Ossett and Denby Dale

[markgoodair]

81.5% of postal votes returned so far.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Just looked up the Electoral Commission data and in 2019, only 66.7% of Postal Ballots were returned in Morley and Outwood constituency.

[The Bishop]

How many postal votes have been issued compared to 2019? If it is a bigger number overall *and* the proportion using them is higher, that might be an argument against the very low overall turnout that some are now speculating on.

[markgoodair]

Jul 4, 2024 11:49:27 GMT The Bishop said:

How many postal votes have been issued compared to 2019? If it is a bigger number overall *and* the proportion using them is higher, that might be an argument against the very low overall turnout that some are now speculating on.

Impossible to say as it is a brand new seat.

[The Bishop]

I was asking in more general terms, I presume the total figures for nationwide postal votes issued at GEs are available?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jul 4, 2024 12:03:52 GMT The Bishop said:

I was asking in more general terms, I presume the total figures for nationwide postal votes issued at GEs are available?

Last election - total electorate 47,567,752. Postal ballots issued 8,183,542. Postal ballots returned 6,866,494 (included in the count 6,717,670).

[The Bishop]

What caused the latter discrepancy, not being filled in properly or similar?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Don't have stats from Northern Ireland but the postal ballots which were rejected were for the following reasons:

26% Mismatched date of birth (anecdotally most of this is because people don't read it and put today's date instead of their date of birth)
25% Mismatched signature
11% Postal voting statement unreturned
9% Mismatched signature AND date of birth
9% Missing signature AND date of birth
8% Ballot paper unreturned
7% Missing signature
6% Missing date of birth

[johnloony]

Jul 4, 2024 12:18:26 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Don't have stats from Northern Ireland but the postal ballots which were rejected were for the following reasons:

26% Mismatched date of birth (anecdotally most of this is because people don't read it and put today's date instead of their date of birth)
25% Mismatched signature
11% Postal voting statement unreturned
9% Mismatched signature AND date of birth
9% Missing signature AND date of birth
8% Ballot paper unreturned
7% Missing signature
6% Missing date of birth

This time I have noticed an increase in the number of forms where they have put in their date of birth, but not the two digits for the year. This time, for the first time, the two initial digits of the birth year “19” or “20” are pre-printed on the PVSes. For the last five years, they haven’t been. Before 2017 (i.e. before the 2000 children were old enough to vote) they had the “19” printed. This is the first time that the system is clever enough to pre-print the year of birth (19 or 20) for each person individually.

[john07]

Jul 4, 2024 16:27:15 GMT johnloony said:

Jul 4, 2024 12:18:26 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Don't have stats from Northern Ireland but the postal ballots which were rejected were for the following reasons:

26% Mismatched date of birth (anecdotally most of this is because people don't read it and put today's date instead of their date of birth)
25% Mismatched signature
11% Postal voting statement unreturned
9% Mismatched signature AND date of birth
9% Missing signature AND date of birth
8% Ballot paper unreturned
7% Missing signature
6% Missing date of birth

This time I have noticed an increase in the number of forms where they have put in their date of birth, but not the two digits for the year. This time, for the first time, the two initial digits of the birth year “19” or “20” are pre-printed on the PVSes. For the last five years, they haven’t been. Before 2017 (i.e. before the 2000 children were old enough to vote) they had the “19” printed. This is the first time that the system is clever enough to pre-print the year of birth (19 or 20) for each person individually.

The latter was the issue behind the millennium bug. Computer nerds were too stupid to realise that a two digit code for year, in the 1980s and 1990s, was inadequate beyond the end of 1999.

Vast amounts of computer code contained errors and it cost a small fortune to rectify this. This usually involved employing many of the same idiots who had caused to problem in the first place to correct this.

[davidh]

Jul 4, 2024 16:37:29 GMT john07 said:

Jul 4, 2024 16:27:15 GMT johnloony said:

This time I have noticed an increase in the number of forms where they have put in their date of birth, but not the two digits for the year. This time, for the first time, the two initial digits of the birth year “19” or “20” are pre-printed on the PVSes. For the last five years, they haven’t been. Before 2017 (i.e. before the 2000 children were old enough to vote) they had the “19” printed. This is the first time that the system is clever enough to pre-print the year of birth (19 or 20) for each person individually.

The latter was the issue behind the millennium bug. Computer nerds were too stupid to realise that a two digit code for year, in the 1980s and 1990s, was inadequate beyond the end of 1999.

Vast amounts of computer code contained errors and it cost a small fortune to rectify this. This usually involved employing many of the same idiots who had caused to problem in the first place to correct this.

It wasn't about stupidity; it was about cost.

The cost of data now is trivial - you can buy gigabytes for almost nothing.  But back in the 1970s, when many of the affected systems were being developed, data was far more expensive, and saving space mattered - particularly on things as frequently used as dates. I remember being on a Cobol course in the early 2000s and being told that when a council in the 1970s expanded its capacity by 1MB it cost £1m.  That's why years were stored in two-bit format (and why COMP-3 exists).