neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on May 28, 2014 17:59:57 GMT
Has anyone here ever been in the College of Arms?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 15:50:10 GMT
Just over five hours before this poll closes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 16:33:25 GMT
Has anyone here ever been in the College of Arms? I've often wanted to go in - I have a strong interest in heraldry, and I would like to have a burrow through their archives. I think I would be disappointed, I imagine a place with narrow stairwells lined with books, desks and rooms piled high with papers, and old men sleeping in corners in rumpled suits and ties with breakfast stains on them. One of the old men may even be dead, no one has dared to check. Lots of creaky leather sofas, bare floorboards, and spiders in the corners. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 21:05:57 GMT
A rather low turnout, but The Psephological Society wins decisively with 72% of the votes. jamesdoyle AdminSTB |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,771 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 29, 2014 21:10:48 GMT
A rather low turnout, but The Psephological Society wins decisively with 72% of the votes. jamesdoyle AdminSTB TPS it is then.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 21:50:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 29, 2014 22:38:09 GMT
Voters should be instructed to mark their ballot paper with a Ψ instead of an X.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 29, 2014 23:03:15 GMT
Writing or mark by which voter could be identified
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 29, 2014 23:29:22 GMT
Writing or mark by which voter could be identified How so? When the vast majority of ordinary normal people are psephologists and get used to using the correct mark, and only a tiny minority of non-psephological weirdoes still use X, it wouldn't identify an individual. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 29, 2014 23:32:47 GMT
Yes, when.
Incidentally I have always said that if ever I have to spoil a ballot paper, I will do it by writing the words "Writing or mark by which voter could be identified" on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 30, 2014 3:35:37 GMT
In the Fairfield ward by-election in Croydon in December 2005, I voted for myself by putting a cross, a tick, a smiley face and the word "yes" all in the same box. I spotted my vote when it was being counted. I didn't point it out to anyone, and the R.O. wouldn't have been able to identify me from it anyway, but I was slightly annoyed that it was only counted as one vote and not four.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 30, 2014 11:02:25 GMT
We can move into Burlington House and occupy the West Wing. Means I don't have to walk far to the geological society.  Effete metropolitan clubman!! |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843
|
Post by Crimson King on Jun 2, 2014 10:19:52 GMT
In order to spoil it for 'mark by which a voter could be identified' would you not have to vote for one of the candidates as well - otherwise it will be excluded on rather more prosaic grounds
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Jun 2, 2014 22:19:23 GMT
Writing "mark by which a voter could be identified" would not, regardless of whether you also vote for a candidate, be mark by which a voter could be identified. Either way it would be wholly void for uncertainty.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jun 3, 2014 0:14:38 GMT
Would it? If I clearly mark a big X next the name of so-and-so and then write 'mark by which [etc]' on the unused part of the ballot there's no uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Jun 3, 2014 5:25:26 GMT
Writing "mark by which a voter could be identified" would not, regardless of whether you also vote for a candidate, be mark by which a voter could be identified. Either way it would be wholly void for uncertainty. I would argue under this example from the electoral commission Reject – voter can be identified. Woodward v. Sarsons, South Newington case and Rule 47(1)(c). |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Mar 19, 2016 20:42:11 GMT
In hindsight, I think I would've proposed "Psephos", which sounds like a properly pretentious think-tank.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Mar 19, 2016 20:53:35 GMT
In hindsight, I think I would've proposed "Psephos", which sounds like a properly pretentious think-tank. Wasn't that a banned account name? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 19, 2016 21:00:02 GMT
Don't think he's banned.
It's also the name of Adam Carr's website.
|
|
