That election result..., Private Eye takes over NWN! Options

[On the edge]

This week's NWN is a great read. They are still maintaining three pages of letters and now they are injecting satire...

Remember the occasional 'election' results published in UK format by Private Eye, where a tin pot dictator had been elected by a margin considerably bigger than the electorate. Great fun, but according to NWN, it's happened for real in Thatcham North!

Our beloved Council CEO and Returning Officer came up with an absolute classic 'it's impossible to say' wether the extra votes influenced the result.

Prior to the election, there was a costly advertising campaign to try and convince us punters that our votes actually counted. Not round here apparently.

Democracy in action West Berkshire style.

[MontyPython]

Excellent - I'd like to nominate Nick Carter as "Buffoon of the Year"

[CrackerJack]

This week's NWN is a great read.

God you're hilarious....



Is that your attempt at satire?

[gel]

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

[blackdog]

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.

[On the edge]

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.

[MontyPython]

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.

[On the edge]

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?

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[blackdog]

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.

[Andy Capp]

Understanding how it was wrong is important; who's to say those that were counted 'correctly', are correct?

[blackdog]

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.

[Cognosco]

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?

[blackdog]

I've now had a look at all the WBC results and:

1. Thatcham North is not the only ward where more votes were counted that could have been cast - though the other (Sulhampstead) is not in the same class - only 11 too many votes counted. As a single-seat ward this is a minor issue - but one that should not have happened.

2. As already noted wards with multiple candidates have around 20% fewer votes counted than would be the case if every valid ballot paper had the full number of votes cast - ie an awful lot of voters only voted for one candidate. In the only 3 seat ward (Birch Copse) this meant that over 2000 votes were not cast!

3. Thatcham North is a major problem. 390 more votes were counted than could have been cast if every valid ballot paper had two votes. Evidence from all the other multi-seat wards shows that this level of voting is non-credible. One would expect the voters of Thatcham North to act in the same way as voters in other multi-seat wards which means that 600-700 of them voted for a single candidate. Thus the overcount seems to be around 1,000-1,100. Now that could change the result!

4. The Thatcham North result shows a huge disparity between the two Lib-Dem candidates (2160 & 877) - Lee Dillon may be a very popular chap, but I find this level of non-party voting more than a little dubious.

5. Having read Nick Carter's response to the NWN it seems that he was not provided with the basic data that would have made the problem obvious - astounding!

6. Single-seat wards are much more rational, most have a perfectly balanced count, several are out by one or two votes, only Sulhamstead being more than 2 off. Time to get rid of multi-seat wards?

[On the edge]

Thanks Blackdog, a very clear and concise explanation of the problem.

[blackdog]

Nick Carter in his response to the NWN implies that there is nothing he can do about the dodgy election result in Thatcham North.

So how about helping him out?

According to the Citizens Advice website (https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/civil-rights/government-and-voting/voting-procedures/#h-challenging-the-outcome-of-an-election):

Challenging the outcome of an election

You can challenge the outcome of a parliamentary or European parliamentary election on the grounds of an irregularity. In the case of a local government election, four or more voters acting together can challenge the outcome.

To challenge the outcome, you need to file an election petition at the Election Petitions Office of the Royal Courts of Justice (Court of Session in Scotland). This must be done within 21 days of the election. A fee of £120 will be charged.

More information about the procedure for challenging the outcome can be obtained from the Election Petitions Office. The address is:-

England and Wales

Electoral Petitions Office
Room E19
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Tel: 020 7947 7529
Fax: 020 7947 7339/6807

[On the edge]

Well worth thinking about. I have put a call in to WBC; just waiting for a response. However, this might be an alternative.

[blackdog]

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!

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[Exhausted]

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.