Question about scottish local elections.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by 5_mile_sniper, May 3, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Having cast my vote(s) today in the local elections in the Peoples' Republic of Jockistan, I have a question regarding the Single Tranferrable Vote (STV).

    After casting my vote for both local and constituency candidates, I then had to place 1-9 on the ballot to indicate my preference of various candidates who are standing as "list candidates". On the list were one each for the Tories, Lib Dem, Greens and SNP, but four for Labour. What the hell is that all about? Perhaps I have misunderstood the system, but does that not seem somewhat unbalanced?
  2. Perhaps a slight misunderstanding. Sounds like the ballot for local councillors. Instead of one councillor being elected for each ward, the new Council wards in Scotland will have three or four councillors each. You were entitled to vote for as many or as few of your nine candidates as you wished, numbering them according to preference. I voted for three candidates in our local council election.
  3. I understand that I could vote for as many or as few as I wanted to (sure as hell didn't put any numbers next to a Liarbour candidate), my question was why were there four labour candidates, where all the other parties had one?
  4. Sounds like the area was previously Labour-dominated, so the Labour Party have calculated that it is worth their while fielding four candidates for a new four-member council ward. Other parties may have made a calculation that it would not be to their advantage to field more than one candidate, but they could have done. I didnt invent the new system!
  5. Not trying to spoil this thread just showing and example of Party Lists.

    In Thailand where I live there is a system of Party Lists.
    Depending on how many seats a party gets,it is awarded propotionally, X number of Nominated seats.
    This allows 'Politicians' who have never stood for office for whatever reason to be come Ministers and even PM.
    The current Military Dictatorship where never elected but the the previous PM never contested a seat.
  6. Interesting topic.

    Sounds to me like a method to ensure that the Bliar/Brown axis continues to hang on to power in Scotland. Poor old Scotland!
  7. Now that the press is full of stories of as many as 100,000 people submitting votes that could not be deciphered it appears that a fair number of voters were similarly confused.

    Remember how we laughed at the debacle in Florida when Bush was elected? its not so funny now is it!
  8. Why four councillors for a ward you don't get that many nurses :)

    Seriously though, why four, it will always be a job to get anything done if you have to agree across the board before signing of on the simplest thing.
  9. Ref the large number of spoiled ballots, I can see why people might be confused by the multiple entries required for the STV part of the ballot. At our polling station there was a group of staff stationed at door who's job was to ask each person entering if they understood the system and offer assistance to anybody asking for it. Also, the staff handing out the two ballots and checking voter off against the list explained the system to each voter for a second time just before they entered the pooling booth, as well as being on hand to ensure that each paper ended up in the correct ballot box.

    One thing that I found somewhat distressing was that during a news report last night that was talking about the issue of spoiled ballots, it was mentioned that whilst the final say on any particular paper lies with the returing officer, there were "representatives from the parties" on hand to offer their advice to the returning officer on what the "voter's intent" may have been! WTF is anybody other that the returning officer and their staff doing anywhere near the ballots?!

    Finally, in our station (in a predominantly Asian area) I noticed that lots wives appeared to be accompanied to the booth by their husbands - presumably to ensure that they were voting for who they had been told to :roll:
  10. Thanks 5_mile_sniper

    Ref para 1 of your post, that is good to hear, and it was the same where I voted.

    Ref your para 2, it has always been normal for the returning officer to call together one rep from each candidate to explain the view he intends to take on each 'doubtful vote' in that particular count. The newspaper didnt explain it particularly well, but I have seen it done and it is a proper, transparent and necessary process which removes any suggestion of bias on the part of the returning officer, or improper pressure by a single party.

    Ref your para 3, I agree, "family voting" shouldnt have been allowed to happen. I have seen it done - in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
  11. The involvement of party reps is so that they all agree who the vote should be awarded to, or that it is awarded to no one.

    Simple example, Mrs Buggins has put an X next to Mr VoteForMe instead of a 1. Other party reps need to agree the vote was clearly meant for Mr VoteForMe. Whereas Mr Joker has put a 1 beside every name, party reps agree no one gets his vote.

    If returning officer decided without any input/oversight, it would be easy to claim results rigged if the party he supports won.
  12. Fair enough, I can see why the reps would be worthwhile in that sort of situation and add to the transparency of the decision. News bloke's description made it sound more like the reps were horse-trading for extra votes!

    Also, don't want to sound like I was insinuating that only Asians are involved in "family voting" as you put it. Just that differing cultures regarding these sort of things can sometimes seem in start relief to my own views.
  13. I can see why it got confusing:

    Attached Files:

  14. Designed to confuse by this devious New Labour Party in order to avoid embarrassment at the polls. There should be another election and this time do it right.
  15. Grownup_Rafbrat

    Grownup_Rafbrat LE Good Egg (charities)

    I quite agree. Not only were we laughing at the Septics about Florida and the 'pregnant chads', but we take a lot of time and trouble to monitor elections in other countries, most recently Uganda, and tell the world whether we think the vote was free and fair. Taking into account the Scots debacle, the Postal Voting frauds, and all the other electoral madness we now have, maybe we should put our own house in order first.

    Or admit that we really are the world's first Banana Monarchy and stop pretending otherwise.

    Governments have always tweaked elections to try to gain advantage, with boundary moves, picking the timing themselves, etc., but it's starting to look really as though they are actively working to ensure that hardly anyone votes, and the votes of those that do, don't count!