batman
Labour
Posts: 12,399 
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Mar 3, 2024 17:28:57 GMT
Indeed, I don't think there's anything to see here. Move along.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 3, 2024 18:00:45 GMT
Why were they not read out? The numbers of rejected ballots in an election have to be recorded and made available by law. If so they should just read out the total number. Nobody cares about ‘Want of official mark’ which is almost always 0 which is a waste of time when people are waiting to speak/hear the victor/go home. And genuine question, how can something be ‘rejected in part’ - it either is or isn’t! I have asked that question to two returning officers, and neither gave an answer which made sense. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 3, 2024 18:03:10 GMT
If so they should just read out the total number. Nobody cares about ‘Want of official mark’ which is almost always 0 which is a waste of time when people are waiting to speak/hear the victor/go home. And genuine question, how can something be ‘rejected in part’ - it either is or isn’t! It cannot happen here, but it can happen in multi-seat elections. From Electoral Commission guidance: That explanation doesn’t make sense, because if a ballot paper contains votes for A and B, but for which a possible mark for candidate C is doubtful or crossed out or whatever, then it is counted as a good vote for A and B. If it were counted as “rejected in part” then it would be double-counted. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 3, 2024 18:35:39 GMT
It cannot happen here, but it can happen in multi-seat elections. From Electoral Commission guidance: That explanation doesn’t make sense, because if a ballot paper contains votes for A and B, but for which a possible mark for candidate C is doubtful or crossed out or whatever, then it is counted as a good vote for A and B. If it were counted as “rejected in part” then it would be double-counted. In which case it should not be included in the total number of "spoilt papers" because it has not been rejected in full. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 3, 2024 18:40:33 GMT
That explanation doesn’t make sense, because if a ballot paper contains votes for A and B, but for which a possible mark for candidate C is doubtful or crossed out or whatever, then it is counted as a good vote for A and B. If it were counted as “rejected in part” then it would be double-counted. In which case it should not be included in the total number of "spoilt papers" because it has not been rejected in full. Precisely. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Mar 3, 2024 20:50:28 GMT
Any Lib Dems give any reason why the Lib Dems didn't put much effort in?
The Tories seemed to think that they didn't have a chance with the lack of history of winning and the massive national poll drag, but these didn't apply to Lib Dems.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Mar 3, 2024 21:20:16 GMT
Any Lib Dems give any reason why the Lib Dems didn't put much effort in? The Tories seemed to think that they didn't have a chance with the lack of history of winning and the massive national poll drag, but these didn't apply to Lib Dems. Rochdale as a whole voted 60% leave or thereabouts and there’s no reason to think why this constituency wouldn’t have a leave tally dissimilar, with only parts of L’borough probably leaning more remain but probably not by a majority. Don’t underestimate the euroscepticism in the minority communities as many were very anti-EU migration. Ironically quite a few may not disagree with Ms Duffy on the issue of ‘Eastern Europeans’ as she said. I think the 2017 election pretty much sealed the LDs fate for a while to come, the Tory vote increased quite substantially, a lot of this would have not only been the former UKIP votes but also a lot of those would have voted LD in the past. Their local government base was whittled down to just a handful of seats in Milnrow/Newhey, which incidentally used to be in Oldham E and Saddleworth pre-2010. |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,399
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Mar 3, 2024 21:41:26 GMT
It is puzzling though. There were particular circumstances which should have helped them to a much better share of the vote if they'd tried a bit.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Mar 3, 2024 21:46:54 GMT
Is this a normal uplift for postal vote registrations in a by-election? (Indeed is this the right number, I notice Crick's "I hear") It seems very much on the higher side, but it's not my area of expertise so near doubling may be normal |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Mar 3, 2024 21:57:33 GMT
Is 43% high? - or is it an increasing trend? I think that is high, but it may be because so much if the electorate was registered by post. The Postal Vote turnout is always higher, even in General Elections. Oddly the postal vote turnout differential may be lower than usual for byelections because the Labour knock up stopped dead just before the envelopes hit the door mats |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Mar 3, 2024 21:59:24 GMT
Is this a normal uplift for postal vote registrations in a by-election? (Indeed is this the right number, I notice Crick's "I hear") It seems very much on the higher side, but it's not my area of expertise so near doubling may be normal I realise that you are doing this because your intention is to spread doubt about this by-election rather than actually requiring answers. All the questions have been answered in the thread above except one. 1) No, that is not the correct number of PV's, it's just over 21,000 as shown further up in the thread 2) The return of the PV's was 60%, that's actually a little low for a parliamentary election. 3) There is always an uplift of PVs during an election of any type there are no figures for what is normal 4) We don't know the base line from the start of the election, we know it from 2019, between 2019 and then there has been this little thing called Covid which has seen a large uplift in PV's across the board. I know, "just asking questions", of course you are. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Mar 3, 2024 22:00:30 GMT
Is this a normal uplift for postal vote registrations in a by-election? (Indeed is this the right number, I notice Crick's "I hear") It seems very much on the higher side, but it's not my area of expertise so near doubling may be normal from 2019 to 2021 there 18,000 new postal voters. Now that is 5 and half constituencies. On average that is 3,272 per constituency in two years and that was for a local election |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,439
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 3, 2024 22:10:58 GMT
Labour effectively given up with no candidate.
Galloway won.
With a candidate Labour probably would win - beating Galloway? Hence the Labour voters won't win because there wasn't a candidate. So they will vote for Galloway. I don't think it's about postal voters.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Mar 3, 2024 22:24:37 GMT
Is this a normal uplift for postal vote registrations in a by-election? (Indeed is this the right number, I notice Crick's "I hear") It seems very much on the higher side, but it's not my area of expertise so near doubling may be normal I realise that you are doing this because your intention is to spread doubt about this by-election rather than actually requiring answers. All the questions have been answered in the thread above except one. 1) No, that is not the correct number of PV's, it's just over 21,000 as shown further up in the thread 2) The return of the PV's was 60%, that's actually a little low for a parliamentary election. 3) There is always an uplift of PVs during an election of any type there are no figures for what is normal 4) We don't know the base line from the start of the election, we know it from 2019, between 2019 and then there has been this little thing called Covid which has seen a large uplift in PV's across the board. I know, "just asking questions", of course you are. No, honest question I have no dog in the Rochdale fight and if Galloway was a bit less Galloway I'd have been rather pleased at the result In fact I'd said in another post that I thought the PV turnout if anything was on the low side because of Labour's collapse |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Mar 3, 2024 22:31:06 GMT
It is puzzling though. There were particular circumstances which should have helped them to a much better share of the vote if they'd tried a bit. My theory developed since I asked the question is that the formidable Lib Dem by-election machine takes time to get started and by the time it was apparent that Labour had crashed out there wasn't time |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Mar 3, 2024 22:33:44 GMT
I realise that you are doing this because your intention is to spread doubt about this by-election rather than actually requiring answers. All the questions have been answered in the thread above except one. 1) No, that is not the correct number of PV's, it's just over 21,000 as shown further up in the thread 2) The return of the PV's was 60%, that's actually a little low for a parliamentary election. 3) There is always an uplift of PVs during an election of any type there are no figures for what is normal 4) We don't know the base line from the start of the election, we know it from 2019, between 2019 and then there has been this little thing called Covid which has seen a large uplift in PV's across the board. I know, "just asking questions", of course you are. No, honest question I have no dog in the Rochdale fight and if Galloway was a bit less Galloway I'd have been rather pleased In fact I'd said in another post that I thought the PV turnout if anything was on the low side because of Labour's collapse that's probably true. Complete guess but I'd have thought turnout in Rochdale was higher than Littleborough and Milnrow which I imagine is unusual. The independent cleaned up in both the later places but turnout was so low he was Galllowayed |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Mar 3, 2024 22:36:00 GMT
It is puzzling though. There were particular circumstances which should have helped them to a much better share of the vote if they'd tried a bit. My theory developed since I asked the question is that the formidable Lib Dem by-election machine takes time to get started and by the time it was apparent that Labour had crashed out there wasn't time what surprises me is the lib Dems were briefing that labour had won without a candidate from fairly early on. I'd say usually they have their finger on the pulse better than anyone else |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Mar 3, 2024 22:47:31 GMT
It is puzzling though. There were particular circumstances which should have helped them to a much better share of the vote if they'd tried a bit. Those particular circumstances occurred well into an already short campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 4, 2024 0:14:04 GMT
Also the figures for spoiled ballots were not read out as part of the declaration. I think it was somewhere in the region of 177 in total - somewhat higher than typical. Perhaps someone should email the Returning Officer. I would, but it turns out I can't be arsed to. I have to go to Rochdale on Tuesday, I'll see if I can track down a noticeboard. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 4, 2024 12:24:52 GMT
My theory developed since I asked the question is that the formidable Lib Dem by-election machine takes time to get started and by the time it was apparent that Labour had crashed out there wasn't time what surprises me is the lib Dems were briefing that labour had won without a candidate from fairly early on. I'd say usually they have their finger on the pulse better than anyone else Were they the ones putting money on Ali to win on polling day, I wonder? |
|
