Labour playing fair in local elections....
Discussion
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12080945/...
So the wrong candidate was accidentally declared the winner and is now refusing to give it up.
Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed?
So the wrong candidate was accidentally declared the winner and is now refusing to give it up.
Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed?
ChemicalChaos said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12080945/...
So the wrong candidate was accidentally declared the winner and is now refusing to give it up.
Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed?
So the wrong candidate was accidentally declared the winner and is now refusing to give it up.
Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed?
I notice the Daily Fail didn't report all the votes not counted and suddenly 'found' with a slim Tory majority.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570...
What a surprise.
Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570...
What a surprise.
Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed?
GetCarter said:
I notice the Daily Fail didn't report all the votes not counted and suddenly 'found' with a slim Tory majority.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570...
What a surprise.
Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed?
Were they uncounted Labour votes?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570...
What a surprise.
Can you imagine the outrage if the situation was reversed?
Moreover you’d like to think the “wrong” candidate would have the grace to make it as easy as possible to concede.
The Lincolnshire election undercounting thing is a little unusual too. It’ll be interesting to see what the Electoral Commission make of it. I suspect nothing more than guidance will be given.
Note it received very little media coverage. It wasn’t just the Mail that felt it not deserving of comment. Google suggests neither the left leaning Mirror nor the Guardian felt it worthy of reporting.
The Lincolnshire election undercounting thing is a little unusual too. It’ll be interesting to see what the Electoral Commission make of it. I suspect nothing more than guidance will be given.
Note it received very little media coverage. It wasn’t just the Mail that felt it not deserving of comment. Google suggests neither the left leaning Mirror nor the Guardian felt it worthy of reporting.
Dunno if anyone else had ever been an observer at a count, but it's very manual and it is a little bit error prone. I've shouted out to a teller to correct the mistake when they've stuck a Party X vote in the pile they were making for Party Y. The errors on average cancel out and if the outcome is really close, they can always do a more painstaking recount to check the numbers, so it is no big deal that a few votes often get miscounted.
The main reason for observing is not so much to correct errors as to see a more local breakdown of the vote than you get in the official results. The votes from each polling station are counted individually, so if you're standing behind the tellers you can count for yourself and get a good indication of how the vote has gone polling station by polling station.
The main reason for observing is not so much to correct errors as to see a more local breakdown of the vote than you get in the official results. The votes from each polling station are counted individually, so if you're standing behind the tellers you can count for yourself and get a good indication of how the vote has gone polling station by polling station.
ATG said:
Dunno if anyone else had ever been an observer at a count, but it's very manual and it is a little bit error prone. I've shouted out to a teller to correct the mistake when they've stuck a Party X vote in the pile they were making for Party Y. The errors on average cancel out and if the outcome is really close, they can always do a more painstaking recount to check the numbers, so it is no big deal that a few votes often get miscounted.
The main reason for observing is not so much to correct errors as to see a more local breakdown of the vote than you get in the official results. The votes from each polling station are counted individually, so if you're standing behind the tellers you can count for yourself and get a good indication of how the vote has gone polling station by polling station.
If there will ever be a case for eVOTE, with every vote associated with an eID, this ^^^ is it.The main reason for observing is not so much to correct errors as to see a more local breakdown of the vote than you get in the official results. The votes from each polling station are counted individually, so if you're standing behind the tellers you can count for yourself and get a good indication of how the vote has gone polling station by polling station.
Only if the inaccuracy in the current system is materially important and it clearly isn't.
Good reasons for changing the system would be to make it quicker and cheaper to operate, and to encourage more people to vote.
I've got no problem at all with electronic voting in principle. It's just the reason for adopting it wouldn't be about improving accuracy as that just isn't a problem in the current system.
Good reasons for changing the system would be to make it quicker and cheaper to operate, and to encourage more people to vote.
I've got no problem at all with electronic voting in principle. It's just the reason for adopting it wouldn't be about improving accuracy as that just isn't a problem in the current system.
The Mail's reporting and the quotes from the local Conservatives are typically dishonest. Ditto the title the OP gave this thread. Accusing Labour of stealing the seat and refusing to give it up is bulls
t. The error was made by some numpty local authority employee who wrote the wrong numbers down on a bit of paper. Once announced, that's it. Game over. Labour had nothing to do with it. If the Conservative candidate wants to challenge the outcome, they have to take it to court. That's the law.
t. The error was made by some numpty local authority employee who wrote the wrong numbers down on a bit of paper. Once announced, that's it. Game over. Labour had nothing to do with it. If the Conservative candidate wants to challenge the outcome, they have to take it to court. That's the law.pequod said:
ATG said:
Dunno if anyone else had ever been an observer at a count, but it's very manual and it is a little bit error prone. I've shouted out to a teller to correct the mistake when they've stuck a Party X vote in the pile they were making for Party Y. The errors on average cancel out and if the outcome is really close, they can always do a more painstaking recount to check the numbers, so it is no big deal that a few votes often get miscounted.
The main reason for observing is not so much to correct errors as to see a more local breakdown of the vote than you get in the official results. The votes from each polling station are counted individually, so if you're standing behind the tellers you can count for yourself and get a good indication of how the vote has gone polling station by polling station.
If there will ever be a case for eVOTE, with every vote associated with an eID, this ^^^ is it.The main reason for observing is not so much to correct errors as to see a more local breakdown of the vote than you get in the official results. The votes from each polling station are counted individually, so if you're standing behind the tellers you can count for yourself and get a good indication of how the vote has gone polling station by polling station.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff