|
|
Post by froome on May 1, 2019 9:11:33 GMT
A voter in my ward asked me yesterday if they can use both their votes (in a two member ward) to vote for the same candidate if they don't like any of the others. I told them they cannot.
I based this on having seen someone do exactly that for me at a previous election, i.e. put their two crosses in the box against my name, and the Returning |Officer ruled it as just one valid vote and the other being spoilt.
But thinking about it, why should it not be valid? I expect there are many voters who look at a ballot paper and think there is only one candidate there they wish to vote for, so why cannot they have that option to express that opinion?
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 1, 2019 12:17:22 GMT
A voter in my ward asked me yesterday if they can use both their votes (in a two member ward) to vote for the same candidate if they don't like any of the others. I told them they cannot. I based this on having seen someone do exactly that for me at a previous election, i.e. put their two crosses in the box against my name, and the Returning |Officer ruled it as just one valid vote and the other being spoilt. But thinking about it, why should it not be valid? I expect there are many voters who look at a ballot paper and think there is only one candidate there they wish to vote for, so why cannot they have that option to express that opinion? Any thoughts? This system is called the 'accumulative vote' and was used for School Board elections from the 1870s. It was quite a good way of doing multi-member FPTP because a minority interest could run just one candidate, and if they got their supporters to use all their votes, they would stand a good chance of winning a seat. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 1, 2019 13:34:53 GMT
In the Fairfield ward by-election in November 2005, I voted for myself with a cross, a tick, a smiley face and a "yes" all in the same box. It was still only counted as one vote though  |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473 
|
Post by peterl on May 1, 2019 13:36:30 GMT
^ Generous really. Four votes is undoubtedly voting for more than entitled.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on May 1, 2019 17:15:42 GMT
Mr. Blackadder voted for Mr. Sodoff Baldrick 16,472 times, saying
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on May 1, 2019 17:17:45 GMT
Ah, but that was in a rotten borough! With a returning officer willing to look the other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 1, 2019 19:26:26 GMT
A voter in my ward asked me yesterday if they can use both their votes (in a two member ward) to vote for the same candidate if they don't like any of the others. I told them they cannot. I based this on having seen someone do exactly that for me at a previous election, i.e. put their two crosses in the box against my name, and the Returning |Officer ruled it as just one valid vote and the other being spoilt. But thinking about it, why should it not be valid? I expect there are many voters who look at a ballot paper and think there is only one candidate there they wish to vote for, so why cannot they have that option to express that opinion? Any thoughts? This system is called the 'accumulative vote' and was used for School Board elections from the 1870s. It was quite a good way of doing multi-member FPTP because a minority interest could run just one candidate, and if they got their supporters to use all their votes, they would stand a good chance of winning a seat. The Illinois House of Representatives used a similar system for over a century until 1980. Voters had three votes which they could allocate to a single candidate (who got 3 votes) two candidates (who got 1.5 votes) or three candidates (1 vote each.) I only found about this when someone gave me Steven Brams' excellent (if outdated) book "Game Theory and Politics." I keep meaning to do some kind of comparison on the effects but have never got around to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on May 1, 2019 19:28:12 GMT
A voter in my ward asked me yesterday if they can use both their votes (in a two member ward) to vote for the same candidate if they don't like any of the others. I told them they cannot. I based this on having seen someone do exactly that for me at a previous election, i.e. put their two crosses in the box against my name, and the Returning |Officer ruled it as just one valid vote and the other being spoilt. But thinking about it, why should it not be valid? I expect there are many voters who look at a ballot paper and think there is only one candidate there they wish to vote for, so why cannot they have that option to express that opinion? Any thoughts? I thought you were going to say that the returning officer had decided that the votes were completely invalid and that you wouldn't even get one vote from that ballot paper. |
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,839
Member is Online
|
Post by myth11 on May 1, 2019 20:11:43 GMT
A voter in my ward asked me yesterday if they can use both their votes (in a two member ward) to vote for the same candidate if they don't like any of the others. I told them they cannot. I based this on having seen someone do exactly that for me at a previous election, i.e. put their two crosses in the box against my name, and the Returning |Officer ruled it as just one valid vote and the other being spoilt. But thinking about it, why should it not be valid? I expect there are many voters who look at a ballot paper and think there is only one candidate there they wish to vote for, so why cannot they have that option to express that opinion? Any thoughts? It has the same problem as STV as parties will game the system. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 1, 2019 21:16:24 GMT
A voter in my ward asked me yesterday if they can use both their votes (in a two member ward) to vote for the same candidate if they don't like any of the others. I told them they cannot. I based this on having seen someone do exactly that for me at a previous election, i.e. put their two crosses in the box against my name, and the Returning |Officer ruled it as just one valid vote and the other being spoilt. But thinking about it, why should it not be valid? I expect there are many voters who look at a ballot paper and think there is only one candidate there they wish to vote for, so why cannot they have that option to express that opinion? Any thoughts? It has the same problem as STV as parties will game the system. People will "game the system" in just about every electoral system. In STV this happens through vote management (usually trying to divide the party vote as equally as possible) while under FPTP it will happen through either tactical voting or through parties tactically deciding to focus on one constituency and virtually ignoring another. Enid Lakeman's book, while outdated and partisan (pro-STV), gives a fairly good overview of most systems. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 21:17:59 GMT
There does become a problem where if there is a very popular candidate, they may get considerably more votes than they need, when so many of those votes would have been better cast for the next most similar candidate (e.g. another candidate from the same party).
For a while I've thought that it could work well with list PR elections. Each voter gets 5 equally weighted votes, which they can give only to their favourite party, or they might distribute them over several (e.g. a typical Labour voter might lend one of their votes to the Greens). Better still, place 5 votes for 5 different candidates on lists as an open list system.
Of course, as others point out, there are issues that can be seen with any electoral system (and in some cases this is a mathematical truth - something(Arrow's Impossibility Theorem) which was quoted on last week's Question Time, albeit I don't think it was really contextually relevant). However, and some do try to make it out as if they are - not all electoral systems are equally problematic.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 1, 2019 21:39:36 GMT
There does become a problem where if there is a very popular candidate, they may get considerably more votes than they need, when so many of those votes would have been better cast for the next most similar candidate (e.g. another candidate from the same party). STV takes care of that, but obviously has deficiencies elsewhere. Seems arbitrary. Why restrict voters to 5? That also suffers from the "very popular candidate" problem. Absolutely. Every system will have its pluses and minuses, so it largely comes down to what the intended aim of the system is. Want greater voter choice and to reduce tactical considerations? Do STV. Want a better balance of genders/races/whatever? Closed list should take care of that. Want to encourage a 2-party system? Probably best off going with FPTP or, failing that, limited PR a la Spain. All of those will have their various pros and cons. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on May 2, 2019 7:36:23 GMT
I know there are a load of elections taking place on the 26th of May, but for an example of this phenomenon actually being allowed, I would suggest people look to the elections in Bremen that day. A sample ballot paper can be found at the first download link on this page. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 2, 2019 8:45:39 GMT
Why not allow partial voting? If you are undecded between Liberals and Greens, why not give each half a vote? Or one 60% and the other 40%?
Admittedly it would make counting difficult.......
|
|
cefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 906
|
Post by cefin on May 2, 2019 9:03:55 GMT
A voter in my ward asked me yesterday if they can use both their votes (in a two member ward) to vote for the same candidate if they don't like any of the others. I told them they cannot. I based this on having seen someone do exactly that for me at a previous election, i.e. put their two crosses in the box against my name, and the Returning |Officer ruled it as just one valid vote and the other being spoilt. But thinking about it, why should it not be valid? I expect there are many voters who look at a ballot paper and think there is only one candidate there they wish to vote for, so why cannot they have that option to express that opinion? Any thoughts? I thought you were going to say that the returning officer had decided that the votes were completely invalid and that you wouldn't even get one vote from that ballot paper. Having stood in many elections both national and local it is my experience that a returning officer after showing any unusual ballot paper markings to all candidates and /or their agents will allow the vote for a specific candidate if there is a clear indication that any such mark is lodged against just the one candidate and clearly within the confines of the box against their name. Marks for example have included a cross, a tick, a smiley face, the word Yes as well as other marks or indications.. Bit odd I know that voters would possibly jeopardise their vote but I have never had any problem with votes being allowed in this way as long as it is obvious that their chosen mark is alongside any one particular candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 2, 2019 11:52:56 GMT
I thought you were going to say that the returning officer had decided that the votes were completely invalid and that you wouldn't even get one vote from that ballot paper. Having stood in many elections both national and local it is my experience that a returning officer after showing any unusual ballot paper markings to all candidates and /or their agents will allow the vote for a specific candidate if there is a clear indication that any such mark is lodged against just the one candidate and clearly within the confines of the box against their name. Marks for example have included a cross, a tick, a smiley face, the word Yes as well as other marks or indications.. Bit odd I know that voters would possibly jeopardise their vote but I have never had any problem with votes being allowed in this way as long as it is obvious that their chosen mark is alongside any one particular candidate. Time to mention the heart with an arrow through it which appeared opposite my name on a ballot paper many years ago. It was accepted as a valid vote.  |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 2, 2019 11:54:52 GMT
Why not allow partial voting? If you are undecded between Liberals and Greens, why not give each half a vote? Or one 60% and the other 40%? Admittedly it would make counting difficult....... Not least when someone votes 70% Lib Dem and 40% Green ... |
|
|
|
Post by torremark on May 2, 2019 12:05:39 GMT
Having stood in many elections both national and local it is my experience that a returning officer after showing any unusual ballot paper markings to all candidates and /or their agents will allow the vote for a specific candidate if there is a clear indication that any such mark is lodged against just the one candidate and clearly within the confines of the box against their name. Marks for example have included a cross, a tick, a smiley face, the word Yes as well as other marks or indications.. Bit odd I know that voters would possibly jeopardise their vote but I have never had any problem with votes being allowed in this way as long as it is obvious that their chosen mark is alongside any one particular candidate. Time to mention the heart with an arrow through it which appeared opposite my name on a ballot paper many years ago. It was accepted as a valid vote. The returning officers are quite clever they only show one at a time and if you insist on voiding a ballot with a smiley face then the next three could be for you which would then have to be voided. |
|
cefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 906
|
Post by cefin on May 2, 2019 13:39:54 GMT
Time to mention the heart with an arrow through it which appeared opposite my name on a ballot paper many years ago. It was accepted as a valid vote. The returning officers are quite clever they only show one at a time and if you insist on voiding a ballot with a smiley face then the next three could be for you which would then have to be voided. Well not that clever....they usually have a box full of already disallowed ballot papers on a table in the presense of a counting official and the candidates gather round to see if they agree with the decision or wish to claim one or two for themselves and quite often with the agreement of the other candidates one of them leafs over the disallowed ballot papers very slowly in plain sight of all the others and reads out and displays the many amusing, offensive, insulting comments or pictures written on the spolit ballot. There is very rarely one in the box that the returning officer has disallowed that could arguably be the subject of a valid claim by a candidate. The point of allowing the candidates to look at them is I would have thought to demonstrate that the disallowed ones have been ruled out for a valid demonstrable reason rather than to open the floodgates for an election rerun, turnover or that there might be 15 votes or so lurking for one or another candidate. Thats the whole point of pointing out that smiley faces, ticks or 'hearts with arrows through them' against one candidates name are generally allowed and probably don't make it to the 'spolit ballot paper ' box which only contains the most obvious of spolit papers. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 2, 2019 14:21:56 GMT
The returning officers are quite clever they only show one at a time and if you insist on voiding a ballot with a smiley face then the next three could be for you which would then have to be voided. Well not that clever....they usually have a box full of already disallowed ballot papers on a table in the presense of a counting official and the candidates gather round to see if they agree with the decision or wish to claim one or two for themselves and quite often with the agreement of the other candidates one of them leafs over the disallowed ballot papers very slowly in plain sight of all the others and reads out and displays the many amusing, offensive, insulting comments or pictures written on the spolit ballot. There is very rarely one in the box that the returning officer has disallowed that could arguably be the subject of a valid claim by a candidate. The point of allowing the candidates to look at them is I would have thought to demonstrate that the disallowed ones have been ruled out for a valid demonstrable reason rather than to open the floodgates for an election rerun, turnover or that there might be 15 votes or so lurking for one or another candidate. Thats the whole point of pointing out that smiley faces, ticks or 'hearts with arrows through them' against one candidates name are generally allowed and probably don't make it to the 'spolit ballot paper ' box which only contains the most obvious of spolit papers. Sadly, despite repeated requests, we are not allowed to see disqualified postal votes - which in our case are now dealt with in Macclesfield. So - frankly - anything could be going on there. |
|
