believe about elections.
Some are convinced that the secret ballot isn't real and that political parties can find out how they voted afterwards.
Others insist angrily that we're not allowed to campaign on polling day and that it is illegal.
But my favourite is the burning anger some voters get when they find out you know their name. Some simply refuse to accept that political parties can have access to the unredacted electoral roll. Having grown sick of arguing with the angriest voters about this point who have chased me down the street after receiving a mail merged piece of literature, I now respond to the question "how do you know my name?" with the answer "I rummaged through your bins" before walking off.
Years ago there was an article in the New Statesman that suggested that the ballot papers cast for 'extremist' candidates were put to one side for inspection by a Special Branch officer. It's piffle. I worked with colleagues with very strong views...unless they were voting Liberal in the privacy of the booth. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 14, 2018 10:56:22 GMT
Years ago there was an article in the New Statesman that suggested that the ballot papers cast for 'extremist' candidates were put to one side for inspection by a Special Branch officer. It's piffle. I worked with colleagues with very strong views...unless they were voting Liberal in the privacy of the booth. It came from a response to The Guardian 'Notes and Queries' section on 23 March 1992. One Michael Wilson wrote that in the town where he was a council officer in the 1960s, after each election, the town clerk would go through the votes cast for Communist candidates, cross-reference the serial number on the ballot, identify the voters, and send the list to Special Branch. I wish I could find the original article. For some reason this edition is missing from the Guardian's digital archive. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Jun 14, 2018 11:12:34 GMT
Presumbaly because the admin burden that places on every polling station would be prohibitive. Well, not 'prohibitive' in Canada it seems. My experience is that in many stations it would be very simple indeed and something to do. But even at a busy station at a busy time it would just involve jotting a number in a sequential list on a pad. You think that to be a 'prohibitive admin burden'? You must live a very quiet life indeed with a job so undemanding as to be nearly non-existent!
Keeping a central list is easy enough but one that could then be given to the party polling agent every hour, that's where the difficulty lies. I'm not sure having polling agents gathered round a piece of paper while they copy down numbers inside polling stations is a good idea. I'd like to know how Canada do it because I'm all in favour in principle.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 14, 2018 11:23:51 GMT
Is that a prediction or the result? The election takes place on Thursday! Irony. Like woody, but with iron. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311
|
Post by maxque on Jun 14, 2018 11:24:13 GMT
I'm surprised no party proposed yet to like in Canada, to not have to bother with telling (parties can come every hour at the polling station to get a list of the numbers who voted). Presumbaly because the admin burden that places on every polling station would be prohibitive. They need to mark off the numbers on a sheet already to say the person voted, they just have a few copies of it and need to mark them all off. I got the ones from early voting to process to prepare for election day, it's literraly a sheet with with a grid full of numbers. Numbers that are circled are elected who voted. People in campaign call them "bingo sheets". |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311
|
Post by maxque on Jun 14, 2018 11:25:08 GMT
Well, not 'prohibitive' in Canada it seems. My experience is that in many stations it would be very simple indeed and something to do. But even at a busy station at a busy time it would just involve jotting a number in a sequential list on a pad. You think that to be a 'prohibitive admin burden'? You must live a very quiet life indeed with a job so undemanding as to be nearly non-existent!
Keeping a central list is easy enough but one that could then be given to the party polling agent every hour, that's where the difficulty lies. I'm not sure having polling agents gathered round a piece of paper while they copy down numbers inside polling stations is a good idea. I'd like to know how Canada do it because I'm all in favour in principle.
Agents are tightly kept out of the polling room. Every hour, they begin a new set of sheets. The coordinator of the polling station takes the sheets every hour, put them in a different folder for each party or something like that and when the party person comes (usually, it's once every 2 or 3 hours because the same person tours the polling stations in a car), they give him the folder. Some parties with small or no operations never pick their sheets. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 14, 2018 11:28:16 GMT
Picking up reports Labour are not telling at a couple of polling stations... either they think they have it won or just do not have the resources.? Given the level of party membership not merely in this seat but London more generally, that "explanation" does stretch credulity a tad. Assuming you can get new members away from the interweb long enough to sit at a polling station ... |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311
|
Post by maxque on Jun 14, 2018 11:36:52 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 12:08:34 GMT
Given the level of party membership not merely in this seat but London more generally, that "explanation" does stretch credulity a tad. Assuming you can get new members away from the interweb long enough to sit at a polling station ... there are 100,000 members in London even if only 1% of them actually did anything that's still 1,000 members. Idk how many polling stations there are but surely thats enough to cover them all |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,778
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 14, 2018 12:51:01 GMT
I'm surprised no party proposed yet to like in Canada, to not have to bother with telling (parties can come every hour at the polling station to get a list of the numbers who voted). Presumbaly because the admin burden that places on every polling station would be prohibitive. In my experience it just takes a one-second glance at the bottom of the receipt book thingy. Even if the officer doesn't tell you, an upside-down glance at how many columns have been ticked tells you in mulitples of 25. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 14, 2018 12:51:16 GMT
Assuming you can get new members away from the interweb long enough to sit at a polling station ... there are 100,000 members in London even if only 1% of them actually did anything that's still 1,000 members. Idk how many polling stations there are but surely thats enough to cover them all There are about 150 polling stations in Croydon, so probably about 3,000 in London. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,778
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 14, 2018 12:53:37 GMT
Years ago there was an article in the New Statesman that suggested that the ballot papers cast for 'extremist' candidates were put to one side for inspection by a Special Branch officer. It's piffle. I worked with colleagues with very strong views...unless they were voting Liberal in the privacy of the booth. It came from a response to The Guardian 'Notes and Queries' section on 23 March 1992. One Michael Wilson wrote that in the town where he was a council officer in the 1960s, after each election, the town clerk would go through the votes cast for Communist candidates, cross-reference the serial number on the ballot, identify the voters, and send the list to Special Branch. I wish I could find the original article. For some reason this edition is missing from the Guardian's digital archive. Surely doing that without a court warrant from an election court issued in response to a submitted complaint is an electoral offense. |
|
|
|
Post by catking on Jun 14, 2018 12:59:29 GMT
Presumbaly because the admin burden that places on every polling station would be prohibitive. In my experience it just takes a one-second glance at the bottom of the receipt book thingy. Even if the officer doesn't tell you, an upside-down glance at how many columns have been ticked tells you in mulitples of 25. No this isn't getting turnout figures. It's getting the electoral roll number of everone who has already voted.
You can just ask the staff for the turnout figure. And many boroughs now put the hourly turnout figures on a sign outside every polling station.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 14, 2018 13:04:09 GMT
It came from a response to The Guardian 'Notes and Queries' section on 23 March 1992. One Michael Wilson wrote that in the town where he was a council officer in the 1960s, after each election, the town clerk would go through the votes cast for Communist candidates, cross-reference the serial number on the ballot, identify the voters, and send the list to Special Branch. I wish I could find the original article. For some reason this edition is missing from the Guardian's digital archive. Surely doing that without a court warrant from an election court issued in response to a submitted complaint is an electoral offense. It was. But (a) no-one knew about it other than count staff; (b) the person doing it was the superior of everyone else who knew about it; (c) he probably thought that, although illegal, the police were unlikely to do anything, and even if they did, Special Branch would help out. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,730
|
Post by mboy on Jun 14, 2018 13:16:20 GMT
Surely doing that without a court warrant from an election court issued in response to a submitted complaint is an electoral offense. It was. But (a) no-one knew about it other than count staff; (b) the person doing it was the superior of everyone else who knew about it; (c) he probably thought that, although illegal, the police were unlikely to do anything, and even if they did, Special Branch would help out. I thought that the stubs and ballots were stored in separate places, so that no one person could get access to both of them. Was that the case? Is it now? If the only thing preventing such behaviour by one person is a rule, rather than a physical inability, it isn't much of a protection! |
|
