|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 9, 2024 14:06:34 GMT
There isn't any "official" turnout because the level of the turnout does not matter for any legal purposes. The quick turnout figures given on the night are the total verified ballots divided by the electorate, so include spoiled ballots. The turnout figures usually printed in the press and reference books are the total valid vote, excluding spoiled ballots, divided by the electorate. Are spoiled papers taken into account when deciding whether a candidate has lost their deposit? No. Only valid votes, per Rule 53(4) of the Parliamentary Election Rules ( Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983): "the deposit shall be forfeited if a poll is taken and, after the counting of the votes by the returning officer (including any recount) is completed, the candidate is found not to have polled more than one twentieth of the total number of votes polled by all the candidates" (emphasis added). |
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Sept 9, 2024 14:11:30 GMT
There isn't any "official" turnout because the level of the turnout does not matter for any legal purposes. The quick turnout figures given on the night are the total verified ballots divided by the electorate, so include spoiled ballots. The turnout figures usually printed in the press and reference books are the total valid vote, excluding spoiled ballots, divided by the electorate. Are spoiled papers taken into account when deciding whether a candidate has lost their deposit? Had this exact conversation at the general election count with the returning officer. Over 5% of valid votes to keep the deposit. Only the total of actual declared votes - spoilt ballots are ignored in this calculation. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by cathyc on Sept 9, 2024 14:51:57 GMT
Are spoiled papers taken into account when deciding whether a candidate has lost their deposit? No. Only valid votes, per Rule 53(4) of the Parliamentary Election Rules ( Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983): "the deposit shall be forfeited if a poll is taken and, after the counting of the votes by the returning officer (including any recount) is completed, the candidate is found not to have polled more than one twentieth of the total number of votes polled by all the candidates" (emphasis added). Thank you. Presumably it means that if a candidate is right on the cusp of retaining or losing a deposit then it's in their best interests to get as many ballots as possible classed as spoiled. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774 
|
Post by john07 on Sept 9, 2024 15:58:57 GMT
No. Only valid votes, per Rule 53(4) of the Parliamentary Election Rules ( Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983): "the deposit shall be forfeited if a poll is taken and, after the counting of the votes by the returning officer (including any recount) is completed, the candidate is found not to have polled more than one twentieth of the total number of votes polled by all the candidates" (emphasis added). Thank you. Presumably it means that if a candidate is right on the cusp of retaining or losing a deposit then it's in their best interests to get as many ballots as possible classed as spoiled. Unless they are trying to claim the vote? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 9, 2024 16:02:50 GMT
No. Only valid votes, per Rule 53(4) of the Parliamentary Election Rules ( Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983): "the deposit shall be forfeited if a poll is taken and, after the counting of the votes by the returning officer (including any recount) is completed, the candidate is found not to have polled more than one twentieth of the total number of votes polled by all the candidates" (emphasis added). Thank you. Presumably it means that if a candidate is right on the cusp of retaining or losing a deposit then it's in their best interests to get as many ballots as possible classed as spoiled. Yes, but trying to get ballots for others declared 'spoiled' has only one-twentieth of the effect of the candidate's dubious votes being upheld as good. |
|
cathyc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by cathyc on Sept 9, 2024 16:09:52 GMT
Thank you. Presumably it means that if a candidate is right on the cusp of retaining or losing a deposit then it's in their best interests to get as many ballots as possible classed as spoiled. Yes, but trying to get ballots for others declared 'spoiled' has only one-twentieth of the effect of the candidate's dubious votes being upheld as good. OTOH we are talking here only in respect of candidates who are on just 5% of the vote anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by phil156 on Sept 9, 2024 16:22:45 GMT
I think the problem goes back to the presentation of data on this page: www.manchester.gov.uk/directory_record/469592/baguley_ward_local_by-election_-_2024Near the top of the page we see: Total number of ballot papers in ward: 1343
Turnout: 1329Clearly the Manchester elections office should say Valid ballot papers: 1329 (because there were 14 spoilt ballot papers) and not Turnout: 1329. There seem to be a misunderstanding at the council as to what most people (psephologists and non-psephologists alike) mean by "turnout", which is of course "% turnout". My advice would be to simply ask the elections office for the "number of electors" or "electorate" at the by-election (hopefully that would flush them out). Davıd Boothroyd has already given you ballpark figures for the electorate, so these can be used to check whether any further answer from the office is credible. Then you could do a simple "% turnout" calculation, either on the basis of valid votes or ballot papers issued. Added in edit: While writing this, andrewp has already calculated the turnout for you on the basis of one of David's figures, i.e. 11,571, which will not be the exact electorate figure. Yes, if you use 1329/11571, it’s 11.5%. When we are given turnout figures at local by elections, those are after the validation stage. When we get turnout figures I assume therefore that those are turnout of all votes, including spoilt/ want of an official mark etc. Thankyou Andrew much appreciated. I think I have phoned Manchester 3 times emailed the Returning Office 2 and it seems that they do not know what I am talking about and just quote 1329. Thankyou for your answer |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,712
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Sept 11, 2024 15:59:07 GMT
Didsbury = Highgate Withington = Crouch End Chorlton Park = Muswelll Hill Chorlton = Hornsey Someone I knew of lived in Chorltonville and the Hornsey & Wood Green / Hornsey & Friern Barnet comparison works. I wouldn't really consider Chorlton Park to be a real area, despite the ward of that name. It's arguably more like Barlow Moor, but that's one of a number of areas of Manchester whose old names have vanished. The Ville however has a slightly mythical status, as the locals (including my own grandparents) all used to aspire to live there- it has fewer than 300 houses on it but they are beautiful. : CatholicLeft is probably a good pundit on these things. I'm not sure about Withington as Crouch End, but then I don't know Crouch End beyond reputation. West Didsbury maybe, which was always classed as Withington when I was a kid (much of it was built on the old Withington workhouse). Parts of Withington are grim and depressed and merge seamlessly into the bottom of Moss Side. Lordy, Chorltonville - the Hamptons of Manchester. Built for those who wished to have nothing to do with the likes of us and who still appear to be of the same opinion. My Mum was the Educational Welfare Officer for that part of Manchester for a while, but, much to her disappointment, the wag officer never had reason to visit the hallowed settlement. Seriously, it fascinates me that this garden village has managed to maintain itself so well alfor over a century. As for Chorlton Park - not a place so much as an excuse to add the name of Chorlton to another ward. |
|
mrtoad
Labour
He is a toad. Who knows what a toad thinks?
Posts: 424
|
Post by mrtoad on Sept 18, 2024 15:38:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Sept 18, 2024 17:04:01 GMT
hope the surgery went well & has the desired effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil156 on Sept 26, 2024 11:06:22 GMT
Yes, if you use 1329/11571, it’s 11.5%. When we are given turnout figures at local by elections, those are after the validation stage. When we get turnout figures I assume therefore that those are turnout of all votes, including spoilt/ want of an official mark etc. Thankyou Andrew much appreciated. I think I have phoned Manchester 3 times emailed the Returning Office 2 and it seems that they do not know what I am talking about and just quote 1329. Thankyou for your answer MANCHESTER - BAUGULEY Ward I have after 21 days of ceaseless barracking them and involving the MP got the final result and you be pleased to know iits the same as yours 11.33% They would not even give me the electoral figures that you have 11571 At least its settled now |
|
