RugbyRebels

Tory council of Barnet reportedly turned away voters...

Zhivago wrote:Tory council of Barnet reportedly turned away voters...

What the entire council? There standing at the doors of every polling station saying "we don't want anyone to be elected"?

Oh good lord. The conservative mind set is an endless wonder.

Zhivago wrote:Tory council of Barnet reportedly turned away voters...

Problems also reported in a labour council as well. It's a cockup, smile as that and voters who couldn't vote at first in Barnet are apparently bring provided emergency proxy or postal votes instead.

What seems obvious to me with this and whats happened in the US is that mistakes are always going to happen on election day. Sometimes there are enough "mistakes" favouring one side that you start to question ulterior motives, other times it is quite clearly human error and there is nothing behind it.

There just needs to be processes to remedy these faults. Sounds as though there are postal votes here, not sure how easy it is to do. Would be much easier if it was online.

jared_7 wrote:What seems obvious to me with this and whats happened in the US is that mistakes are always going to happen on election day. Sometimes there are enough "mistakes" favouring one side that you start to question ulterior motives, other times it is quite clearly human error and there is nothing behind it.

There just needs to be processes to remedy these faults. Sounds as though there are postal votes here, not sure how easy it is to do. Would be much easier if it was online.

Imagine UG's posts if it was online. The tinfoil hat brigade would have a field day.

Stones of granite wrote:

jared_7 wrote:What seems obvious to me with this and whats happened in the US is that mistakes are always going to happen on election day. Sometimes there are enough "mistakes" favouring one side that you start to question ulterior motives, other times it is quite clearly human error and there is nothing behind it.

There just needs to be processes to remedy these faults. Sounds as though there are postal votes here, not sure how easy it is to do. Would be much easier if it was online.

Imagine UG's posts if it was online. The tinfoil hat brigade would have a field day.

I'm not sure its any less open to manipulation than paper ballots which I'm sure go through some electronic calculation process anyway. I thinks its a huge shame that only 35% of the population actually votes in these things, and I'd imagine those at the poorer end of society are more likely to be unable to get time away from work or whatever to go to a polling station.

I'm not going to speak for UG but my gut instinct is that the actual will of the people would be far stronger if voting was made more accessible to everyone.

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

jared_7 wrote:What seems obvious to me with this and whats happened in the US is that mistakes are always going to happen on election day. Sometimes there are enough "mistakes" favouring one side that you start to question ulterior motives, other times it is quite clearly human error and there is nothing behind it.

There just needs to be processes to remedy these faults. Sounds as though there are postal votes here, not sure how easy it is to do. Would be much easier if it was online.

Imagine UG's posts if it was online. The tinfoil hat brigade would have a field day.

I'm not sure its any less open to manipulation than paper ballots which I'm sure go through some electronic calculation process anyway. I thinks its a huge shame that only 35% of the population actually votes in these things, and I'd imagine those at the poorer end of society are more likely to be unable to get time away from work or whatever to go to a polling station.

I'm not going to speak for UG but my gut instinct is that the actual will of the people would be far stronger if voting was made more accessible to everyone.

What kind of electronic calculation process? As far as I know, the votes are hand-counted in UK elections.

I agree with your last point, but we would be bombarded with "evidence" of vote rigging, swapping etc. Hell, even the postal vote has attracted allegations.

Stones of granite wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Imagine UG's posts if it was online. The tinfoil hat brigade would have a field day.

I'm not sure its any less open to manipulation than paper ballots which I'm sure go through some electronic calculation process anyway. I thinks its a huge shame that only 35% of the population actually votes in these things, and I'd imagine those at the poorer end of society are more likely to be unable to get time away from work or whatever to go to a polling station.

I'm not going to speak for UG but my gut instinct is that the actual will of the people would be far stronger if voting was made more accessible to everyone.

What kind of electronic calculation process? As far as I know, the votes are hand-counted in UK elections.

I agree with your last point, but we would be bombarded with "evidence" of vote rigging, swapping etc. Hell, even the postal vote has attracted allegations.

Well they are counted by hand but each area's totals would be added to some sort of database to add up total tallies, surely? Not sure I want some guy with an abacus counting to 4.5 million?

Rigging on whose side? Voter fraud just isn't a real issue.

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
I'm not sure its any less open to manipulation than paper ballots which I'm sure go through some electronic calculation process anyway. I thinks its a huge shame that only 35% of the population actually votes in these things, and I'd imagine those at the poorer end of society are more likely to be unable to get time away from work or whatever to go to a polling station.

I'm not going to speak for UG but my gut instinct is that the actual will of the people would be far stronger if voting was made more accessible to everyone.

What kind of electronic calculation process? As far as I know, the votes are hand-counted in UK elections.

I agree with your last point, but we would be bombarded with "evidence" of vote rigging, swapping etc. Hell, even the postal vote has attracted allegations.

Well they are counted by hand but each area's totals would be added to some sort of database to add up total tallies, surely? Not sure I want some guy with an abacus counting to 4.5 million?

Rigging on whose side? Voter fraud just isn't a real issue.

Ok, I see what you mean. I assume it would be done using a spreadsheet, but in a way that is transparent to the party observers. Not sure really.

On postal votes.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ic-pickles

Now, I'm not saying that the allegations are real, just that this is typical of the kind of allegations that get made. It would be far more extreme for an online system.

Stones of granite wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: What kind of electronic calculation process? As far as I know, the votes are hand-counted in UK elections.

I agree with your last point, but we would be bombarded with "evidence" of vote rigging, swapping etc. Hell, even the postal vote has attracted allegations.

Well they are counted by hand but each area's totals would be added to some sort of database to add up total tallies, surely? Not sure I want some guy with an abacus counting to 4.5 million?

Rigging on whose side? Voter fraud just isn't a real issue.

Ok, I see what you mean. I assume it would be done using a spreadsheet, but in a way that is transparent to the party observers. Not sure really.

On postal votes.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ic-pickles

Now, I'm not saying that the allegations are real, just that this is typical of the kind of allegations that get made. It would be far more extreme for an online system.

Ahhh ok, I thought you meant voter fraud on the part of citizens.

I agree that on the part of administrators and those in power, more stringent checks on them abusing power is needed; but then I believe thats the case regardless of system.

jared_7 wrote:What seems obvious to me with this and whats happened in the US is that mistakes are always going to happen on election day. Sometimes there are enough "mistakes" favouring one side that you start to question ulterior motives, other times it is quite clearly human error and there is nothing behind it.

There just needs to be processes to remedy these faults. Sounds as though there are postal votes here, not sure how easy it is to do. Would be much easier if it was online.

Potentially I agree about online voting, although there are similar fraud issues as with postal voting.

Stones of granite wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Imagine UG's posts if it was online. The tinfoil hat brigade would have a field day.

I'm not sure its any less open to manipulation than paper ballots which I'm sure go through some electronic calculation process anyway. I thinks its a huge shame that only 35% of the population actually votes in these things, and I'd imagine those at the poorer end of society are more likely to be unable to get time away from work or whatever to go to a polling station.

I'm not going to speak for UG but my gut instinct is that the actual will of the people would be far stronger if voting was made more accessible to everyone.

What kind of electronic calculation process? As far as I know, the votes are hand-counted in UK elections.

I agree with your last point, but we would be bombarded with "evidence" of vote rigging, swapping etc. Hell, even the postal vote has attracted allegations.

You could add extra assurance to the counting process, but there are greater risks with voter fraud at the user end. Those risks could be balanced by potentially greater voter participation.

jared_7 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

jared_7 wrote:
I'm not sure its any less open to manipulation than paper ballots which I'm sure go through some electronic calculation process anyway. I thinks its a huge shame that only 35% of the population actually votes in these things, and I'd imagine those at the poorer end of society are more likely to be unable to get time away from work or whatever to go to a polling station.

I'm not going to speak for UG but my gut instinct is that the actual will of the people would be far stronger if voting was made more accessible to everyone.

What kind of electronic calculation process? As far as I know, the votes are hand-counted in UK elections.

I agree with your last point, but we would be bombarded with "evidence" of vote rigging, swapping etc. Hell, even the postal vote has attracted allegations.

Well they are counted by hand but each area's totals would be added to some sort of database to add up total tallies, surely? Not sure I want some guy with an abacus counting to 4.5 million?

Rigging on whose side? Voter fraud just isn't a real issue.

There are documented issues in the uk with fraud, when postal voting has been used. Mainly with legitimate voters being forced into voting a certain way. It still remains be person one vote mind, adding additional voters to the mix can be prevented via checks elsewhere.

God forbid looking at 'evidence'.

UGagain wrote:God forbid looking at 'evidence'.

Such as?

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:God forbid looking at 'evidence'.

Such as?

ill mannered peasant above wrote: we would be bombarded with "evidence" of vote rigging, swapping etc.

So evidence of deliberate activity to prevent voters voting by council officials within a strongly Conservative supporting area in order to undermine the chances of the Conservative candidate in the mayoral election is what exactly?

Sandydragon wrote:So evidence of deliberate activity to prevent voters voting by council officials within a strongly Conservative supporting area in order to undermine the chances of the Conservative candidate in the mayoral election is what exactly?

You're really not getting it. Again.

I don't know why there has to be voter registration in the first place. Everyone eligible to vote in Britain has an NI number. If you tie that to their address, it's done and dusted.

If you get rid of constituencies and have party lists, you wouldn't even have to tie it to an address.

I'd also allow voting by every possible means. Online, polling stations, postal, hell, you could even have telephone voting (press 1 for Labour, 2 for Liberal Democrat, the nearest prime number to the square of PI times the number of grains of sand in Tony Blair's sandals after a visit to Saudi to get his orders for Conservative).

I'd also break the link between ballot papers and the individual, so you truly aren't identifiable.

UKHamlet wrote:I don't know why there has to be voter registration in the first place. Everyone eligible to vote in Britain has an NI number. If you tie that to their address, it's done and dusted.

If you get rid of constituencies and have party lists, you wouldn't even have to tie it to an address.

I'd also allow voting by every possible means. Online, polling stations, postal, hell, you could even have telephone voting (press 1 for Labour, 2 for Liberal Democrat, the nearest prime number to the square of PI times the number of grains of sand in Tony Blair's sandals after a visit to Saudi to get his orders for Conservative).

I'd also break the link between ballot papers and the individual, so you truly aren't identifiable.

Not everyone with an NI number is entitled to vote.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:So evidence of deliberate activity to prevent voters voting by council officials within a strongly Conservative supporting area in order to undermine the chances of the Conservative candidate in the mayoral election is what exactly?

You're really not getting it. Again.

So thre is no evidence of deliberate disruption. Good, we can all sleep easy then.

UKHamlet wrote:I don't know why there has to be voter registration in the first place. Everyone eligible to vote in Britain has an NI number. If you tie that to their address, it's done and dusted.

If you get rid of constituencies and have party lists, you wouldn't even have to tie it to an address.

I'd also allow voting by every possible means. Online, polling stations, postal, hell, you could even have telephone voting (press 1 for Labour, 2 for Liberal Democrat, the nearest prime number to the square of PI times the number of grains of sand in Tony Blair's sandals after a visit to Saudi to get his orders for Conservative).

I'd also break the link between ballot papers and the individual, so you truly aren't identifiable.

The last bit is problematic. In order for the officials at th voting location to be able to provide full assurance, they need to SH that all the numbered ballot papers have been handed to registered voters. If there is o link to a person then arguably, they could be giving one person multiple voting papers, or just filling the in themselves.

Online voting could remove that concern, after all if there is stringent authentication before you get to th voting page, then th authticstion mechanism generating a one time access to th voting page which only works one way. Provided there's assurance in the authentication at t outset, the link to how so,done voted isn't required.

Are you insane? I've made no comment either way.

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

UGagain wrote:Are you insane? I've made no comment either way.

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

Of course you haven't.