UK GENERAL ELECTION THURSDAY MAY 6th 2010

Slothrop

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
craner said:
Presumably, if they finish work at 9, they could get down the polling station before work then? People not getting to polling station on time does not = void election, banana republic.
Click to expand...
I see why 'could' has anything to do with it. It's not like the polling cards said "7am-10pm, arrive before 7pm to avoid disappointment".

I don't think it makes any significant difference overall, but it's definitely a failure of the polling stations, not the voters. If you tell people they can vote any time before 10pm, don't be surprised when they turn up any time before 10pm.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Slothrop said:
I see why 'could' has anything to do with it. It's not like the polling cards said "7am-10pm, arrive before 7pm to avoid disappointment".

I don't think it makes any significant difference overall, but it's definitely a failure of the polling stations, not the voters. If you tell people they can vote any time before 10pm, don't be surprised when they turn up any time before 10pm.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Way more people wanted to vote after work, so why couldn't the polling stations be open later (even if this means inconveiencing the TV stations by having the result the next day)? Surely the system should be set up to benefit the most voters, not to inconvenience them, otherwise we might as well have polling stations open from 10 til 4...
 
Last edited:
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
scottdisco said:
to contemplate voiding it all for, what, hundreds (i saw one report that said it could be into the thousands which sadly i can well believe) of missed voters is, unfortunately, not going to happen.

.
Click to expand...

who decides this, specifically. you seem to be saying that "the government" has decided this is "in our best interests". I'm just wondering who makes these sort of decisions when things do - as they have - gone wrong. I know Liberty are all over it, but who's decision is it?
 
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
mistersloane said:
who decides this, specifically. you seem to be saying that "the government" has decided this is "in our best interests". I'm just wondering who makes these sort of decisions when things do - as they have - gone wrong. I know Liberty are all over it, but who's decision is it?
Click to expand...

i honestly don't know sloane. as you saw from my post upthread, i don't like it any more than anyone else, and feel very sorry for people who wanted to vote but were not able to. it's business as usual. (w the emphasis here being on the word business.)

there's a committee that will 'look into it' (or whatevs), an independent electoral body, but you can hardly imagine even if they find massive fault a few months down the line they can do anything more than make it better for the next time. none of us expect them to have the power to call a snap re-election, alas.

in one way (and i write this at least slightly tongue-in-cheek), it's almost living up to typically British stereotypes. ie the stations and election personnel were overwhelmed in an almost charming-if-it-wasn't-so-serious manner tinpot sort of way because, oh i don't know, they ran out of pencils and printers hadn't printed enough blank ballot papers.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Apparently anyone denied the opportunity to vote can sue under the European Convention. So maybe a class action is possible?
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
scottdisco said:
i honestly don't know sloane. as you saw from my post upthread, i don't like it any more than anyone else, and feel very sorry for people who wanted to vote but were not able to. it's business as usual. (w the emphasis here being on the word business.)

there's a committee that will 'look into it' (or whatevs), an independent electoral body, but you can hardly imagine even if they find massive fault a few months down the line they can do anything more than make it better for the next time. none of us expect them to have the power to call a snap re-election, alas.

in one way (and i write this at least slightly tongue-in-cheek), it's almost living up to typically British stereotypes. ie the stations and election personnel were overwhelmed in an almost charming-if-it-wasn't-so-serious manner tinpot sort of way because, oh i don't know, they ran out of pencils and printers hadn't printed enough blank ballot papers.
Click to expand...

I just woke up wondering about it and there's so much media on the election that wading through it all to find an answer, seemed easier to ask dissensus. I'm so sick of things going wrong and there being "enquiries". They don't do anything. I know that the amounts wouldn't change anything with regard results, but surely that's not the point. Was just wondering, really.
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
baboon2004 said:
Apparently anyone denied the opportunity to vote can sue under the European Convention. So maybe a class action is possible?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just wonder what would be possible in order to make an election void, would a class action? If you go by a theory that it happened by incompetence (Sorry! can't vote! better luck next time, old chap!), would that make the entire election void? Does the few not represent the whole?
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I think both the authorities and the voters themselves were surprised by the high turnout. I mean, when was the last time this happened? People aren't used to turning up at a polling station and finding a massive queue.

Couldn't there have been an emergency ruling to keep the polls open till midnight or so? Or would that have been illegal, "unconstitutional" somehow (not that we have a written constitution)?
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
Mr. Tea said:
I think both the authorities and the voters themselves were surprised by the high turnout. I mean, when was the last time this happened? People aren't used to turning up at a polling station and finding a massive queue.

Couldn't there have been an emergency ruling to keep the polls open till midnight or so? Or would that have been illegal, "unconstitutional" somehow (not that we have a written constitution)?
Click to expand...

1997, 71 per cent, this year 65 - I think this is right.

yeah, emergency ruling should definitely've been in place. yet people are so in love with process rather than genuine fairness, that, as you say, it would have been outlawed somehow.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
Mr. Tea said:
I think both the authorities and the voters themselves were surprised by the high turnout. I mean, when was the last time this happened? People aren't used to turning up at a polling station and finding a massive queue.

Couldn't there have been an emergency ruling to keep the polls open till midnight or so? Or would that have been illegal, "unconstitutional" somehow (not that we have a written constitution)?
Click to expand...

The highest turnout (at least that I can remember) was in 1992. And what was the similiarity? Oh yeah, everyone thought it would be close.

Councils who didn't see this coming are fecking eejits. And, there should be a new rule - anyone even in the queue by 10 can vote, no matter how long that queue is. Anyone coming after can piss off. Not difficult.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Fair enough, I guess the turnout was only "high" compared to the last two (i.e. the only other elections I've been able to vote in). I stand corrected.
 
Slothrop

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
crackerjack said:
apparently the right aren't happy about sharing power with the old limpwristed libbys and have extracted their price in cabinet seats

so it won't just be Hague, Fox and Grayling (assuming her survives) keeping it real for the headbanger tendency in the new govt
Click to expand...
Any updates on this, Tory spotters?
 
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
Tory 'headbangers' or not aside, hey, at least i see that ex-investment banker David Laws - rightly criticised even by his own colleague Chris Huhne for favouring health social insurance schemes that (as Huhne pointed out) invariably exclude some of the poorest sections of society - is chief secretary to the Treasury.

w ex-Royal Dutch Shell chief economist Vince Cable (honest bloke: as long ago as 2005 he was saying he'd go into a coalition w the Tories) as business secretary it's some firm pairs of hands from the liberals to go alongside George Osbourne, Michael Gove and the like as we go about the business of cuts, cuts, and, er, cuts again.

oh, er, where was i?
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
mistersloane said:
who decides this, specifically. you seem to be saying that "the government" has decided this is "in our best interests". I'm just wondering who makes these sort of decisions when things do - as they have - gone wrong. I know Liberty are all over it, but who's decision is it?
Click to expand...

I think the Electoral Commission oversees everything but its down to individual local authorities to actually carry stuff out properly and ensure it is all properly resourced.

Seems like the returning officer in Sheffield has agreed to forgo his fee because of the cock up.

Whilst I can see that this is all a monumental pisser for the hundreds of individual voters involved, it is a bit of a sideshow. If 1,000 more people had voted in Hackney it wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever to the outcome.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
crackerjack said:
Anyone else notce this?



In other words, no early election unless the Tories want it. Is this even constitutional? What happens if they lose a confidence vote?
Click to expand...

fixed-term elections were part of the Lib Dem negotiations, to prevent the Tories doing a 1974 and calling an election in November. basically, it is constitutonal, now, 'cos they changed the constitution.
 
B

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
john eden said:
I think the Electoral Commission oversees everything but its down to individual local authorities to actually carry stuff out properly and ensure it is all properly resourced.

Seems like the returning officer in Sheffield has agreed to forgo his fee because of the cock up.

Whilst I can see that this is all a monumental pisser for the hundreds of individual voters involved, it is a bit of a sideshow. If 1,000 more people had voted in Hackney it wouldn't have made any difference whatsoever to the outcome.
Click to expand...

in this case (tho I hate the phrase generally) it is about the principle. it's a complete lack of respect for (non) voters. Most of our votes meant nowt, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top