|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 15, 2020 16:59:03 GMT
If it's electronic voting is must not be internet voting. How would non-internet electronic voting work? When I re-new my voter registration each year, I log on to my local valuation board's website using the internet. You save your vote onto a floppy disc, and then post it back to the council.
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,565
|
Post by pl on Jul 15, 2020 17:12:38 GMT
If it's electronic voting is must not be internet voting. How would non-internet electronic voting work? When I re-new my voter registration each year, I log on to my local valuation board's website using the internet. Well... you have electronic voting within a voting booth - you still have to go to the polling station, but you get the results immediately at close of poll or you have internet voting, where you can vote from home. I dislike both. I don't trust systems which don't leave a paper trail - they can be hacked, badly designed and are hard to review afterwards Internet voting continues the moves away from having the act of voting as a private act in a public place to being a public act in a private place. If you have internet voting - even without fraud - it leaves voters open to huge risks of intimidation/peer pressure by family members/friends. At present your vote is entirely secret. You can do one thing and say you did another. If you make it so everyone logs onto a website, you remove that option. That is not good. It is postal voting on steroids. If you've ever been a teller in parts of inner London you will see huge numbers of husbands "taking" their wife to vote, and insisting on being in the polling booth with them (whether they are allowed or not depends on the diligence of the presiding officer). Do you think it would be any better with internet voting?
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 15, 2020 17:20:35 GMT
Royal Assent has been given to the Scottish Elections (Reform) Act 2020 (asp 12), an Act of the Scottish Parliament to reform certain aspects of the law relating to Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, including length of terms; to make provision about the role of the Electoral Commission in relation to those elections; to confer functions on the Electoral Management Board for Scotland in relation to Scottish parliamentary elections; to rename and make provision about the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland; and for connected purposes. Part 1 of the Act (sections 1 to 9) contains general reforms. ... Section 3 provides for general elections of the Scottish Parliament to be postponed in certain circumstances. Sections 4 to 7 relate to Scottish local government elections. Section 4 allows wards to be drawn with between two and five councillors (rather then 3 or 4 as at present). ... Part 4 (sections 28 to 33 and the Schedule) relate to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, which is to be renamed as "Boundaries Scotland" (section 28). Boundaries Scotland will be required to review all Scottish local council electoral arrangements every fifteen years, with the next review to report no later than December 2028. Boundaries Scotland will also be responsible for reviewing Scottish Parliament constituency boundaries; the next review has been postponed to report by May 2025, as opposed to the previous deadline of May 2022. There are various other procedural changes. One of those procedural changes (in section 31) states that Boundaries Scotland will be expected to explain themselves if they draw any two-member wards that do not involve inhabited islands. The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 still allows single-member wards be drawn where inhabited islands are involved. Reviews currently in progress under the Islands (Scotland) Act will count as the "next review to report no later than December 2028".
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 15, 2020 17:25:37 GMT
Don’t most ( all?) ruling groups try to do that to some extent?
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 15, 2020 17:33:43 GMT
Royal Assent has been given to the Scottish Elections (Reform) Act 2020 (asp 12), an Act of the Scottish Parliament to reform certain aspects of the law relating to Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, including length of terms; to make provision about the role of the Electoral Commission in relation to those elections; to confer functions on the Electoral Management Board for Scotland in relation to Scottish parliamentary elections; to rename and make provision about the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland; and for connected purposes. Part 1 of the Act (sections 1 to 9) contains general reforms. ... Section 3 provides for general elections of the Scottish Parliament to be postponed in certain circumstances. Sections 4 to 7 relate to Scottish local government elections. Section 4 allows wards to be drawn with between two and five councillors (rather then 3 or 4 as at present). ... Part 4 (sections 28 to 33 and the Schedule) relate to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland, which is to be renamed as "Boundaries Scotland" (section 28). Boundaries Scotland will be required to review all Scottish local council electoral arrangements every fifteen years, with the next review to report no later than December 2028. Boundaries Scotland will also be responsible for reviewing Scottish Parliament constituency boundaries; the next review has been postponed to report by May 2025, as opposed to the previous deadline of May 2022. There are various other procedural changes. One of those procedural changes (in section 31) states that Boundaries Scotland will be expected to explain themselves if they draw any two-member wards that do not involve inhabited islands. The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 still allows single-member wards be drawn where inhabited islands are involved. Reviews currently in progress under the Islands (Scotland) Act will count as the "next review to report no later than December 2028". For clarification, as I had to think this through for a moment: is that "if they draw any two-member wards , as opposed to three-member ones, that do not involve inhabited islands"?
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jul 15, 2020 18:58:26 GMT
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,031
|
Post by ilerda on Jul 15, 2020 19:50:29 GMT
It does make some sense at least to go unitary. Three layers of principal authority is an awful lot.
What is the point in having a country council for, say, Lancashire, and the have a combined authority covering that same area plus the two UAs that used to be part of it? The move seems to be to make CAs into super-charged county councils, so there’s no need to keep a county council underneath them.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,204
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 15, 2020 20:10:53 GMT
How would non-internet electronic voting work? When I re-new my voter registration each year, I log on to my local valuation board's website using the internet. You save your vote onto a floppy disc, and then post it back to the council. Floppy disk? Ha! You should insist on a punched card, nothing less will do.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 15, 2020 20:13:49 GMT
You save your vote onto a floppy disc, and then post it back to the council. Floppy disk? Ha! You should insist on a punched card, nothing less will do. The Forum has a supply of tally sticks should anyone be in need of one.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 15, 2020 20:28:06 GMT
You save your vote onto a floppy disc, and then post it back to the council. Floppy disk? Ha! You should insist on a punched card, nothing less will do. Very early in my railway career I was seconded to something called TOPS Improved Train Call Procedure. Basically it was a system to allow computerised train (and loco, and wagon) control to reflect day-to-day changes. I was taught to enter all these changes - and there were lots - onto punch cards, which I then gathered up and put back through the contraption I'd just created them on. I was then to file the cards in such a way that they could be reused the next time that particular change was made. It took me about two hours to realise that: A. In short order the stored cards would fill the office; B. The specific change recorded on any particular card might not be replicated for months, if ever; C. Even if the specific change was repeated it would take me days to find the damned card. Direct entry was quickly adopted.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 15, 2020 20:37:25 GMT
If it's electronic voting is must not be internet voting. How would non-internet electronic voting work? When I re-new my voter registration each year, I log on to my local valuation board's website using the internet. Your Electoral Register is maintained by the Valuation Board? Where do you live? 1882?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,672
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 15, 2020 23:28:22 GMT
But we don't want a mayor! What the government is *actually* saying is: "You want more power? Then have a mayor! (and go unitary)" We want more power, I know, this is a good idea, let's petition the government to give all our existing power to somebody else!
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 16, 2020 6:36:47 GMT
How would non-internet electronic voting work? When I re-new my voter registration each year, I log on to my local valuation board's website using the internet. Your Electoral Register is maintained by the Valuation Board? Where do you live? 1882? www.renfrewshire-vjb.gov.uk/
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 21, 2020 16:36:18 GMT
Electronic voting would be good IMO if it could ever be made reliably fraud proof. If. Which is really, really difficult for two main reasons.
Firstly, it's impossible to design a system where you can check that the result is correct without abolishing the secret ballot. Secondly, the nature of electronic voting means that it's really easy to scale fraud attempts, since any security hole that allows you to alter one vote will almost certainly enable you to alter all the votes for the same amount of effort it takes to alter one, and to do so without having to recruit conspirators.
And that's before considering the issues involved in verifying that the software being used for the election is the software that's supposed to be being used.
(note:: this post is the short version of the two videos owain posted)
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,789
|
Post by iain on Jul 23, 2020 12:13:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Jul 27, 2020 18:44:39 GMT
Still nothing. Though interesting to see the parochialness of the local press And it says 2019 Review which is weird. They aren't out to consultation yet. Must have leaked to a councillor. It restores the 2007-2012 wards in Caithness which is a good thing (even if they lose a councillor) Sutherland gets one ward and the cross loch ward in East Sutherland is abolished. Dingwall is tidied up by expanding a little. The main changes appear to be around Inverness itself where I'm presuming there are less wards and higher representation. Again, also a tidy up (even though that annoying Inverness South spur is still there) It's actually a really good map.
|
|
|
Post by MacShimidh on Jul 27, 2020 19:19:23 GMT
Still nothing. Though interesting to see the parochialness of the local press And it says 2019 Review which is weird. They aren't out to consultation yet. Must have leaked to a councillor. It restores the 2007-2012 wards in Caithness which is a good thing (even if they lose a councillor) Sutherland gets one ward and the cross loch ward in East Sutherland is abolished. Dingwall is tidied up by expanding a little. The main changes appear to be around Inverness itself where I'm presuming there are less wards and higher representation. Again, also a tidy up (even though that annoying Inverness South spur is still there) It's actually a really good map. Yes indeed, at a glance almost all of those boundaries make more sense than the current ones. It's sensible to have Thurso and Wick more compact, and it's better to have the whole of Sutherland in one ward rather than the current (somewhat arbitrarily split) two. The central Inverness wards look far more coherent than the current janky ones which protrude in all manner of strange directions. The only annoyance for me is that there are now two Inverness wards that extend way southwards - though given how sparsely populated the area immediately south of Inverness is, I suppose it can't be helped. As a local I would be quite happy if those proposals came to pass.
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Jul 27, 2020 19:39:23 GMT
Still nothing. Though interesting to see the parochialness of the local press And it says 2019 Review which is weird. They aren't out to consultation yet. Must have leaked to a councillor. It restores the 2007-2012 wards in Caithness which is a good thing (even if they lose a councillor) Sutherland gets one ward and the cross loch ward in East Sutherland is abolished. Dingwall is tidied up by expanding a little. The main changes appear to be around Inverness itself where I'm presuming there are less wards and higher representation. Again, also a tidy up (even though that annoying Inverness South spur is still there) It's actually a really good map. Yes indeed, at a glance almost all of those boundaries make more sense than the current ones. It's sensible to have Thurso and Wick more compact, and it's better to have the whole of Sutherland in one ward rather than the current (somewhat arbitrarily split) two. The central Inverness wards look far more coherent than the current janky ones which protrude in all manner of strange directions. The only annoyance for me is that there are now two Inverness wards that extend way southwards - though given how sparsely populated the area immediately south of Inverness is, I suppose it can't be helped. As a local I would be quite happy if those proposals came to pass. Yeah. It as close as possible respects the 'Historic Counties' (for those who still care) and as much as Inverness has those strange extensions it's much neater following the Ness. It is strange that the net effect of the review in order to better represent Island communities hasn't affected Skye at all.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jul 28, 2020 14:02:43 GMT
Having looked at the draft recommendations for Havering which were released by the LGBCE today, I can conclude that the allegations of gerrymandering regarding new Havering wards are not in fact justified for the following reasons:
1. The new two member wards cover areas that are expected to have considerable population growth, especially Beam Park whose forecast electorate in five years' time is expected to be more than double the draft ward's current electorate. The splitting of Romford ward into Romford Town North and Romford Town South (both of which are 2-member wards) is for the same reason as the creation of Beam Park. 2. By comparison, the majority of the plan's three member wards are only expected to have below-average population growth. 3. The continuing popularity of Residents' Associations across Havering means that it is practically impossible for Labour to control Havering anyway, and overall control is difficult even for the Conservatives.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 28, 2020 14:11:16 GMT
|
|