|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 19, 2017 23:38:20 GMT
Why do you need electronic counting machines? Because you have to count the ballots twice. At the 2016 PCC elections in Ceredigion, they started at 9.00am BST, completed the first count at 1.30pm BST and the count concluded at 3.30pm BST. Electronic counting ensures that the first count will conclude at 11.30am and the whole count by 1.30pm You can count by hand on the night after polls close. No need for machines or next day counts. In a lot of cases candidates in AV would be over 50% on th first count. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 19, 2017 23:40:19 GMT
Don't count on people behaving with an AV ballot in the same way they behave with FPTP.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 19, 2017 23:40:19 GMT
PCC elections are conducted under SV, not AV. Even pointing that out feels like giving too much credence to your crazy ideas.
EDIT: Was replying to Harry. Somehow I'm not sure that the adoption of electronic counting machines was even the most egregious of his proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by IceAgeComing on Jun 19, 2017 23:41:55 GMT
but if your speeding things up, what's the point of not counting overnight? That's what Australia do - admittedly they take a shortcut with the initial count and then do it properly later on, but the result is still known in the vast majority of cases a couple of hours after the polls close.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 19, 2017 23:43:25 GMT
Australia allows postal ballots to be returned weeks after the close of ordinary polling stations, so I don't think we need to take any lessons from there in how votes are counted.
The 'shortcuts' used Down Under rely on guesswork and sometimes turn out to be erroneous.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jun 20, 2017 7:44:45 GMT
People are so impatient these days. There's nothing wrong with waiting until the following day for a result. The parliament will last for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 20, 2017 9:50:55 GMT
Don't count on people behaving with an AV ballot in the same way they behave with FPTP. While that's true, correct me if I'm wrong, preferential voting doesn't seem to have made a massive difference to voting behaviour in Scotland.
We're still left with the fact, though, that it wouldn't take *that* long to count it. The reason is that there will always be two candidates, usually the two that get the most votes, whose ballot papers never need to be counted again. Even if you take some of the more extreme results like Inverness in 1992...
LD 13258 Lab 12800 SNP 12562 Con 11517 GP 766
Under AV, on top of the 50903 votes that were counted, you'd probably have
Count II: 12283 Con and Green votes counted. Count III: maximum 17000 votes to be counted, probably either SNP or Labour plus whatever ballots that candidate got from the two eliminated
The LibDem votes and either Labour or the SNP's wouldn't need to be counted again.
A 60% longer count in one of the most extreme examples. I don't have the 1992 declaration time for that seat, but in 1997 it declared just before 4am. 60% longer gives a declaration time around 07:30 to 8am. That's not that much different and most seats would be declared before that, so the ideas that we'd need electronic counting machines or we'd be waiting days for results seem erroneous to me.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 20, 2017 10:15:12 GMT
People are so impatient these days. There's nothing wrong with waiting until the following day for a result. The parliament will last for years. Well...... |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,127
|
Post by ColinJ on Jun 20, 2017 12:09:04 GMT
People are so impatient these days. There's nothing wrong with waiting until the following day for a result. The parliament will last for years. Absolutely. Was I alone in finding the race between Sunderland and Newcastle to declare first somewhat disquieting? Jeopardising (or appearing to jeopardise) accuracy because of undue haste should not be a feature of British elections. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jun 20, 2017 12:12:55 GMT
People are so impatient these days. There's nothing wrong with waiting until the following day for a result. The parliament will last for years. Absolutely. Was I alone in finding the race between Sunderland and Newcastle to declare first somewhat disquieting? Jeopardising (or appearing to jeopardise) accuracy because of undue haste should not be a feature of British elections. I must admit both myself and the Labour agent for Wakefield did have serious doubts about how accurate the result is in Sunderland. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 20, 2017 13:09:00 GMT
People are so impatient these days. There's nothing wrong with waiting until the following day for a result. The parliament will last for years. Absolutely. Was I alone in finding the race between Sunderland and Newcastle to declare first somewhat disquieting? Jeopardising (or appearing to jeopardise) accuracy because of undue haste should not be a feature of British elections. In a FPTP election the counting race between two safe seats is hardly disquieting. If we changed the system they'd slow down I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 23, 2017 12:38:31 GMT
IMO Labour should offer a deal here: support a Bill amending the 2011 Act to require 650 seats and 10% tolerance and to use the register from the most recent General Election, and promise to support the resulting review. The idea that a review can pass only if the proposed boundaries are acceptable to the DUP is not one I'm comfortable with. Yes. I'd be highly sympathetic to this, if only because we badly need a more bipartisan approach to the whole issue. I'm happy with keeping 650 members and using the register from the previous GE. And even with 600 seats, the current 5% tolerance puts us at the limits of what is reasonably possible without ward splitting, and it forces undesirable boundaries in a some places (although fewer that some contributors here would suggest, and far fewer than in the plans devised by the BCE). So if we're going to 650, I accept we need more tolerance but 10% is too much in my opinion; it would allow a 20% variance between seats. I'd suggest, given the current size of big urban wards, 7% ought to be enough. (But if more large authorities followed the example of Birmingham and switched to all-off elections and 1- or 2-member seats, then 5% would be fine even with 650 seats.) I assume that the 2018 review cannot pass the current H of C and have voted accordingly in the poll. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 23, 2017 13:22:43 GMT
Yes. I'd be highly sympathetic to this, if only because we badly need a more bipartisan approach to the whole issue.
If you want interparty cooperation on this, fine , but bipartisan? Sounds like a stitch up between the big two which is probably a worse option than having just the government calling the shots. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jun 24, 2017 16:57:41 GMT
People are so impatient these days. There's nothing wrong with waiting until the following day for a result. The parliament will last for years. Election night is a glorious British tradition and moving to counting on the following day would be a retrograde step. There is something dramatic about momentous events unfolding during the middle of the night. Portilo's defeat in 1997 would have be less an iconic moment if it had came at 3PM rather than 3AM. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 26, 2017 0:29:24 GMT
The Labour peer Roy Kennedy is to seek clarification on this matter with an ordinary spoken question in the upper house today: "[T]o ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation amending the provisions relating to the 2018 Boundary Reviews." |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 26, 2017 16:32:02 GMT
Richard Allen weekend voting, 9-9 on Saturday, 9-6 on Sunday, counts taking place on prime time TV. If we were to move to weekend voting I'd probably go for 7-10 Saturday but then only 9-4 on Sunday. The exit poll can wait until 5 and the main flurry of results would come in between 8 and 10pm, which is proper prime time. If you close polling stations at 6 then the most important results come in between 10pm and midnight, which isn't convenient for most people unless you make the following Monday a Bank Holiday. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jun 26, 2017 21:10:22 GMT
I think that if the boundary commission was prepared to split wards a lot of the moans I and others have may well evaporate. Sadly they are not so the 10% quota is essential to avoid the mess this review is. Good to see 'no' is leading in the forum poll for the first time! The lines could be laid down even more for the Boundary Commissions. With a 10% deviation, any unit of over 5 constituencies will have a feasible solution. So instead of using the Webster/Saint Whatsit method to allocate constituencies to regions, it could be used to allocate to: - The cities of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield, and Manchester
- The combined/divided ceremonial counties of (1) Cheshire and the Wirral district of Merseyside; (2) the remainder of Merseyside; (3) Gloucestershire and Bristol; (4) Hampshire and the Isle of Wight; (5) Lincolnshire and Rutland; (6) Greater and City of Londons; (7) Northumberland and Tyne and Wear; (8) Shropshire and Herefordshire; (9) the part of the West Midlands west of the city of Birmingham; (10) the part of the West Midlands east of the city of Birmingham (I'd want to combine this with Warwickshire, but that would not strictly be necessary)
- The remaining ceremonial counties of England, excluding those parts in the cities of Leeds, Sheffield, and Manchester.
Surely you'd want to combine Herefordshire with Worcestershire, rather than Shropshire. Or maybe take the three counties as a single unit. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jun 26, 2017 22:52:11 GMT
The Labour peer Roy Kennedy is to seek clarification on this matter with an ordinary spoken question in the upper house today: "[T]o ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation amending the provisions relating to the 2018 Boundary Reviews."
My Lords, following laws already passed by Parliament, the independent Boundary Commissions are consulting on their proposals to deliver boundary changes. They will submit their final proposals to Parliament in autumn 2018, ensuring fair and equal representation for the voting public across the UK. We have no plans to change this process. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 26, 2017 23:15:58 GMT
The Labour peer Roy Kennedy is to seek clarification on this matter with an ordinary spoken question in the upper house today: "[T]o ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to introduce legislation amending the provisions relating to the 2018 Boundary Reviews."
My Lords, following laws already passed by Parliament, the independent Boundary Commissions are consulting on their proposals to deliver boundary changes. They will submit their final proposals to Parliament in autumn 2018, ensuring fair and equal representation for the voting public across the UK. We have no plans to change this process.Looks like it's going ahead as things stand, then. The whole discussion that followed wasn't particularly helpful. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Jun 27, 2017 8:03:04 GMT
They were never going to announce changes in the answer to an opposition question in the Lords.
|
|
