|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 5, 2022 0:58:21 GMT
The smart ones arrive 30-minutes before the declaration having had a shower, a change, a shag, a meal and some drinking with friends. How do you do a box count if you turn up so late? The only point of going to the count is to gather statistics, everything else is irrelevent. We left the last PCC election at about 10:45, everything done, no need to hang around to wait for the counting. You've never had an election close enough that it's worth watching the counting to prevent the count staff making mistakes that would favour the other side? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,759 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 5, 2022 12:10:42 GMT
How do you do a box count if you turn up so late? The only point of going to the count is to gather statistics, everything else is irrelevent. We left the last PCC election at about 10:45, everything done, no need to hang around to wait for the counting. You've never had an election close enough that it's worth watching the counting to prevent the count staff making mistakes that would favour the other side? In almost 30 counts I think two. One being me in 2006, won by 120 votes/2%. One being in the same hall while West Ecclesfield ws being counted in 2016 where the third place winner was drawn by lot. But, if you've gathered the data, and know you're not going to win, the job is done. Go and have a sandwich and a cup of tea. Chat with those on the other side who aren't antagonistically tribal. Compare letterbox injuries. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,532
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 6, 2022 1:50:05 GMT
Bear in mind that the “turnout“ is usually defined in terms of the total valid vote (14,858) rather than the total number of ballot papers (15,942) or even the entirely fictitious number (16,788) which was invented earlier in this thread, which means that for statistical and historical purposes, the turnout in the Southend West by-election was 22.4% rather than the 24.03% which was discussed above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2022 7:38:09 GMT
Con 12792 Psychedlic party 2nd = 512 UKIP 400 others <400 Highest Conservative Vote Share in History In all seriousness, I think the highest vote share in history was 98.7% in Middleton and Prestwich in 1940. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 6, 2022 8:58:07 GMT
Highest Conservative Vote Share in History In all seriousness, I think the highest vote share in history was 98.7% in Middleton and Prestwich in 1940. 1940 of course was before history began for some people. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 6, 2022 10:49:36 GMT
In all seriousness, I think the highest vote share in history was 98.7% in Middleton and Prestwich in 1940. 1940 of course was before history began for some people. With 1963 the year that sex was invented. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 6, 2022 12:32:25 GMT
Highest Conservative Vote Share in History In all seriousness, I think the highest vote share in history was 98.7% in Middleton and Prestwich in 1940. Already pointed out. It may well be the highest Tory share in a peacetime parliamentary election. |
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Feb 6, 2022 17:09:22 GMT
In all seriousness, I think the highest vote share in history was 98.7% in Middleton and Prestwich in 1940. Already pointed out. It may well be the highest Tory share in a peacetime parliamentary election. There were lots of silly maps circulating on Twitter after the North Shropshire by-election showing what the country would look like on that swing. Has anyone done or seen an equivalent for this one? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 6, 2022 20:40:58 GMT
I think one reason why Conservative MPs have not yet defenestrated Boris is because there is a bit less backlash than some people think there should be. Still upset people. Still angry people. But not on the level where MPs were steamrollered into chucking him without giving him another chance. Completely agree - I think he will survive, albeit bruised and battered. Yes the Southend West election was no normal by-election, what with the major parties standing down. But the turnout was not dissimilar from the Batley and Spen by-election in 2016 - and Frith actually achieved a higher percentage majority than Brabin. Even given the tragic circumstances of the by-election, many voters would have been motivated by the government's performance (good or bad). The fact that the Conservative candidate won with such a commanding majority, without any other candidate saving their deposit, highlights that the situation may not be as bleak for Boris after all. But Birmingham Erdington in the coming weeks will prove a much greater test... I think a significant number of people will have voted Tory in respect for David Amess. I don't think you can read anything about Johnson into this vote, but the spoiled ballots may signify a plague on all political houses as they did in the 2019 local elections. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2022 23:29:44 GMT
Completely agree - I think he will survive, albeit bruised and battered. Yes the Southend West election was no normal by-election, what with the major parties standing down. But the turnout was not dissimilar from the Batley and Spen by-election in 2016 - and Frith actually achieved a higher percentage majority than Brabin. Even given the tragic circumstances of the by-election, many voters would have been motivated by the government's performance (good or bad). The fact that the Conservative candidate won with such a commanding majority, without any other candidate saving their deposit, highlights that the situation may not be as bleak for Boris after all. But Birmingham Erdington in the coming weeks will prove a much greater test... I think a significant number of people will have voted Tory in respect for David Amess. I don't think you can read anything about Johnson into this vote, but the spoiled ballots may signify a plague on all political houses as they did in the 2019 local elections. Or it could just signify that they wanted to vote, just not for any of the parties / candidates on the ballot. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 7, 2022 0:07:31 GMT
I think a significant number of people will have voted Tory in respect for David Amess. I don't think you can read anything about Johnson into this vote, but the spoiled ballots may signify a plague on all political houses as they did in the 2019 local elections. Or it could just signify that they wanted to vote, just not for any of the parties / candidates on the ballot. But as said above there were a lot more spoiled ballots than Batley and Spen. I guess you coukd argue that the psychedelic party was the only repository for left wing votes, whereas right wingers had a few more options in Batley.. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 7, 2022 0:33:26 GMT
Batley and Spen covers an area with a long history of Extreme Right political activity (a fact directly connected with the circumstances of the by-election, of course), so it's hardly surprising that more votes were cast for such parties than at Southend West - we learn nothing from this that we did not already know. The number of spoilt ballots at this by-election is the only half-interesting thing about it, but there's obviously no way of being sure of the meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 7, 2022 1:04:33 GMT
Does anyone have the official breakdown of the figures for rejected papers?
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Feb 7, 2022 1:08:58 GMT
Have spoilt ballots ever saved their nonexistent deposit before? Possibly in the Speaker's constituency? Figures from Chorley and Buckingham would be interesting... granted those are not normal elections that take place there either. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2022 3:05:40 GMT
Have spoilt ballots ever saved their nonexistent deposit before? Possibly in the Speaker's constituency? Figures from Chorley and Buckingham would be interesting... granted those are not normal elections that take place there either. ‘Speaker seats’ generally see notable falls in turnout. Perhaps they will also have above average numbers of spoilt ballots. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Feb 7, 2022 15:48:41 GMT
Does anyone have the official breakdown of the figures for rejected papers? I have emailed the elections office asking for the breakdown, so will report the answer in due course. ("We aim to respond to your email within 5 working days.") I am sure the vast majority will be 'void for uncertainty', with probably 0 for lack of official mark and a handful for voting for too many candidates, or mark by which the voter could be identified. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Feb 8, 2022 1:41:40 GMT
Possibly in the Speaker's constituency? Figures from Chorley and Buckingham would be interesting... granted those are not normal elections that take place there either. ‘Speaker seats’ generally see notable falls in turnout. Perhaps they will also have above average numbers of spoilt ballots. I found the figures for rejected votes, reason and postal vote statistics for 2019. Chorley was of course top with 1,303 rejected ballots but this was only about 3% so didn't save its 'deposit'. I don't know about Buckingham 2010-17, that would be equally interesting, a much higher turnout there - possibly more rejected votes but then again could still be a low(er) percentage given the high turnout. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi99eDY-u71AhWGLsAKHaMIAKAQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.electoralcommission.org.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2020-05%2FUKPGE%25202019-%2520Electoral%2520Data-Website.xlsx&usg=AOvVaw0pXGxmVyghaXYB44vCw9wrDoes anyone have the official breakdown of the figures for rejected papers? I have emailed the elections office asking for the breakdown, so will report the answer in due course. ("We aim to respond to your email within 5 working days.") I am sure the vast majority will be 'void for uncertainty', with probably 0 for lack of official mark and a handful for voting for too many candidates, or mark by which the voter could be identified. In Chorley 'Unmarked' was top with 1,140. 5 for 'no official mark' - how does that work? I thought they didn't stamp them any more and it is already printed on. For the record, in 2019, SE Cornwall had the most 'no official mark' rejections, 71, the next was North Somerset at 47, unusual given they are both very safe, uncontroversial constituencies - and the vast majority of places had 0. Also for the record, both Barnsley Central and East had the fewest rejections at 37 each. So of the few who turn out there (turnout was a fairly low 55-56%), they seem to be the most 'well behaved' voters! |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Feb 8, 2022 10:54:56 GMT
‘Speaker seats’ generally see notable falls in turnout. Perhaps they will also have above average numbers of spoilt ballots. I found the figures for rejected votes, reason and postal vote statistics for 2019. Chorley was of course top with 1,303 rejected ballots but this was only about 3% so didn't save its 'deposit'. I don't know about Buckingham 2010-17, that would be equally interesting, a much higher turnout there - possibly more rejected votes but then again could still be a low(er) percentage given the high turnout. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi99eDY-u71AhWGLsAKHaMIAKAQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.electoralcommission.org.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2020-05%2FUKPGE%25202019-%2520Electoral%2520Data-Website.xlsx&usg=AOvVaw0pXGxmVyghaXYB44vCw9wrI have emailed the elections office asking for the breakdown, so will report the answer in due course. ("We aim to respond to your email within 5 working days.") I am sure the vast majority will be 'void for uncertainty', with probably 0 for lack of official mark and a handful for voting for too many candidates, or mark by which the voter could be identified. In Chorley 'Unmarked' was top with 1,140. 5 for 'no official mark' - how does that work? I thought they didn't stamp them any more and it is already printed on. For the record, in 2019, SE Cornwall had the most 'no official mark' rejections, 71, the next was North Somerset at 47, unusual given they are both very safe, uncontroversial constituencies - and the vast majority of places had 0. Also for the record, both Barnsley Central and East had the fewest rejections at 37 each. So of the few who turn out there (turnout was a fairly low 55-56%), they seem to be the most 'well behaved' voters! Lack of a mark might mean that some people tore up the ballot? Although 1140 does seem quite high for that. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 8, 2022 11:19:19 GMT
I found the figures for rejected votes, reason and postal vote statistics for 2019. Chorley was of course top with 1,303 rejected ballots but this was only about 3% so didn't save its 'deposit'. I don't know about Buckingham 2010-17, that would be equally interesting, a much higher turnout there - possibly more rejected votes but then again could still be a low(er) percentage given the high turnout. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi99eDY-u71AhWGLsAKHaMIAKAQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.electoralcommission.org.uk%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2020-05%2FUKPGE%25202019-%2520Electoral%2520Data-Website.xlsx&usg=AOvVaw0pXGxmVyghaXYB44vCw9wrIn Chorley 'Unmarked' was top with 1,140. 5 for 'no official mark' - how does that work? I thought they didn't stamp them any more and it is already printed on. For the record, in 2019, SE Cornwall had the most 'no official mark' rejections, 71, the next was North Somerset at 47, unusual given they are both very safe, uncontroversial constituencies - and the vast majority of places had 0. Also for the record, both Barnsley Central and East had the fewest rejections at 37 each. So of the few who turn out there (turnout was a fairly low 55-56%), they seem to be the most 'well behaved' voters! Lack of a mark might mean that some people tore up the ballot? Although 1140 does seem quite high for that. I think you might be misreading that. Surely what was intended was 1140 unmarked by the elector i.e returned as blank, and 5 lack of official mark, which as has been said these days probably means the paper was torn up. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 8, 2022 11:33:27 GMT
Sometimes the mark is torn off by accident. IIRC the mark is normally in a top corer of the paper and so easily vulnerable to this.
|
|
