By-Elections - 28th June 2012

[Davıd Boothroyd]

The School Boards (created 1870, abolished 1904) used a variant on multi-member FPTP called the accumulative vote where the voter could use multiple votes on a single candidate.

School Board elections were mainly run on religious lines. The Roman Catholics would stand one candidate in a five member seat, and RC voters would use all five votes on that candidate, thereby making one seat safe for them. The Church of England would run four or five candidates and their support would be divided.

[johnloony]

In the five 3-seat local elections I have stood in, the proportion of voter who vote for all three candidates of one party has varied from about 85% to about 62%. The other 15% to 38% of ballot papers were thus "mixed". As a rough guess, I would say that about half or two-thirds of the mixed papers had three votes on them, and about one-third or a half had one vote. Interestingly, the number of ballot papers with 2 votes on them has always been very small.

The average number of votes per ballot paper in the wards in Croydon in the last 2 or 3 main elections tends to vary between 2.2. and 2.8 votes per paper. I think the highest was Coulsdon East in 2006 which had 2.95 votes per paper, and it was a straight fight between 3 Conservatives and 3 Lib Dems.

[gwynthegriff]

Of course it doesn't help if one party [but it wasn't us!] puts out a letter to postal voters saying "you may vote for one candidate" (in a 2-up election, where they had only one candidate). Naughty, but technically acceptable.

Or if the official instructional posters at the polling station say "you may vote for only one candidate". Incompetent. Thank goodness people don't read them!

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jul 1, 2012 16:33:01 GMT gwynthegriff said:

Or if the official instructional posters at the polling station say "you may vote for only one candidate". Incompetent. Thank goodness people don't read them!

It's worse if (as I have heard happen many times) the official rubric in a single-seat election says "You have up to three votes".

[East Anglian Lefty]

Jul 1, 2012 16:33:01 GMT gwynthegriff said:

Of course it doesn't help if one party [but it wasn't us!] puts out a letter to postal voters saying "you may vote for one candidate" (in a 2-up election, where they had only one candidate). Naughty, but technically acceptable.

I'm not sure I see the problem with this. You may vote for one candidate, you may vote for two.

If it was "You may only vote for one candidate" it'd be misleading, but otherwise it's entirely accurate.

[gwynthegriff]

Jul 1, 2012 17:44:10 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

Jul 1, 2012 16:33:01 GMT gwynthegriff said:

Of course it doesn't help if one party [but it wasn't us!] puts out a letter to postal voters saying "you may vote for one candidate" (in a 2-up election, where they had only one candidate). Naughty, but technically acceptable.

I'm not sure I see the problem with this. You may vote for one candidate, you may vote for two.

If it was "You may only vote for one candidate" it'd be misleading, but otherwise it's entirely accurate.

That's why I only described it as naughty. Had the phrase 'only vote for one' appeared then I would have been a very unhappy bunny!

(In the event we hammered them anyway ;D)

[listener]

Back in County Durham in the aftermath of the disastrous result for the Lib Dems in Peterlee West last week, I note that the Lib Dems held their seat in the parish by-election in the Gilesgate Moor ward of Belmont Parish. This is in the old City of Durham District.

Back in 2007, the Lib Dems swept up all 15 seats on the Parish Council. I am not sure whether there have been any changes since.

2007: Lib Dem 727/716/637/619/604, Lab 336/323/300/298/236, Durham Taxpayers Alliance 162
28 June 2012: Lib Dem 390, Lab 281

[middleenglander]

Jul 2, 2012 11:28:11 GMT listener said:

Back in County Durham in the aftermath of the disastrous result for the Lib Dems in Peterlee West last week, I note that the Lib Dems held their seat in the parish by-election in the Gilesgate Moor ward of Belmont Parish. This is in the old City of Durham District.

Back in 2007, the Lib Dems swept up all 15 seats on the Parish Council. I am not sure whether there have been any changes since.

2007: Lib Dem 727/716/637/619/604, Lab 336/323/300/298/236, Durham Taxpayers Alliance 162
28 June 2012: Lib Dem 390, Lab 281

For what it is worth, a 7½% swing Lib Dem to Labour here since 2007 compared to 36% in Peterlee West since 2008.

[The Bishop]

So just to clarify, there have been no all-out elections on this body since 2007??

[listener]

Dear Bishop

I have only just seen your post.

The County of Durham (Structural Change) Order 2008 merged Durham County Council with its seven District Councils as a unitary authority with effect from 1 April 2009.

At the same time it cancelled the parish elections due to take place across Durham County in 2011 and postponed them to 2013, so that they will take place concurrently with the next all-out election of the unitary authority.

[erlend]

Jul 13, 2012 13:37:59 GMT listener said:

Dear Bishop

I have only just seen your post.

The County of Durham (Structural Change) Order 2008 merged Durham County Council with its seven District Councils as a unitary authority with effect from 1 April 2009.

At the same time it cancelled the parish elections due to take place across Durham County in 2011 and postponed them to 2013, so that they will take place concurrently with the next all-out election of the unitary authority.

I seem to remember someone commenting (Bishop?) that we had now seen out the last politicians elected in the Blair era. Whoever said it it would appear not quite so to be :-)

[listener]

The same applies to parish council elections in Cornwall, Northumberland, Shropshire and Wiltshire.

[The Bishop]

Parish councils don't count, mate ;D

[greatkingrat]

We still have some elected politicians from 1999, FSVO of "elected" and "politicians".

[The Bishop]

Ah, the "elected" hereditary peers since then??