Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
That election result..., Private Eye takes over NWN! |
|
|
|
May 21 2015, 05:54 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 2-March 15
Member No.: 10,554
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 21 2015, 03:53 PM) This week's NWN is a great read. God you're hilarious.... Is that your attempt at satire?
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2015, 01:27 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 948
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337
|
As they presumably retain the voting papers for a certain time, why can't they retrieve & recount..preferably with competent staff this time. Elections are a good money earner for all council employees I gather who get extra pay over & above their salary. What would Electoral Commission make of this? I'd have though losing candidate would be pushing for some action.Puts WBC on a par with what went on in L Boro of Newham
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2015, 03:36 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE (gel @ May 22 2015, 02:27 PM) I'd have though losing candidate would be pushing for some action. Unlikely - a Conservative won't want to rock the boat and bring ridicule on a Conservative administration which already has a 48-4 majority. It worth noting that the extra votes, even if all were counted for a single candidate, would not make any difference in the placings. More worrying would be that they indicate an attempt to rig the result. For that reason, and that reason alone, I would like to see the vote recounted - if it was allowed and I was returning officer I'd count them myself in an attempt to work out what went wrong. Incompetence I can live with, but not corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2015, 03:40 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 22 2015, 04:36 PM) Unlikely - a Conservative won't want to rock the boat and bring ridicule on a Conservative administration which already has a 48-4 majority.
It worth noting that the extra votes, even if all were counted for a single candidate, would not make any difference in the placings.
More worrying would be that they indicate an attempt to rig the result. For that reason, and that reason alone, I would like to see the vote recounted - if it was allowed and I was returning officer I'd count them myself in an attempt to work out what went wrong. Incompetence I can live with, but not corruption. Exactly right; the only way to identify the difference is to check.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2015, 04:12 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 936
Joined: 16-June 12
Member No.: 8,755
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 22 2015, 04:36 PM) It worth noting that the extra votes, even if all were counted for a single candidate, would not make any difference in the placings. You must have another source of info as it doesn't show this in the article.
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2015, 04:29 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (MontyPython @ May 22 2015, 05:12 PM) You must have another source of info as it doesn't show this in the article. Even if the numbers don't make a difference, they affect the percentage variation. If we took the idea that 'roughly roughly' is ok for an election count, then Richard B. should have been declared five minutes after the boxes were opened. Does anyone know of an accountant who wouldn't investigate a minor difference between balance numbers?
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2015, 05:10 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 22 2015, 04:36 PM) It worth noting that the extra votes, even if all were counted for a single candidate, would not make any difference in the placings. That reasoning is unsound. A discrepancy like this indicates a systematic error so you can't know how wrong the result might be, or indeed you can't know that the error was limited to just this one count.
--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2015, 05:22 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE (MontyPython @ May 22 2015, 05:12 PM) You must have another source of info as it doesn't show this in the article. The result is readily available on the WBC website - a little arithmetic shows how many extra votes were counted.
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2015, 08:36 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 22 2015, 06:10 PM) That reasoning is unsound. A discrepancy like this indicates a systematic error so you can't know how wrong the result might be, or indeed you can't know that the error was limited to just this one count. There was no reasoning involved - simple statement of fact, or it would have been if my mental arithmetic was right. Having recalculated - if all the extra votes had been counted for the guy who came 2nd the guy who came 3rd should have been 2nd - ie the two Tories would swap round. But yes, it's a massive over simplification. As I went on to say - the result should be investigated to find out what went wrong. I'd take a look at other wards as well - the wards with multiple seats have a lot of uncast/uncounted votes. This may well be as the voters intended, or it might be a failure of the system to explain the ability to vote for more than one candidate, or it could mean hundreds of uncounted votes. If I was JSH I would have asked for a recount - in Greenham there were 697 votes uncast or uncounted, enough to seriously effect the result. Then again I would expect the returning officer to be able to do the arithmetic before announcing the results. Perhaps he did and had a count of single vote ballot papers that reassured him. It seems possible that up to 20% or so of the electorate in multi-candidate wards don't understand they can vote for more than one candidate - which seems to me like a failure of the electoral system.
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2015, 09:19 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 22 2015, 09:36 PM) It seems possible that up to 20% or so of the electorate in multi-candidate wards don't understand they can vote for more than one candidate - which seems to me like a failure of the electoral system. As Petra would say "leave the voting to those who know best to ensure the correct outcome is ensured" The results for our local election really does not make any difference? Our local Councillors will do exactly as they are told to do by those who know just what is best for Newbury........of course the problem is this is not what is always best for the electorate though?
--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
|
|
|
|
|
May 24 2015, 06:50 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 24 2015, 07:14 PM) I have looked into it a bit more - they really don't want any appeals.
1. The four people appealing must be voters in the disputed ward (they don't have to have voted) - which counts me out.
2. It costs £120 to lodge an appeal - not too onerous but ...
3. The whole process is comparable to civil litigation, legal advice is strongly recommended.
All in all complainants have to be seriously serious! The real killer that you don't mention is costs. Whatever your own costs, if you lose you'll likely have to pay the other side's costs too, and that could be substantial - not something a right-minded private individual would want to get involved in.
--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
|
|
|
|
|
May 24 2015, 08:12 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 24 2015, 07:50 PM) The real killer that you don't mention is costs. Whatever your own costs, if you lose you'll likely have to pay the other side's costs too, and that could be substantial - not something a right-minded private individual would want to get involved in. Strange isn't it that the country that set the standard for government and election honesty should make it so difficult to prove that honesty.
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|