|
|
Post by lancastrian on May 5, 2024 16:38:35 GMT
I have checked the May 2nd 2024 local election results in 22 councils. I found a "no description" candidate in Dorset and a Communist in St Albans, both with just 17 votes. Anyone found a candidate with fewer votes? There's probably someone with fewer somewhere, but the Workers Party candidate in the Littleborough Lakeside ward of Rochdale also got 17 votes. In George Galloway's constituency. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on May 5, 2024 19:49:45 GMT
I thought that "Want of Official Mark", as a reason for Returning Officers rejecting a ballot paper, had become something of an anachronism. The days of a poll clerk stamping a paper with an official mark, usually a perforated pattern or similar, are over. Invariably, the official mark is a previously undisclosed printed security device.
However, I did note that in the election of the London Mayor there were a total of 314 ballot papers rejected for "Want of Official Mark". Even more curiously, 180 of them came from the Brent and Harrow GLA constituency alone.
(In the London wide election for the Assembly, only 22 papers were rejected for "Want of Official Mark", 0 from the Brent and Harrow constituency. In the constituency election for the Brent and Harrow member there were 0 papers rejected for "Want of Official Mark".)
I am puzzled as to how this could happen? The voter tearing off the security device before placing the paper in the ballot box? The polling station staff being careless with the perforations?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 5, 2024 20:42:58 GMT
Unless someone's been forging ballot papers and surreptitiously adding them to ballot boxes, I can't see any way ballot papers can properly be rejected for want of official mark unless the voter had torn it off.
So I strongly suspect someone at Brent and Harrow misinterpreted the rules. That being said I spotted one rejected for want of official mark at the West Central count and I couldn't see anything wrong with it - the official mark appeared to be present and correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 5, 2024 21:16:56 GMT
Unless someone's been forging ballot papers and surreptitiously adding them to ballot boxes, I can't see any way ballot papers can properly be rejected for want of official mark unless the voter had torn it off. So I strongly suspect someone at Brent and Harrow misinterpreted the rules. That being said I spotted one rejected for want of official mark at the West Central count and I couldn't see anything wrong with it - the official mark appeared to be present and correct. We were at a count one time watching as the doubtful papers were being adjudicated; the R.O. (I remember it was Jo Negrini, so it was a few years ago) wanted to mark a paper as “devoid of official mark” because it was completely unmarked /blank. I reminded her that that was not what “devoid of official mark” meant, and that it should instead be “unmarked or void for uncertainty”. She was the Chief Executive, and it was surprising that she had what I think was a temporary lapse of concentration. But if a more junior or inexperienced count supervisor misunderstands the terminology, or isn’t careful in paying attention in what stamp they are using, it’s understandable that some local authorities might have an anomalous result like that. Especially if it’s 3am. Sometimes there aren’t any party agents available to check. One time I literally found an official mark lying on the floor. It had somehow been torn off the corner of the ballot paper. I alerted a staff member, and they managed to track down the paper and sellotaped it on again. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 5, 2024 21:34:41 GMT
I thought that "Want of Official Mark", as a reason for Returning Officers rejecting a ballot paper, had become something of an anachronism. The days of a poll clerk stamping a paper with an official mark, usually a perforated pattern or similar, are over. Invariably, the official mark is a previously undisclosed printed security device. However, I did note that in the election of the London Mayor there were a total of 314 ballot papers rejected for "Want of Official Mark". Even more curiously, 180 of them came from the Brent and Harrow GLA constituency alone.(In the London wide election for the Assembly, only 22 papers were rejected for "Want of Official Mark", 0 from the Brent and Harrow constituency. In the constituency election for the Brent and Harrow member there were 0 papers rejected for "Want of Official Mark".) I am puzzled as to how this could happen? The voter tearing off the security device before placing the paper in the ballot box? The polling station staff being careless with the perforations? That is a clear and obvious indication that someone at the count didn’t adjudicate it properly and possibly misunderstood. To be honest, I don’t really see the point of why they need to subdivide all the spoilt votes into the four categories as described in law. They could just all be combined in one form “no clear preference for one candidate”. If they do want to subdivide it, they should go further with more categories: Unmarked or blank Void for uncertainty Voting for more than one candidate Marking by which voter can be identified Scribbling Correction by a self-important voter who voted for the wrong candidate, corrected it by crossing it out, marked a different candidate, and signed it in order to authorise the correction, thereby erroneously thinking they were being helpful Rant against all politicians Rant against specific party or candidate Extended essay of explanation Advocating weird political theory Advocating weird religious theory Drawing of penis Pretty picture Other message |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,797 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 5, 2024 23:48:45 GMT
Unless someone's been forging ballot papers and surreptitiously adding them to ballot boxes, I can't see any way ballot papers can properly be rejected for want of official mark unless the voter had torn it off. So I strongly suspect someone at Brent and Harrow misinterpreted the rules. That being said I spotted one rejected for want of official mark at the West Central count and I couldn't see anything wrong with it - the official mark appeared to be present and correct. In my experience, the only ones I've seen have been postal ballots that have been mangled between voter and count. Open envelope too enthusiasically, tear corner of ballot, happens to have the mark on it. |
|
|
|
Post by froome on May 9, 2024 10:44:48 GMT
I thought that "Want of Official Mark", as a reason for Returning Officers rejecting a ballot paper, had become something of an anachronism. The days of a poll clerk stamping a paper with an official mark, usually a perforated pattern or similar, are over. Invariably, the official mark is a previously undisclosed printed security device. However, I did note that in the election of the London Mayor there were a total of 314 ballot papers rejected for "Want of Official Mark". Even more curiously, 180 of them came from the Brent and Harrow GLA constituency alone.(In the London wide election for the Assembly, only 22 papers were rejected for "Want of Official Mark", 0 from the Brent and Harrow constituency. In the constituency election for the Brent and Harrow member there were 0 papers rejected for "Want of Official Mark".) I am puzzled as to how this could happen? The voter tearing off the security device before placing the paper in the ballot box? The polling station staff being careless with the perforations? That is a clear and obvious indication that someone at the count didn’t adjudicate it properly and possibly misunderstood. To be honest, I don’t really see the point of why they need to subdivide all the spoilt votes into the four categories as described in law. They could just all be combined in one form “no clear preference for one candidate”. If they do want to subdivide it, they should go further with more categories: Unmarked or blank Void for uncertainty Voting for more than one candidate Marking by which voter can be identified Scribbling Correction by a self-important voter who voted for the wrong candidate, corrected it by crossing it out, marked a different candidate, and signed it in order to authorise the correction, thereby erroneously thinking they were being helpful Rant against all politicians Rant against specific party or candidate Extended essay of explanation Advocating weird political theory Advocating weird religious theory Drawing of penis Pretty picture Other message You forgot to add: Voting for a candidate or party who isn't on the ballot paper I rather like John's idea. If it was added to the prediction competition for each election, that would be an added bonus!  |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 10, 2024 7:28:57 GMT
I'm briefly going to break a long silence to check my understanding of the situation in my own constituency which is now Weald of Kent. The new constituency was formed by adding together rural wards from Ashford,Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells. Nice to think therefore that one of three contributing boroughs is now LD led! However, the new constituency is generally formed from the most Tory bits of the three boroughs, and only the new Loose and Linton ward from Maidstone is held by the LibDems, no doubt to the disgust of carlton43. This makes it a likely Tory hold even if that party is down to single figures nationally. Anyway, my question is asking to confirm my understanding of the make up of the TW bit of the constituency given that the ward boundaries have been changed since the new constituences were formed. Originally two TW wards were included in Weald of Kent, but it now appears to be only one, Cranbrook, Sissinghurst and Frittenden, plus the parish of Benenden from what is now the Hawkhurst ward. So already there are split wards even before the new constituency has its first election. Am I right? |
|
|
|
Post by batman on May 10, 2024 7:59:52 GMT
Very good to see you back here, and hoping it's not just a one-off. Your contributions are invariably interesting & worth reading. Wishing you well.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on May 10, 2024 8:00:37 GMT
I'm briefly going to break a long silence to check my understanding of the situation in my own constituency which is now Weald of Kent. The new constituency was formed by adding together rural wards from Ashford,Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells. Nice to think therefore that one of three contributing boroughs is now LD led! However, the new constituency is generally formed from the most Tory bits of the three boroughs, and only the new Loose and Linton ward from Maidstone is held by the LibDems, no doubt to the disgust of carlton43. This makes it a likely Tory hold even if that party is down to single figures nationally. Anyway, my question is asking to confirm my understanding of the make up of the TW bit of the constituency given that the ward boundaries have been changed since the new constituences were formed. Originally two TW wards were included in Weald of Kent, but it now appears to be only one, Cranbrook, Sissinghurst and Frittenden, plus the parish of Benenden from what is now the Hawkhurst ward. So already there are split wards even before the new constituency has its first election. Am I right? This is correct: it’s the parishes of Cranbrook & Sissinghurst, Frittenden and Benenden. Off topic, I believe that’s the Cranbrook which gives its name to the tune nowadays most associated with Ilkley Moor. Weald of Kent is one of the 13 seats you still get as Tory if you put yesterday’s YouGov poll into Electoral Calculus. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on May 10, 2024 9:43:56 GMT
Unless someone's been forging ballot papers and surreptitiously adding them to ballot boxes, I can't see any way ballot papers can properly be rejected for want of official mark unless the voter had torn it off. So I strongly suspect someone at Brent and Harrow misinterpreted the rules. That being said I spotted one rejected for want of official mark at the West Central count and I couldn't see anything wrong with it - the official mark appeared to be present and correct. Gives me the opportunity to repeat my bizarre anecdote from the 2009 West Sussex County elections when I was trying to take Pier division from the COns. Something I have never seen before or since in any election. Our chief exec was in the habit of adjudicating batches of doubtful papers while the count was ongoing, rather than all at the end. He called us over, and there was a ballot paper where someone had very carefully cut off the horizontal strip at the bottom with the candidate info and box for Paul Yallop, the Con candidate, and marked an X in the box. Void for lack of official mark - Paul and I agreed. And at this point, note that his surname put Paul at the bottom of the paper, and my surname put me at the top. A little later, another batch of doubtfuls, including one exactly as above. Result the same. There were in total three or four of these. And Paul and I agreed with the adjudication. As the vote neared its end, it was very close between me and Paul. Final batch of doubtfuls included one where the voter had cut off my name only, and voted for me. But - as I was at the top of the paper, he had included the top strip - which had the official mark - above my ballot line. Adjudicated as a clear vote for me. Paul Yallop's head nearly exploded. In the end I won by 80-odd votes, but there was a short period when those adjudications looked like making the difference! |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 10, 2024 9:49:44 GMT
Unless someone's been forging ballot papers and surreptitiously adding them to ballot boxes, I can't see any way ballot papers can properly be rejected for want of official mark unless the voter had torn it off. So I strongly suspect someone at Brent and Harrow misinterpreted the rules. That being said I spotted one rejected for want of official mark at the West Central count and I couldn't see anything wrong with it - the official mark appeared to be present and correct. Gives me the opportunity to repeat my bizarre anecdote from the 2009 West Sussex County elections when I was trying to take Pier division from the COns. Something I have never seen before or since in any election. Our chief exec was in the habit of adjudicating batches of doubtful papers while the count was ongoing, rather than all at the end. He called us over, and there was a ballot paper where someone had very carefully cut off the horizontal strip at the bottom with the candidate info and box for Paul Yallop, the Con candidate, and marked an X in the box. Void for lack of official mark - Paul and I agreed. And at this point, note that his surname put Paul at the bottom of the paper, and my surname put me at the top. A little later, another batch of doubtfuls, including one exactly as above. Result the same. There were in total three or four of these. And Paul and I agreed with the adjudication. As the vote neared its end, it was very close between me and Paul. Final batch of doubtfuls included one where the voter had cut off my name only, and voted for me. But - as I was at the top of the paper, he had included the top strip - which had the official mark - above my ballot line. Adjudicated as a clear vote for me. Paul Yallop's head nearly exploded. In the end I won by 80-odd votes, but there was a short period when those adjudications looked like making the difference! Do you think the same voter cut one paper into four strips and “voted” for all four candidates? I think I would have disallowed all of them on grounds of uncertainty - because it can’t be seen whehter the voter has also voted for the unseen other candidates. Or could all the strips have been put together to reconstruct the original ballot paper (i.e. did the tear patterns match)? |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on May 10, 2024 9:54:28 GMT
Gives me the opportunity to repeat my bizarre anecdote from the 2009 West Sussex County elections when I was trying to take Pier division from the COns. Something I have never seen before or since in any election. Our chief exec was in the habit of adjudicating batches of doubtful papers while the count was ongoing, rather than all at the end. He called us over, and there was a ballot paper where someone had very carefully cut off the horizontal strip at the bottom with the candidate info and box for Paul Yallop, the Con candidate, and marked an X in the box. Void for lack of official mark - Paul and I agreed. And at this point, note that his surname put Paul at the bottom of the paper, and my surname put me at the top. A little later, another batch of doubtfuls, including one exactly as above. Result the same. There were in total three or four of these. And Paul and I agreed with the adjudication. As the vote neared its end, it was very close between me and Paul. Final batch of doubtfuls included one where the voter had cut off my name only, and voted for me. But - as I was at the top of the paper, he had included the top strip - which had the official mark - above my ballot line. Adjudicated as a clear vote for me. Paul Yallop's head nearly exploded. In the end I won by 80-odd votes, but there was a short period when those adjudications looked like making the difference! Do you think the same voter cut one paper into four strips and “voted” for all four candidates? I think I would have disallowed all of them on grounds of uncertainty - because it can’t be seen whehter the voter has also voted for the unseen other candidates. Or could all the strips have been put together to reconstruct the original ballot paper (i.e. did the tear patterns match)? No, because we didn't see any similar strips for the other (two? three?) candidates. But it really was a 'two-horse race', so it's possible someone had cut one ballot paper up to vote for both of us. But there were three or four for Yallop... I wondered afterwards if perhaps they'd come from postal votes, and some family had been unfamiliar with how to do the forms. And the strips weren't torn - they were cleanly cut. Again, makes me think of PVs - who takes scissors to a polling station? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 10, 2024 10:01:07 GMT
Do you think the same voter cut one paper into four strips and “voted” for all four candidates? I think I would have disallowed all of them on grounds of uncertainty - because it can’t be seen whehter the voter has also voted for the unseen other candidates. Or could all the strips have been put together to reconstruct the original ballot paper (i.e. did the tear patterns match)? No, because we didn't see any similar strips for the other (two? three?) candidates. But it really was a 'two-horse race', so it's possible someone had cut one ballot paper up to vote for both of us. But there were three or four for Yallop... I wondered afterwards if perhaps they'd come from postal votes, and some family had been unfamiliar with how to do the forms. And the strips weren't torn - they were cleanly cut. Again, makes me think of PVs - who takes scissors to a polling station? When the staff are processing / opening the incoming postal votes, they sometimes use a machine to open the envelopes with a thin buzzy strimming thingy. Occasionally a ballot paper gets torn or cut in the process, and they sellotape them together again. Bit that doesn’t seem to be what happened in your situation. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,994
|
Post by The Bishop on May 10, 2024 11:17:59 GMT
At least it is good to see that yellowperil is still lurking on here, as they promised  |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 10, 2024 12:50:54 GMT
At least it is good to see that yellowperil is still lurking on here, as they promised "they"? Yes, I'm still lurking- trying hard to resist the temptation to post. Even when I see things that want me to scream  |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by stb12 on May 10, 2024 12:54:57 GMT
At least it is good to see that yellowperil is still lurking on here, as they promised "they"? Yes, I'm still lurking- trying hard to resist the temptation to post. Even when I see things that want me to scream As long as it’s clean go on! |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on May 10, 2024 16:52:21 GMT
At least it is good to see that yellowperil is still lurking on here, as they promised I sort of believe in Strarmer but I still have doubts about Labour |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,994
|
Post by The Bishop on May 11, 2024 11:27:10 GMT
At least it is good to see that yellowperil is still lurking on here, as they promised "they"? Heh, don't you start  And yes, I knew that would trigger uthacalthing as soon as I posted it. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on May 11, 2024 11:42:43 GMT
At least it is good to see that yellowperil is still lurking on here, as they promised I sort of believe in Strarmer but I still have doubts about Labour Is strarmer a Scottish pronunciation of strimmer? |
|
