Election fiasco report urges shake-up
Scotland needs to have a national returning officer and one layer of government controlling elections, according to a hard-hitting review of
the fiasco that hit the May 3 ballots this year. It is understood that Ron Gould, the Canadian elections expert who has led a five-month review of what went wrong at the Holyrood and council votes, will report this morning that the fractured nature of elections in Scotland needs to be confronted.
Instead of 32 returning officers, each having autonomy over their own count, he is thought to conclude that there should be a streamlined, national system with one
person overseeing the process.
The report is understood to be critical of the division between the Scotland Office in Whitehall having responsibility for Holyrood elections, while the Scottish Government in Edinburgh oversees council elections.
Moving to a single tier
taking control would be likely to mean a significant devolution of power from Westminster to Holyrood.
It could open the door to a change of voting system for the Scottish Parliament, as there is probably a majority in favour of moving to the electoral system used for the first time for local authorities this year, meaning preferential votes for multi-member constituencies. The Gould report is also thought to confront the controversial question of how parties can describe themselves on the ballot form, after the SNP used "Alex Salmond for First Minister" to gain a prominent position on the form.
The design of that ballot paper was the source of the main problems at last May's elections, when more than 150,000 votes were deemed to be spoiled because they had not been properly filled in. In several constituencies, that meant more spoiled ballots than the size of the majority.
This has been linked to the design of the ballot form being unclear, and there is likely to be criticism in the Gould report of the Scotland Office and Electoral Commission for their testing of the papers before they were used.
Ron Gould had a legal
dispensation to examine the spoiled ballot forms, and his report will have the first assessment of what really happened when voters went into the polling booths.
The elections were also marred by the delay in sending out postal ballots, meaning some people were unable to vote. And with electronic counting machines being used for the first time in Scottish elections, there were serious delays when some scanners failed to work properly.
The blame is expected to be shared around the Scotland Office, for its decision on the new, single ballot forms; the Electoral Commission for its advice on the voting forms; the former Scottish Executive for defying widespread advice that it should not hold the Holyrood and council elections on the same day; on returning officers for poor co-ordination; and on the company that ran the electronic counting
systems.
The report does not name anyone, which will be a relief, in particular, for Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary who was at the Scotland Office when key decisions were taken. Although he moved jobs in early summer, he has been the individual under the most pressure for his role.
Ron Gould's report was commissioned by the Electoral Commission, even though it was liable to share the blame.
He was expected to report in August, but the extent of interviews and the volume of evidence meant a two-month delay in publication.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 10:07pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Aye but it was Douglas who was to oversee the whole thing. Others made the mistakes but he was supposed to make sure they didn't make them.
This story almost slipped by unnoticed. Is wee Dougie under pressure and in need of some Herald tlc?
How are you today Alf?
Aye but it was Douglas who was to oversee the whole thing. Others made the mistakes but he was supposed to make sure they didn't make them.
This story almost slipped by unnoticed. Is wee Dougie under pressure and in need of some Herald tlc?
How are you today Alf?
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 10:53pm Mon 22 Oct 07
[quote]The report does not name anyone, which will be a relief, in particular, for Douglas Alexander[/quote] Why should he be relieved? Everybody knows he is the real culprit just as he was one of the numpty triumvirate that botched Maggie broon's general election strategy.
Alexander should be relieved all right - of his ministerial position.
The report does not name anyone, which will be a relief, in particular, for Douglas Alexander
Why should he be relieved? Everybody knows he is the real culprit just as he was one of the numpty triumvirate that botched Maggie broon's general election strategy.
Alexander should be relieved all right - of his ministerial position.
Posted by: a. loon, glencarvie on 10:53pm Mon 22 Oct 07
im still convinced labour new they were going to lose in may. I SMELT A WESTMINSTER RAT and he appeared in the shape o douglas alexander.We dont hear much fae the back stabbin wee ferret nowadays.Keepin alow profile doogie? I wonder why
im still convinced labour new they were going to lose in may. I SMELT A WESTMINSTER RAT and he appeared in the shape o douglas alexander.We dont hear much fae the back stabbin wee ferret nowadays.Keepin alow profile doogie? I wonder why
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 10:59pm Mon 22 Oct 07
[quote]The report does not name anyone, which will be a relief, in particular, for Douglas Alexander...[/quote]
Why will it be a relief? He was responsible whether or not his name appears in a report.
But wait, is anyones name mentioned in a negative light?..............
why yes, of course; Scotlands finest investigative journalist has implicated none other than (drum roll) Alex Salmond.
[quote]after the SNP used "Alex Salmond for First Minister" to gain a prominent position on the form.[/quote]
Now here is a subject where even the most avid Unionist would struggle to defend Douglas Alexander, but Fraser manages it with aplomb.
The report does not name anyone, which will be a relief, in particular, for Douglas Alexander...
Why will it be a relief? He was responsible whether or not his name appears in a report.
But wait, is anyones name mentioned in a negative light?..............
why yes, of course; Scotlands finest investigative journalist has implicated none other than (drum roll) Alex Salmond.
after the SNP used "Alex Salmond for First Minister" to gain a prominent position on the form.
Now here is a subject where even the most avid Unionist would struggle to defend Douglas Alexander, but Fraser manages it with aplomb.
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 11:13pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Douglas Alexander and Sue Bruce in East Dunbarton should get the sack
As far as objectivity goes remember Douglas Fraser's fawning over Wendy Alexander and her work ethic in that article last month failing to mention she disappeared off the scene for five years
Douglas Alexander and Sue Bruce in East Dunbarton should get the sack
As far as objectivity goes remember Douglas Fraser's fawning over Wendy Alexander and her work ethic in that article last month failing to mention she disappeared off the scene for five years
Posted by: Alex Porter, Madrid on 11:32pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Na, Dougie's not keepin' a low profile. The 'Twit' is screwing up elsewhere now:
http://www.timesonli
ne.co.uk/tol/news/po
litics/article270905
9.ece
Na, Dougie's not keepin' a low profile. The 'Twit' is screwing up elsewhere now:
http://www.timesonli
ne.co.uk/tol/news/po
litics/article270905
9.ece
Posted by: Rab the Ranter, Carluke on 11:58pm Mon 22 Oct 07
150,000 who took the trouble to turn up at the polling stations were disenfranchised!.
BUT the report dosn't name names!
WHY NOT!
This is obscene!
150,000 who took the trouble to turn up at the polling stations were disenfranchised!.
BUT the report dosn't name names!
WHY NOT!
This is obscene!
Posted by: neil, Dundee on 12:17am Tue 23 Oct 07
The whole of Scotland will be reading this report quite carefully to find out what went wrong. Even if individuals are not named and blamed at this stage, that does not mean that they are cleared. I
for one will certainly be wanting the Scottish press to clarify the roles
of Ministers including Douglas Alexander in this very serious matter.
I also note that another prominent Labour supporter Neil Kinnock is a non-executive director of the company from Milton Keynes that was responsible for the delayed electronic counting of the vote. Both the counting fiasco and the high number of spoiled papers exposed our country to international ridicule - and I think heads may have to roll.
Just how many fiascos does young Douglas Alexander have to be involved in before he gets his jotters? Apart from his UK role as an
overseer of elections for the devolved parliament, he was also the Cabinet Office Minister for Civil Contingencies in England whose
contingency preparations did not apparently extend to providing proper flood defences on the Severn or a backup power-supply for GCHQ the now rather well-known listening station in Cheltenham.
He was later appointed Labour General Election co-ordinator and according to this morning's Guardian the failure to call an election
has just cost his party around £1million that they don't really have!
And having undermined the Special Relationship between the US and UK with an ill-judged speech in Washington purporting to set
out Gordon Brown's thinking on foreign policy - even before David
Miliband, who actually is The Foreign Secretary, had got his feet under the desk and made his first major policy speech on Avaaz,
it sounds as if Wee Dougie has blundered yet again in the US. It
appears that the United States boycotted a meeting that Dougie
called at the World Bank to discuss aid to Burma when the rest
of the world and The White House were calling for an embargo?
The phone lines to the British Embassy in Washington DC were apparently blazing as diplomats tried to shut this wee pillock up.
The whole of Scotland will be reading this report quite carefully to find out what went wrong. Even if individuals are not named and blamed at this stage, that does not mean that they are cleared. I
for one will certainly be wanting the Scottish press to clarify the roles
of Ministers including Douglas Alexander in this very serious matter.
I also note that another prominent Labour supporter Neil Kinnock is a non-executive director of the company from Milton Keynes that was responsible for the delayed electronic counting of the vote. Both the counting fiasco and the high number of spoiled papers exposed our country to international ridicule - and I think heads may have to roll.
Just how many fiascos does young Douglas Alexander have to be involved in before he gets his jotters? Apart from his UK role as an
overseer of elections for the devolved parliament, he was also the Cabinet Office Minister for Civil Contingencies in England whose
contingency preparations did not apparently extend to providing proper flood defences on the Severn or a backup power-supply for GCHQ the now rather well-known listening station in Cheltenham.
He was later appointed Labour General Election co-ordinator and according to this morning's Guardian the failure to call an election
has just cost his party around £1million that they don't really have!
And having undermined the Special Relationship between the US and UK with an ill-judged speech in Washington purporting to set
out Gordon Brown's thinking on foreign policy - even before David
Miliband, who actually is The Foreign Secretary, had got his feet under the desk and made his first major policy speech on Avaaz,
it sounds as if Wee Dougie has blundered yet again in the US. It
appears that the United States boycotted a meeting that Dougie
called at the World Bank to discuss aid to Burma when the rest
of the world and The White House were calling for an embargo?
The phone lines to the British Embassy in Washington DC were apparently blazing as diplomats tried to shut this wee pillock up.
Posted by: Sheila, Canada on 12:44am Tue 23 Oct 07
The question that needs answered is how did this affect the number of Labour seats and the number of SNP seats. In other words did the "disenfranchising" of large numbers of voters affect one party in particular. Will the report make this clear? I'm not holding my breath but recent history would suggest that Scotland was conned out of self-determination AGAIN through a dodgy ballot.
The question that needs answered is how did this affect the number of Labour seats and the number of SNP seats. In other words did the "disenfranchising" of large numbers of voters affect one party in particular. Will the report make this clear? I'm not holding my breath but recent history would suggest that Scotland was conned out of self-determination AGAIN through a dodgy ballot.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 3:45am Tue 23 Oct 07
I would like to be completely non-partisan here - the issue is much too important. Electronic voting machines are a danger to democracy. How they work is a proprietory secret. In effect a private corporation is allowed to count your vote digitally using their EVM's - computers. You are not allowed to know how they tabulated their results, and there is no scrutiny, or recount possible.
Now, I know my PC has done some pretty stupid things - caught viruse - spy ware - did one thing when I asked it to do another etc... So why would we trust a machine, programed by a private corporation, to decide who has won an election?
The oportunity for fraud and/or error is much too great to tolerate. Hand counted paper ballots and scrutineers are the only way to ensure an election is fair and accurate!
I would like to be completely non-partisan here - the issue is much too important. Electronic voting machines are a danger to democracy. How they work is a proprietory secret. In effect a private corporation is allowed to count your vote digitally using their EVM's - computers. You are not allowed to know how they tabulated their results, and there is no scrutiny, or recount possible.
Now, I know my PC has done some pretty stupid things - caught viruse - spy ware - did one thing when I asked it to do another etc... So why would we trust a machine, programed by a private corporation, to decide who has won an election?
The oportunity for fraud and/or error is much too great to tolerate. Hand counted paper ballots and scrutineers are the only way to ensure an election is fair and accurate!
Posted by: Albert, Glasgow on 8:34am Tue 23 Oct 07
[quote]The oportunity for fraud and/or error is much too great to tolerate. Hand counted paper ballots and scrutineers are the only way to ensure an election is fair and accurate![/quote] Well said Scunnert!
What is the connection between a Japanese business card and a Scottish ballot paper? At the moment, very little. Let me explain. When Japanese businessmen exchange cards, they (the cards) are held in both hands as they are proferred. Why? Because the humble wee daud o cardboard embodies the PERSON.
Now, at election counts those precious ballot papers should be handled with reverence for they embody the spirit, soul, emotion and logic of the people who completed them.
Start the count at 10am the day after polling (when everyone is fresh and alert) and if it takes 2 days to count, so what?
Do not trust a machine because you are then trusting a programmer who is not even in the room to be challenged or sacked for impropriety.
So we have two issues - the sanctity of people's votes and the integrity of the counters. I would prefer to trust the people at the count.
The oportunity for fraud and/or error is much too great to tolerate. Hand counted paper ballots and scrutineers are the only way to ensure an election is fair and accurate!
Well said Scunnert!
What is the connection between a Japanese business card and a Scottish ballot paper? At the moment, very little. Let me explain. When Japanese businessmen exchange cards, they (the cards) are held in both hands as they are proferred. Why? Because the humble wee daud o cardboard embodies the PERSON.
Now, at election counts those precious ballot papers should be handled with reverence for they embody the spirit, soul, emotion and logic of the people who completed them.
Start the count at 10am the day after polling (when everyone is fresh and alert) and if it takes 2 days to count, so what?
Do not trust a machine because you are then trusting a programmer who is not even in the room to be challenged or sacked for impropriety.
So we have two issues - the sanctity of people's votes and the integrity of the counters. I would prefer to trust the people at the count.
Posted by: Alibi on 9:20am Tue 23 Oct 07
Whitewash.....
Posted by: TheWiseOne, Glasgow on 9:49am Tue 23 Oct 07
It is ironic that when things are not going well, the political parties are quick to apportion blame.
The May elections were a complete shambles and yet no one has been taken to task.
Why?
It is ironic that when things are not going well, the political parties are quick to apportion blame.
The May elections were a complete shambles and yet no one has been taken to task.
Why?
Posted by: The Watcher, central on 12:25pm Tue 23 Oct 07
Cannot help wondering if there is any tie-up between the electronic voting machines used during the Scottish Elections and the Diebold machines which have caused controversy and consternation at elections in California and other places in the States.
Seems the problems are similar. (Google diebold).
Cannot help wondering if there is any tie-up between the electronic voting machines used during the Scottish Elections and the Diebold machines which have caused controversy and consternation at elections in California and other places in the States.
Seems the problems are similar. (Google diebold).
Posted by: Jwil, East Kilbride on 12:30pm Tue 23 Oct 07
Surprisingly the Deaily Record has no had inhibitions about pointing the finger at Douglas Alexander.
Surprisingly the Deaily Record has no had inhibitions about pointing the finger at Douglas Alexander.
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 12:56pm Tue 23 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Jwil[/bold] wrote:
Surprisingly the Deaily Record has no had inhibitions about pointing the finger at Douglas Alexander.[/quote] There is something badly wrong with The Herald at the moment. It appears to have been jolted back into it's 'election campaign' pro unionist stance. I would hazard that the bitterness felt by Scottish Labour establishment is showing.
The articles from Fraser in particular lack any subtlety, simply opting for the kind of brazen bias normally witnessed in The Scotsman. I'm not at all sure they realise the damage they are doing with this strategy of disinformation and propoganda.
Jwil wrote:
Surprisingly the Deaily Record has no had inhibitions about pointing the finger at Douglas Alexander.
There is something badly wrong with The Herald at the moment. It appears to have been jolted back into it's 'election campaign' pro unionist stance. I would hazard that the bitterness felt by Scottish Labour establishment is showing.
The articles from Fraser in particular lack any subtlety, simply opting for the kind of brazen bias normally witnessed in The Scotsman. I'm not at all sure they realise the damage they are doing with this strategy of disinformation and propoganda.
Posted by: Douglas Eckhart, Edinburgh on 1:37pm Tue 23 Oct 07
The question that needs answered is how did this affect the number of Labour seats and the number of SNP seats. In other words did the "disenfranchising" of large numbers of voters affect one party in particular. Will the report make this clear? I'm not holding my breath but recent history would suggest that Scotland was conned out of self-determination AGAIN through a dodgy ballot.
Sheila - Canada
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
---------------
As far as I'm aware all ballot papers have now been destryed, due to the regulations of the Electorial Commission which only allows for keeping of spoiled ballots for a limited time... so we may never know what the true count should have been.
However, given that the SNP were well ahead in all polls, with even the last poll on the very night before the election (2nd May) showing a 5 to 7 point lead for the SNP, then I would not be suprised if the SNP vote should have got a wider margin than the the one seat they ended up with. Too late now though.
The question that needs answered is how did this affect the number of Labour seats and the number of SNP seats. In other words did the "disenfranchising" of large numbers of voters affect one party in particular. Will the report make this clear? I'm not holding my breath but recent history would suggest that Scotland was conned out of self-determination AGAIN through a dodgy ballot.
Sheila - Canada
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
---------------
As far as I'm aware all ballot papers have now been destryed, due to the regulations of the Electorial Commission which only allows for keeping of spoiled ballots for a limited time... so we may never know what the true count should have been.
However, given that the SNP were well ahead in all polls, with even the last poll on the very night before the election (2nd May) showing a 5 to 7 point lead for the SNP, then I would not be suprised if the SNP vote should have got a wider margin than the the one seat they ended up with. Too late now though.
Posted by: Neil 9% Growth, glasgow on 1:41pm Tue 23 Oct 07
For some reason a worse scandal on the voting for the election has gone almost unreported. The dogs breakfast made of postal ballots meant that thousands, anecdotaly perhaps as many as the spoilt ballots, of postal votes failed to reach voters in time, thus disenfrachising them.
These people didn't even get the chance to use a relatively complicated voting system they were out before it started.
For some reason a worse scandal on the voting for the election has gone almost unreported. The dogs breakfast made of postal ballots meant that thousands, anecdotaly perhaps as many as the spoilt ballots, of postal votes failed to reach voters in time, thus disenfrachising them.
These people didn't even get the chance to use a relatively complicated voting system they were out before it started.
Posted by: Alex the Advark for All Attention, Bute Hoose on 2:26pm Tue 23 Oct 07
I'm glad all the Natters on this board are ignoring the fact I confused folks with my sneaky regional vote strap line. Us Nats are responsible for nothing, we govern the country by press release, and take all credit for all credit.
Ecky Salmond
I'm glad all the Natters on this board are ignoring the fact I confused folks with my sneaky regional vote strap line. Us Nats are responsible for nothing, we govern the country by press release, and take all credit for all credit.
Ecky Salmond
Posted by: djmac, Stirlingshire on 4:26pm Tue 23 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Douglas Eckhart[/bold] wrote:
The question that needs answered is how did this affect the number of Labour seats and the number of SNP seats. In other words did the \\\"disenfranchising\\\" of large numbers of voters affect one party in particular. Will the report make this clear? I\\\'m not holding my breath but recent history would suggest that Scotland was conned out of self-determination AGAIN through a dodgy ballot.
Sheila - Canada
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
---------------
As far as I\\\'m aware all ballot papers have now been destryed, due to the regulations of the Electorial Commission which only allows for keeping of spoiled ballots for a limited time... so we may never know what the true count should have been.
However, given that the SNP were well ahead in all polls, with even the last poll on the very night before the election (2nd May) showing a 5 to 7 point lead for the SNP, then I would not be suprised if the SNP vote should have got a wider margin than the the one seat they ended up with. Too late now though.
[/quote] Would take a contrarian view to that!!
I think it's more likely that the party to suffer would be the Labour Party since many of their voters in many areas would come from the old 'my faither voted Labour a' his life and I'll dae the same' brigade! The SNP vote would have come from more active and activated people who would be less inclined to be confused by any sort of mess-up on the ballot paper - t.e. 'just vote for the nationalist mannie'!!
Douglas Eckhart wrote:
The question that needs answered is how did this affect the number of Labour seats and the number of SNP seats. In other words did the \\\"disenfranchising\\\" of large numbers of voters affect one party in particular. Will the report make this clear? I'm not holding my breath but recent history would suggest that Scotland was conned out of self-determination AGAIN through a dodgy ballot.
Sheila - Canada
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
---------------
As far as I'm aware all ballot papers have now been destryed, due to the regulations of the Electorial Commission which only allows for keeping of spoiled ballots for a limited time... so we may never know what the true count should have been.
However, given that the SNP were well ahead in all polls, with even the last poll on the very night before the election (2nd May) showing a 5 to 7 point lead for the SNP, then I would not be suprised if the SNP vote should have got a wider margin than the the one seat they ended up with. Too late now though.
Would take a contrarian view to that!!
I think it's more likely that the party to suffer would be the Labour Party since many of their voters in many areas would come from the old 'my faither voted Labour a' his life and I'll dae the same' brigade! The SNP vote would have come from more active and activated people who would be less inclined to be confused by any sort of mess-up on the ballot paper - t.e. 'just vote for the nationalist mannie'!!
Posted by: Douglas Eckhart, edinburgh on 4:56pm Tue 23 Oct 07
Na I don't agree, those 'labour til I die types' are steadilly doing just that... dying off, drowing in thier own vomit and excessive alchoholism.
As for the 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' line, do you think people are really so stupid that they don't know Salmond is leader of the SNP?
Tommy Sheridan also used his name, but people knew he was leading his own party.
If there are people out there that dont know what 'First Minister' means, or somehow don't know that Alex Salmond is leader of the SNP and this is a national parliamentary election, then they shouldnt even be allowed near a ballot box..... the hard of thinking need not apply.
Na I don't agree, those 'labour til I die types' are steadilly doing just that... dying off, drowing in thier own vomit and excessive alchoholism.
As for the 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' line, do you think people are really so stupid that they don't know Salmond is leader of the SNP?
Tommy Sheridan also used his name, but people knew he was leading his own party.
If there are people out there that dont know what 'First Minister' means, or somehow don't know that Alex Salmond is leader of the SNP and this is a national parliamentary election, then they shouldnt even be allowed near a ballot box..... the hard of thinking need not apply.
Posted by: maragdubh, lewis on 5:17pm Tue 23 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Albert[/bold] wrote:
[quote]The oportunity for fraud and/or error is much too great to tolerate. Hand counted paper ballots and scrutineers are the only way to ensure an election is fair and accurate![/quote] Well said Scunnert! What is the connection between a Japanese business card and a Scottish ballot paper? At the moment, very little. Let me explain. When Japanese businessmen exchange cards, they (the cards) are held in both hands as they are proferred. Why? Because the humble wee daud o cardboard embodies the PERSON. Now, at election counts those precious ballot papers should be handled with reverence for they embody the spirit, soul, emotion and logic of the people who completed them. Start the count at 10am the day after polling (when everyone is fresh and alert) and if it takes 2 days to count, so what? Do not trust a machine because you are then trusting a programmer who is not even in the room to be challenged or sacked for impropriety. So we have two issues - the sanctity of people\'s votes and the integrity of the counters. I would prefer to trust the people at the count. [/quote] well said
Albert wrote:
The oportunity for fraud and/or error is much too great to tolerate. Hand counted paper ballots and scrutineers are the only way to ensure an election is fair and accurate!
Well said Scunnert! What is the connection between a Japanese business card and a Scottish ballot paper? At the moment, very little. Let me explain. When Japanese businessmen exchange cards, they (the cards) are held in both hands as they are proferred. Why? Because the humble wee daud o cardboard embodies the PERSON. Now, at election counts those precious ballot papers should be handled with reverence for they embody the spirit, soul, emotion and logic of the people who completed them. Start the count at 10am the day after polling (when everyone is fresh and alert) and if it takes 2 days to count, so what? Do not trust a machine because you are then trusting a programmer who is not even in the room to be challenged or sacked for impropriety. So we have two issues - the sanctity of people\'s votes and the integrity of the counters. I would prefer to trust the people at the count.
well said
Posted by: djmac, Stirlingshire on 5:30pm Tue 23 Oct 07
[quote][bold]maragdubh[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Albert[/bold] wrote:
[quote]The oportunity for fraud and/or error is much too great to tolerate. Hand counted paper ballots and scrutineers are the only way to ensure an election is fair and accurate![/quote] Well said Scunnert! What is the connection between a Japanese business card and a Scottish ballot paper? At the moment, very little. Let me explain. When Japanese businessmen exchange cards, they (the cards) are held in both hands as they are proferred. Why? Because the humble wee daud o cardboard embodies the PERSON. Now, at election counts those precious ballot papers should be handled with reverence for they embody the spirit, soul, emotion and logic of the people who completed them. Start the count at 10am the day after polling (when everyone is fresh and alert) and if it takes 2 days to count, so what? Do not trust a machine because you are then trusting a programmer who is not even in the room to be challenged or sacked for impropriety. So we have two issues - the sanctity of people\'s votes and the integrity of the counters. I would prefer to trust the people at the count. [/quote] well said[/quote] You miss one major issue in your post, Maragdunbh!
And that is the duplicity of the vested parties in organising the elections and, in this case, as we are now learning, it's the role of the so-called Scottish Secretary in the London Cabinet!
Just where are you, wee Duggie in all this??
Hiding beneath wee Bendy's lower lip??
Hiding amongst G (I love Paul Gazza's goal for ENGLAND) Brown's many lower chins??
Or are you just a wee feartie??
Your resignation is well overdue and will be accepted without hesitation.
maragdubh wrote:
Albert wrote:
The oportunity for fraud and/or error is much too great to tolerate. Hand counted paper ballots and scrutineers are the only way to ensure an election is fair and accurate!
Well said Scunnert! What is the connection between a Japanese business card and a Scottish ballot paper? At the moment, very little. Let me explain. When Japanese businessmen exchange cards, they (the cards) are held in both hands as they are proferred. Why? Because the humble wee daud o cardboard embodies the PERSON. Now, at election counts those precious ballot papers should be handled with reverence for they embody the spirit, soul, emotion and logic of the people who completed them. Start the count at 10am the day after polling (when everyone is fresh and alert) and if it takes 2 days to count, so what? Do not trust a machine because you are then trusting a programmer who is not even in the room to be challenged or sacked for impropriety. So we have two issues - the sanctity of people\'s votes and the integrity of the counters. I would prefer to trust the people at the count.
well said
You miss one major issue in your post, Maragdunbh!
And that is the duplicity of the vested parties in organising the elections and, in this case, as we are now learning, it's the role of the so-called Scottish Secretary in the London Cabinet!
Just where are you, wee Duggie in all this??
Hiding beneath wee Bendy's lower lip??
Hiding amongst G (I love Paul Gazza's goal for ENGLAND) Brown's many lower chins??
Or are you just a wee feartie??
Your resignation is well overdue and will be accepted without hesitation.
Posted by: MsJ, Glasgow on 11:44pm Tue 23 Oct 07
I still think the report should have mentioned the part stupidity played in it all. I still don't understand why so many people didn't understand what to do. I had no problem with my ballot papers and most people I have spoken to felt the same. I went to vote knowing I should read the instructions carefully and I did so. Most didn't. So what next a vaccine for stupidity? (And could we trial it on Pauline McNeill?)
I still think the report should have mentioned the part stupidity played in it all. I still don't understand why so many people didn't understand what to do. I had no problem with my ballot papers and most people I have spoken to felt the same. I went to vote knowing I should read the instructions carefully and I did so. Most didn't. So what next a vaccine for stupidity? (And could we trial it on Pauline McNeill?)
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (24)
