ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,330
|
Post by ricmk on Jul 17, 2020 16:09:33 GMT
If you were designing a socially distanced method of running local (by) elections from scratch, wouldn't you have the counting done in each polling station separately? So after close of poll the poll staff could verify & count from their own station, with count supervisory staff / political party representation present to scrutinise. Then report in centrally or similar. That way you'd never have people from the different polling stations mixing. Technical issue over verifying papers when you know how many there are supposed to be, but if the will was there I'm sure that wouldn't be insuperable.
To all of us used to central counting and the atmosphere of a bit count, that probably sounds horrendous, and would the parties be able to scrutinise effectively split so thinly? And how the heck would recounts work if it was very close?
But if we are serious about social distancing and trying to get by-elections sooner rather than later, I wonder if they might look at something like that?
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,249
|
Post by peterl on Jul 17, 2020 16:19:29 GMT
I can see many disadvantages to that. For one thing, presiding officers with far less experience having to make the final call on doubtful ballot papers. Candidates having to send agents to each polling station, which particularly for unitary/county elections could be quite a few, maybe as many as 6 or 7 polling stations.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 17, 2020 16:19:59 GMT
So we are now hearing that from October conferences and other large indoor events are likely to be permitted, subject to pilots. As the count is probably the most risky part of the election process, involving as it does a large number of people being inside together for an extended period, could there now be hope for the return of by elections this autumn?
So party conferences will be on?
Speakers, speaking with masks on would be entertaining!
Though MPs being seen to be on party political holiday rather than at parliament would go down like an even heavier lead balloon than last year, me thinks.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,249
|
Post by peterl on Jul 17, 2020 16:23:06 GMT
One thing I do know if that the Green conference will be done online this year, we have already agreed that.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 17, 2020 16:24:17 GMT
I can see many disadvantages to that. For one thing, presiding officers with far less experience having to make the final call on doubtful ballot papers. Candidates having to send agents to each polling station, which particularly for unitary/county elections could be quite a few, maybe as many as 6 or 7 polling stations.
Keep the ballots at the polling station. Presiding officers keeps the ballots secure. 1 Verifying officer plus 1 nominated person from each party goes from polling station to polling station verifying votes.
If they reported the results at that level we would have a great psephological detail to ponder over.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jul 17, 2020 16:26:12 GMT
If you were designing a socially distanced method of running local (by) elections from scratch, wouldn't you have the counting done in each polling station separately? So after close of poll the poll staff could verify & count from their own station, with count supervisory staff / political party representation present to scrutinise. Then report in centrally or similar. That way you'd never have people from the different polling stations mixing. Technical issue over verifying papers when you know how many there are supposed to be, but if the will was there I'm sure that wouldn't be insuperable. To all of us used to central counting and the atmosphere of a bit count, that probably sounds horrendous, and would the parties be able to scrutinise effectively split so thinly? And how the heck would recounts work if it was very close? But if we are serious about social distancing and trying to get by-elections sooner rather than later, I wonder if they might look at something like that? That’s the Australian way; ballot papers are counted on the night at polling stations, then transferred to the Electoral Commission where there’s a full recheck. But realistically if you work on only roughly 8-10 boxes in a Ward, and a turnout of circa 30%, it wouldn’t be too difficult to count them with half-a-dozen counters spread around a sports hall or community centre at a 2m distance.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,249
|
Post by peterl on Jul 17, 2020 16:27:28 GMT
The count is not too difficult, its making it so that candidates and agents can see what's going on, but are not too close that is the challenge.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 17, 2020 16:41:13 GMT
The counting rules say that for secrecy reasons you can't count one ballot box on its own, and you can't count postal votes separately from ballot box votes. That doesn't rule out doing the counting in each polling station, but it would require each polling station to have multiple ballot boxes which for small polling districts would be overkill.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 17, 2020 16:59:43 GMT
The counting rules say that for secrecy reasons you can't count one ballot box on its own, and you can't count postal votes separately from ballot box votes. That doesn't rule out doing the counting in each polling station, but it would require each polling station to have multiple ballot boxes which for small polling districts would be overkill.
Use common sense. Bend the rules, its possible if all agree as an emergency interim measure. Ensure there a small number but enough people there to ensure fair play. Job done.
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Jul 17, 2020 18:25:12 GMT
The counting rules say that for secrecy reasons you can't count one ballot box on its own, and you can't count postal votes separately from ballot box votes. That doesn't rule out doing the counting in each polling station, but it would require each polling station to have multiple ballot boxes which for small polling districts would be overkill.
Use common sense. Bend the rules, its possible if all agree as an emergency interim measure. Ensure there a small number but enough people there to ensure fair play. Job done.
Yikes McYikeface.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 17, 2020 19:24:25 GMT
The counting rules say that for secrecy reasons you can't count one ballot box on its own, and you can't count postal votes separately from ballot box votes. That doesn't rule out doing the counting in each polling station, but it would require each polling station to have multiple ballot boxes which for small polling districts would be overkill. Use common sense. Bend the rules, its possible if all agree as an emergency interim measure. Ensure there a small number but enough people there to ensure fair play. Job done.
Secrecy of the ballot. There are some very small polling districts out there where every ballot might be for the same candidate. Secrecy of the ballot no longer applies.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 17, 2020 19:26:57 GMT
Given how few people really understand the rules for the conduct of counts (in both local authorities and the political parties) multiple counts would be a recipe for error.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jul 17, 2020 19:31:39 GMT
The count is not too difficult, its making it so that candidates and agents can see what's going on, but are not too close that is the challenge. Have got a friend whose partner sells commercial furniture for a living (off topic, he was, for some reason, categorised as a key worker) and he reckons the average office desk is between 900mm-1m wide, and what he describes as school desks are wider still, so it would be possible to stand candidates, agents, etc. on the other side of the table (i.e. opposite the counter) and keep the “one metre plus” social distancing.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 17, 2020 20:41:30 GMT
By my count there are currently 170 council vacancies, as follows:
(A) Vacancies in Scotland. Polling dates remain under the control of the Returning Officer, with the three-month deadline for filling vacancies having been waived (12 vacancies)
Aberdeenshire, Ellon and District (SNP) - 1 Oct 2020 Orkney, North Isles (Ind) - 1 Oct 2020 West Lothian, Livingston South (SNP) - 1 Oct 2020 Scottish Borders, Leaderdale and Melrose (SNP) - 29 Oct 2020 Aberdeen, Kincorth/Nigg/Cove (SNP) - 5 Nov 2020 Edinburgh, Craigentinny/Duddingston (SNP) - 12 Nov 2020 Clackmannanshire, Clackmannanshire East (C) - 19 Nov 2020 North Lanarkshire, Fortissat (Ind elected as SNP) - 19 Nov 2020 North Lanarkshire, Thorniewood (SNP) - 19 Nov 2020 Highland, Aird and Loch Ness (C) Perth and Kinross, Perth City North (SNP) Perth and Kinross, Perth City South (SNP)
(B) Vacancies in Wales, to be filled in the period 1 Feb 2021 to 16 Apr 2021 (6 vacancies)
Bridgend, Nant-y-moel (Ind) Denbighshire, Corwen (PC) Isle of Anglesey, Caergybi (Ind) Neath Port Talbot, Aberavon (Lab) Newport, Victoria (Lab) Swansea, Castle (Lab)
(C) Vacancies in England for terms not ending May 2021, to be filled as standalone by-elections on 6 May 2021 (64 vacancies in 61 wards)
Allerdale, Aspatria (C elected as Putting Cumbria First) Allerdale, Christchurch (Lab) Allerdale, Ellen and Gilcrux (Lab) Allerdale, Seaton and Northside (C) Arun, Brookfield (LD) Ashfield, Skegby (Zadroznyite) Barrow-in-Furness, Roosecote (C) Birmingham, Oscott (Lab) Blaby, Stanton and Flamville (C) Bolsover, Bolsover North and Shuttlewood (Lab) Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole, Commons (Ind) Canterbury, Westgate (Lab) CHelmsford, Moulsham Lodge (LD) Cheshire East, Crewe West (Lab) Cheshire West and Chester, Neston (Lab) Copeland, Whitehaven Central (Lab) Ealing, Ealing Broadway (C) Ealing, Hanger Hill (C) Ealing, Hobbayne (Lab) East Riding, South West Holderness (C) East Staffordshire, Eton Park (2) (Lab/Ind) East Suffolk, Framlingham (C) Enfield, Southbury (Lab) Fenland, Lattersey (C) Forest of Dean, Berry Hill (Ind All) Gravesham, Westcoourt (Lab) Greenwich, Glyndon (Lab) Greenwich, Kidbrooke with Hornfair (Lab) Guildford, Send (Guildford Greenbelt Group) Hackney, Hoxton East and Shoreditch (Lab) Hackney, King's Park (Lab) Hackney, Stamford Hill West (C) Lancaster, Kellet (LD) Leicester, North Evington (Lab) Lewisham, Catford South (Lab) Lewisham, Sydenham (Lab) Lichfield, Summerfield and All SS (Lab) Mid Devon, Taw (C) Mid Devon, Westexe (Ind) Mid Sussex, Copthorne and Worth (Ind) North Lincolnshire, Ashby (Lab) North Lincolnshire, Bottesford (C) North Lincolnshire, Broughton and Appleby (2) (C) North Somerset, Portishead East (Ind) North West Leicestershire, Worthington and Breedon (C) Redcar and Cleveland, Longbeck (C) South Derbyshire, Hilton (2) (C) South Kesteven, Glen (C) South Ribble, St Ambrose (Lab) Stoke-on-Trent, Moorcroft (Lab) Surrey Heath, Bagshot (LD) Telford and Wrekin, Donnington (Lab) Test Valley, Andover St Mary's (Andover All) Test Valley, Chilworth Nursling and Rownhams (C) Thanet, Newington (Lab) Uttlesford, Newport (Grn elected as Residents for Uttlesford) Waltham Forest, Hatch Lane (C) Wealden, Heathfield North (C) West Lindsey, Kelsey Wold (C) West Suffolk, Moreton Hall (C) Wychavon, Elmley Castle and Somerville (C)
(D) Vacancies in England for terms not ending May 2021, to be filled as double vacancy on 6 May 2021 (23 vacancies)
Amber Valley, Somercotes (Lab) Colchester, Prettygate (C) Crawley, Ifield (Lab) Gateshead, Birtley (Lab) Harlow, Church Langley (C) Hart, Crookham East and Ewshot (Community Campaign Hart) Ipswich, Castle Hill (C) Knowsley, Halewood South (Ind) Manchester, Brooklands (Lab) Newcastle upon Tyne, Byker (Lab) North Hertfordshire, Royston Palace (C) North Tyneside, Preston (Lab) Peterborough, Fletton and Woodston (C) Rochford, Hockley and Ashingdon (C) Rushmoor, North Town (Lab) Sandwell, Wednesbury South (Lab) Southend-on-Sea, St Luke's (Ind) Tandridge, Felbridge (C) Trafford, Priory (Lab) Tunbridge Wells, Pantiles and St Mark's (C) Wigan, Orrell (C) Wolverhampton, Heath Town (Lab) Wolverhampton, Tettenhall Wightwick (C)
(E) Vacancies in England for terms ending May 2021, to be left unfilled (65 vacancies)
Adur, Eastbrook (Lab) Amber Valley, Kilburn Denby and Holbrook (C) Barnsley, Central (Lab) Blackburrn with Darrwen, Ewood (Lab) Blackburrn with Darrwen, Livesey with Pleasington (C) Bolton, Westhoughton North and Chew Moor (C) Bristol, Brislington West (Lab) Cannock Chase, Hawks Green (C) Cherwell, Kidlington West (C) Chorley, Chorley North West (Lab) Chorley, Clayton-le-Woods and Whittle-le-Woods (C) Cornwall, St Mewan (C) Dudley, Norton (Lab elected as C) Elmbridge, Cobham and Downside (Brexit Party elected as C) Essex CC, Rochford North (C) Gloucester, Longlevens (C) Gloucester, Quedgeley Fieldcourt (Ind elected as C) Gloucestershire CC, Winchcombe and Woodmancote (C) Hartlepool, Hart (Lab) Hartlepool, Manor House (Brexit Party elected as UKIP) Hyndburn, Barnfield (C) Lancashire CC, West Lancashire North (C) Leeds, Rothwell (LD) Lincolnshire CC, Market Rasen Wolds (C) Maidstone, Boxley (C) Milton Keynes, Tattenhoe (C) Newcastle upon Tyne, Blakelaw (Lab) Newcastle upon Tyne, Elswick (Lab) Newcastle upon Tyne, Lemington (Lab) Norfolk CC, Freebridge Lynn (C) North Hertfordshire, Letchworth Wilbury (Lab) Northampton, New Duston (C) Northamptonshire CC, Towcester and Roade (C) Northumberland, Alnwick (C) Pendle, Barrowford (C) Preston, Preston Rural East (C) Reigate and Banstead, Earlswood and Whitebushes (Grn) Rotherham, Anston and Woodsetts (Lab) Rotherham, Maltby (Lab) Rotherham, Rother Vale (Lab) Rushmoor, Fernhill (C) Salford, Kersal (Lab) Sandwell, Friar Park (Lab) Sandwell, Old Warley (Lab) Sheffield, Broomhill and Sharrow Vale (Lab) Sheffield, Manor Castle (Lab) Sheffield, Walkley (Lab) Slough, Wexham Lea (Lab) South Northamptonshire, Grange Park (C) Stroud, Amberley and Woodchester (C) Suffolk CC, Carlford (C) Sunderland, Houghton (Lab) Swindon, Rodbourne Cheney (Lab) Trafford, Village (Ind elected as LD) Wakefield, Altofts and Whitwood (Lab) Wakefield, Normanton (Lab) Warrington, Birchwood (Lab) Warwickshire CC, Bedworth Central (Lab) Warwickshire CC, Nuneaton Abbey (Lab) Wellingborough, Irchester (C) West Sussex CC, Felpham (C) Wiltshire, By Brook (C) Wirral, Moreton West and Saughall Massie (C) Wokingham, Finchampstead South (LD elected as C) Wolverhampton, Bushbury South and Low Hill (Lab)
Errors possible.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 17, 2020 21:42:45 GMT
Which I make...
Con : 69 Lab : 66 SNP: 9 Lib Dem: 6 Ind:11 Others: 9 (Plaid, Zarondnyite, Guildfordian, Andoverites, Harties, UKIP, Putting Cumbria First, Green, Uttlesfordians.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 17, 2020 22:03:24 GMT
Given how few people really understand the rules for the conduct of counts (in both local authorities and the political parties) multiple counts would be a recipe for error. Its seems those in politics don't trust people in politics. I actually think people in politics want to make it more difficult than it is. 1 knowledgeable officer plus candidates and or 1 party member going round to each polling station to do the count at each would alleviate none knowledge of rules. As for a ballot box being 100% for 1 candidate, then ban parties from knowing who voted and who didn't keeps some secrecy and don't publish box returns, and get the people at the counts to sign legally binding agreements they won't divulge the information and prosecute if they break their word. There are ways rounds things. I doubt the parties will do it, they will prefer to delay elections indefinitely, the current elected dictatorship democracy seems to be suiting them all just fine.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 17, 2020 22:20:38 GMT
Given how few people really understand the rules for the conduct of counts (in both local authorities and the political parties) multiple counts would be a recipe for error. Its seems those in politics don't trust people in politics. I actually think people in politics want to make it more difficult than it is. 1 knowledgeable officer plus candidates and or 1 party member going round to each polling station to do the count at each would alleviate none knowledge of rules. As for a ballot box being 100% for 1 candidate, then ban parties from knowing who voted and who didn't keeps some secrecy and don't publish box returns, and get the people at the counts to sign legally binding agreements they won't divulge the information and prosecute if they break their word. There are ways rounds things. I doubt the parties will do it, they will prefer to delay elections indefinitely, the current elected dictatorship democracy seems to be suiting them all just fine. And thus remove what is probably the best guard against personation? And I doubt the parties are enjoying the absence of by-elections.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,249
|
Post by peterl on Jul 17, 2020 22:22:37 GMT
The difference in attittude is I think the divide between those of us who have extensive personal experience of the ins and outs of how election counts work and the "armchair psephologists" who maybe lack this expertise. As someone who has attended at least 10 counts as either a candidate or election agent (and one as a count assistant), I think in the round holding a central count that everyone can attend and at which the returning officer is present to make the hard calls is probably the best set-up. And there should be ways to achieve this while respecting social distancing and without having to amend the current rules.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 17, 2020 22:25:29 GMT
As a one off, we're not talking about permanent change.
I think people are just looking for excuses to delay.
Personation hardly ever happens
Maybe local politicians want by-elections not sure national ones give 2 hoots.
|
|