|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jan 8, 2023 11:00:17 GMT
There was a case in a 2019 local election (Newent and Taynton, in Forest of Dean district) where the Greens had nominated specific First, Second and Third Choice candidates in a ward. When the First Choice candidate died, his replacement had to go in as First Choice because the other two candidates couldn't have their descriptions changed, even though they were local and the new First Choice candidate wasn't. I'll add that to my list of reasons to not use those "First Choice" etc. descriptions!! |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,557
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 8, 2023 11:50:40 GMT
There was a case in a 2019 local election (Newent and Taynton, in Forest of Dean district) where the Greens had nominated specific First, Second and Third Choice candidates in a ward. When the First Choice candidate died, his replacement had to go in as First Choice because the other two candidates couldn't have their descriptions changed, even though they were local and the new First Choice candidate wasn't. I'll add that to my list of reasons to not use those "First Choice" etc. descriptions!! I would guess that the net tactical benefits which the Green Party has gained from using such descriptions (getting a preferred candidate elected in the event of a split ward) is more than the occupational hazard of a candidate dying during the election. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 8, 2023 12:12:51 GMT
There does seem to be a slight gap in the law if two candidates were to die in close succession. The party of the first candidate to die can replace them, but there is no provision for any subsequent deaths to be replaced. I have visions of a detective story where both the Conservative and Labour candidates are found dead in a key marginal and Poirot has to try and work out who died first! didn’t the election of Alan B’Stard follow the death of both his opponents in mysterious circumstances (and some artistic liberties taken with the law as described above) Serious injury, in fact, hence the voiceover in that episode saying "Labour: Intensive Care" and "SDP: Critical". |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jan 8, 2023 15:59:18 GMT
I'll add that to my list of reasons to not use those "First Choice" etc. descriptions!! I would guess that the net tactical benefits which the Green Party has gained from using such descriptions (getting a preferred candidate elected in the event of a split ward) is more than the occupational hazard of a candidate dying during the election. Not when allowing for the lost votes and split ballots caused by the "they don't think they can actually win" message it sends. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 8, 2023 15:55:50 GMT
I wasn't aware of the following.
I haven't looked at the detail of these changes, but in principle, I'm in favour of tightening up the rules governing postal votes.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on May 8, 2023 16:15:08 GMT
Quid pro quo, then - agree to this if the government accepts its voting in person suppression measures should be ditched.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 8, 2023 16:18:45 GMT
I wasn't aware of the following.
I haven't looked at the detail of these changes, but in principle, I'm in favour of tightening up the rules governing postal votes.
So am I, but I don't understand how some of these work. Under the new rules, only the voter or family member or appointed carer will be able to hand in postal vote envelopes. I can see how that works to stop a party activist dumping a pile of postal votes in at the town hall, say, and I think that has been a practice in some places. But postal votes, as the name suggests, are postal. How can they stop and check who is popping envelopes in a post box? And not necessarily in one big pile in case there are security cameras at the post box- a few at a time in various post boxes. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843 
|
Post by Crimson King on May 8, 2023 17:58:51 GMT
I wasn't aware of the following. I haven't looked at the detail of these changes, but in principle, I'm in favour of tightening up the rules governing postal votes.
So am I, but I don't understand how some of these work. Under the new rules, only the voter or family member or appointed carer will be able to hand in postal vote envelopes. I can see how that works to stop a party activist dumping a pile of postal votes in at the town hall, say, and I think that has been a practice in some places. But postal votes, as the name suggests, are postal. How can they stop and check who is popping envelopes in a post box? And not necessarily in one big pile in case there are security cameras at the post box- a few at a time in various post boxes. its a start, the word on the street was that up to a thousand postal votes were handed in on polling day in some wards round here. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843
|
Post by Crimson King on May 8, 2023 18:01:34 GMT
more importantly, if parties handling PVs is a specific criminal offence then it should be easier for other parties to reduce eg the practice of following the postman down a street by exposing it
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 8, 2023 18:40:47 GMT
more importantly, if parties handling PVs is a specific criminal offence then it should be easier for other parties to reduce eg the practice of following the postman down a street by exposing it I was under the impression that this was already a criminal offence. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 8, 2023 18:57:28 GMT
more importantly, if parties handling PVs is a specific criminal offence then it should be easier for other parties to reduce eg the practice of following the postman down a street by exposing it I was under the impression that this was already a criminal offence. It was something prohibited in a Code of Conduct issued by the Electoral Commission, but it was voluntary. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 15, 2023 10:15:40 GMT
I think we can now confidently dismiss any challenge to the assertion that bringing in mandatory voter ID was motivated mainly by electoral reasons:
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 31, 2023 22:38:20 GMT
A lot of Tory twitter accounts seem to be tweeting their electronic imprint today.
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843
|
Post by Crimson King on Nov 1, 2023 8:41:24 GMT
last week I was given an info sheet about the new rules (including the section on imprints) If that update has been just released I guess its no surprise if some people act in advance of the deadline
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 1, 2023 9:22:27 GMT
I think we can now confidently dismiss any challenge to the assertion that bringing in mandatory voter ID was motivated mainly by electoral reasons: Well, maybe, but even if that's true it means only that requiring voter ID was done for the wrong reason; it doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.
Without an ID requirement, voting fraud was absurdly easy to carry out and very difficult to detect. Moreover, most electoral systems world-wide require voters to provide some evidence of identity and in countries such as India where this is not practical, voters have to put up with having their hands stained with waterproof ink to prevent multiple voting. So I very much hope that Labour, despite its grumbles, will keep the ID requirement if it returns to government; although I'd be receptive to extending the range of acceptable documents provided this can be done without compromising the security of the system.
I'd also welcome tightening of the rules about postal voting, in particular by requiring a separate application at each election backed by some evidence that the elector cannot vote in person in the normal way.
Also, I can understand the point that some electors are not able to vote in person, but can anyone tell me why we need provision for both postal voting and proxy voting? Surely one system or the other would suffice; why do we allow both?
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,557
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 1, 2023 10:33:12 GMT
I think we can now confidently dismiss any challenge to the assertion that bringing in mandatory voter ID was motivated mainly by electoral reasons: I don’t think so. 1. Mogg was analysing the practical effects of the new rules, regardless of what the original motivation / reason was. 2. I think the original reason was what they said in the first place: to prevent fraud. I think that fraud and impersonation happens / used to happen much more often than was ever detected. 3. It’s only Mogg’s opinion |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 1, 2023 11:42:58 GMT
I think we can now confidently dismiss any challenge to the assertion that bringing in mandatory voter ID was motivated mainly by electoral reasons: Well, maybe, but even if that's true it means only that requiring voter ID was done for the wrong reason; it doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.
Without an ID requirement, voting fraud was absurdly easy to carry out and very difficult to detect. Moreover, most electoral systems world-wide require voters to provide some evidence of identity and in countries such as India where this is not practical, voters have to put up with having their hands stained with waterproof ink to prevent multiple voting. So I very much hope that Labour, despite its grumbles, will keep the ID requirement if it returns to government; although I'd be receptive to extending the range of acceptable documents provided this can be done without compromising the security of the system.
I'd also welcome tightening of the rules about postal voting, in particular by requiring a separate application at each election backed by some evidence that the elector cannot vote in person in the normal way.
Also, I can understand the point that some electors are not able to vote in person, but can anyone tell me why we need provision for both postal voting and proxy voting? Surely one system or the other would suffice; why do we allow both?
Proxy voting has been long in place and is not much used but still serves a role. If one is domiciled abroad or has work involving foreign travel or periods of seclusion often without prior warning (military, diplomatic, shipping and air transport), one may wish to use the vote in person when possible but have the proxy in reserve for the exceptions. In a short campaign the postal vote timings can be defeated by modern postal systems being slower than they were 50-years ago. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306
|
Post by maxque on Nov 2, 2023 22:49:38 GMT
I think we can now confidently dismiss any challenge to the assertion that bringing in mandatory voter ID was motivated mainly by electoral reasons: Well, maybe, but even if that's true it means only that requiring voter ID was done for the wrong reason; it doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.
Without an ID requirement, voting fraud was absurdly easy to carry out and very difficult to detect. Moreover, most electoral systems world-wide require voters to provide some evidence of identity and in countries such as India where this is not practical, voters have to put up with having their hands stained with waterproof ink to prevent multiple voting. So I very much hope that Labour, despite its grumbles, will keep the ID requirement if it returns to government; although I'd be receptive to extending the range of acceptable documents provided this can be done without compromising the security of the system.
I'd also welcome tightening of the rules about postal voting, in particular by requiring a separate application at each election backed by some evidence that the elector cannot vote in person in the normal way.
Also, I can understand the point that some electors are not able to vote in person, but can anyone tell me why we need provision for both postal voting and proxy voting? Surely one system or the other would suffice; why do we allow both?
If you want to compare to other countries, they almost all have some sort of early voting, too. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 2, 2023 22:55:52 GMT
I think we can now confidently dismiss any challenge to the assertion that bringing in mandatory voter ID was motivated mainly by electoral reasons: Well, maybe, but even if that's true it means only that requiring voter ID was done for the wrong reason; it doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. Without an ID requirement, voting fraud was absurdly easy to carry out and very difficult to detect. Moreover, most electoral systems world-wide require voters to provide some evidence of identity and in countries such as India where this is not practical, voters have to put up with having their hands stained with waterproof ink to prevent multiple voting. So I very much hope that Labour, despite its grumbles, will keep the ID requirement if it returns to government; although I'd be receptive to extending the range of acceptable documents provided this can be done without compromising the security of the system. I'd also welcome tightening of the rules about postal voting, in particular by requiring a separate application at each election backed by some evidence that the elector cannot vote in person in the normal way. Also, I can understand the point that some electors are not able to vote in person, but can anyone tell me why we need provision for both postal voting and proxy voting? Surely one system or the other would suffice; why do we allow both?
I wouldn't say fraud was "absurdly easy" and where it does happen it's not usually by personation, which is what this measure addressed. On the second point highlighted my experience of proxy voting is usually where people are overseas (in particular forces voters) and a postal vote would not get to them, and back, in time. If they're on one of our nuclear submarines it won't get to them at all! |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Nov 2, 2023 23:12:48 GMT
Well, maybe, but even if that's true it means only that requiring voter ID was done for the wrong reason; it doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.
Without an ID requirement, voting fraud was absurdly easy to carry out and very difficult to detect. Moreover, most electoral systems world-wide require voters to provide some evidence of identity and in countries such as India where this is not practical, voters have to put up with having their hands stained with waterproof ink to prevent multiple voting. So I very much hope that Labour, despite its grumbles, will keep the ID requirement if it returns to government; although I'd be receptive to extending the range of acceptable documents provided this can be done without compromising the security of the system.
I'd also welcome tightening of the rules about postal voting, in particular by requiring a separate application at each election backed by some evidence that the elector cannot vote in person in the normal way.
Also, I can understand the point that some electors are not able to vote in person, but can anyone tell me why we need provision for both postal voting and proxy voting? Surely one system or the other would suffice; why do we allow both?
If you want to compare to other countries, they almost all have some sort of early voting, too. Our purpose ought to be to make voting reasonably easy. Demanding that people trek off to a polling station on a particular working day unless they can demonstrate that they’re ill or working away is certainly traditional here but has no obvious merit. It always struck me that our electoral mechanism was established more to test the organisational competence of the competing parties than to assist voters to fit the act of casting their votes into a busy life. I quite enjoyed those processes but wouldn’t claim that they were particularly about democracy. They were about winning. |
|
