I have just seen Iain Dale's Diary: Election Night Bill Needed in which he's now calling for legislation to have all the counts done immediately on the night. You'd think from all this "Save Election Night" campaigning that things have been done this way since time immemorial.
But as some my readers will remember, there have been many parliamentary elections when the votes haven't been counted until the next day. In 1945 the votes weren't counted for a whole three weeks. I have no idea if the 1945 equivalent of the blogosphere got worked up about this. (The reason for such a lengthy delay was that time was needed to collect the votes of servicemen overseas.) At most other elections there have been many constituencies that have not counted on the night, usually because of the time it takes to bring all the ballot boxes together - has this caused uproar and fraud? Seats in Northern Ireland have almost always counted the next day after all!
Nor have governments always changed immediately on the day after polling. In 1929 polling day was on May 30th but Ramsay MacDonald didn't kiss hands until June 5th - was there widespread outrage at Stanley Baldwin still being in office for a few days?
And in many other countries the final result, and the change of leadership, often takes days on end. In the last Australian election polling was on November 24th but the formal result took nearly two weeks to finalise, and Kevin Rudd's government wasn't sworn in until December 3rd. In the last US Presidential election some of the counting went on into December.
Counts in Australia, the United States and many other countries take so long for one main reason - postal votes (and other forms of distant voting) do not reach the count by the end of polling day. The requirement is usually that the vote be sent by polling day, not that it be received by then. There are also other arrangements for remote voting in various countries, including one provision that allows a voter to walk into any polling station in the country on polling day, provide proof of their address and receive valid ballot papers for their local polling station that they are away from. Again these votes take time to make it back to the relevant count.
The way the count is done in many countries differs from our methods. Instead of taking all the ballot boxes to a central location and counting them on one site, they are often counted at the polling station and the individual results declared. The ballot papers can, of course, be recounted at a central location if the result is close and/or there are disputes over the rulings on questionable papers. This isn't so different from the European Parliament or devolved parliaments or Greater London Authority elections where for all the list elections and the London Mayoralty the votes are counted at several different locations.
Now in none of these cases did civilisation collapse just because the final election result wasn't available on the night. And in all of them the provision for postal/overseas/absent ballots meant that it wasn't possible.
Which brings us to the UK counts. Whilst simple cost and travel logistics are and always have been reasons for some seats not counting on the night, there is a new factor - the massive increase in postal voting on demand. With postal votes arriving even at the end of polling day the system going to come under a much greater strain than before in order to carry out accurate verification. That is going to make the whole thing take longer, increasing the risk of mistakes because the counting staff are ever more tired.
Speedy, sloppy election results benefit no-one. And if the election is incredibly close and hinges on one or two very tight seats, is it really in anyone's benefit if there are disputes and questions about the results in those seats because of the judgement calls made in a hurry to get the result out on the night?
If this means a lameduck government leaves office on a Saturday or Sunday rather than a Friday, so what? And yes it will mean political junkies don't get the full fun of results at 3 o'clock in the morning, but democracy should not be run as a spectator sport.
(And we've barely touched on the cost. Are the "Save Election Night" campaigners willing to personally stump up for the overtime rates? Or do they expect it to come out of our council taxes?)
So let's stop worrying about whether the vote is counted on the night or the next day and put election accuracy first. It may take a little longer but it will be well worth it.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The UK's most disloyal MEPs
It was once said if you want to make something absolutely secret in politics you should announce it in the European Parliament. And the to this day the UK media give the parliament next to no coverage whatsoever, thus hiding much of what happens there. For example how may of you have heard that UKIP MEP Nikki Sinclaire has just walked out of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy grouping in disputes over policy and personalities? Very few as it's had hardly any media coverage.
And what is also not noted much is that certain MEPs and political parties are not helping give their country a strong voice in the parliament. However there is a website called VoteWatch.eu which helps tracks MEPs' voting records and it throws up some surprising revelations.
The big one that stands out to me are the results for "Loyalty to member state". Can you guess which country has more of the 50 least loyal MEPs than any other?
Yes it's the United Kingdom. Even more astonishing is that of the 32 least loyal MEPs, 16 consist of the entirety of the British National Party, the UK Independence Party and the Democratic Unionist Party delegations. They rank as follows:
2. Nick GRIFFIN - BNP
3. Godfrey BLOOM - UKIP
6. Andrew Henry William BRONS - BNP
12. Mike NATTRASS - UKIP
17. Nicole SINCLAIRE - UKIP
18. Marta ANDREASEN - UKIP
19. Nigel FARAGE - UKIP
20. William (The Earl of) DARTMOUTH - UKIP
22. Derek Roland CLARK - UKIP
24. John BUFTON - UKIP
25. Trevor COLMAN - UKIP
26. John Stuart AGNEW - UKIP
27. Gerard BATTEN - UKIP
28. David CAMPBELL BANNERMAN - UKIP
31. Paul NUTTALL - UKIP
32. Diane DODDS - DUP
Not a great list is it? So much for their claims to be different from one another. Or to be giving the UK a strong voice in Europe!
Oh and this is not a phenomenon exclusive to the UK had and far right. Other MEPs in the top ten include the following members of the BNP's and UKIP's sister parties:
1. Philippe de VILLIERS - Movement for France
8. Krisztina MORVAI - Movement for a Better Hungary
9. Jean-Marie LE PEN - French National Front
10. Marine LE PEN - French National Front
And what is also not noted much is that certain MEPs and political parties are not helping give their country a strong voice in the parliament. However there is a website called VoteWatch.eu which helps tracks MEPs' voting records and it throws up some surprising revelations.
The big one that stands out to me are the results for "Loyalty to member state". Can you guess which country has more of the 50 least loyal MEPs than any other?
Yes it's the United Kingdom. Even more astonishing is that of the 32 least loyal MEPs, 16 consist of the entirety of the British National Party, the UK Independence Party and the Democratic Unionist Party delegations. They rank as follows:
2. Nick GRIFFIN - BNP
3. Godfrey BLOOM - UKIP
6. Andrew Henry William BRONS - BNP
12. Mike NATTRASS - UKIP
17. Nicole SINCLAIRE - UKIP
18. Marta ANDREASEN - UKIP
19. Nigel FARAGE - UKIP
20. William (The Earl of) DARTMOUTH - UKIP
22. Derek Roland CLARK - UKIP
24. John BUFTON - UKIP
25. Trevor COLMAN - UKIP
26. John Stuart AGNEW - UKIP
27. Gerard BATTEN - UKIP
28. David CAMPBELL BANNERMAN - UKIP
31. Paul NUTTALL - UKIP
32. Diane DODDS - DUP
Not a great list is it? So much for their claims to be different from one another. Or to be giving the UK a strong voice in Europe!
Oh and this is not a phenomenon exclusive to the UK had and far right. Other MEPs in the top ten include the following members of the BNP's and UKIP's sister parties:
1. Philippe de VILLIERS - Movement for France
8. Krisztina MORVAI - Movement for a Better Hungary
9. Jean-Marie LE PEN - French National Front
10. Marine LE PEN - French National Front
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
An imminent change of leader?
Very soon there could be a new First Minister of Northern Ireland. Rumours are flying around that Peter Robinson may be about to quit. (e.g. Iain Dale: RUMOUR ALERT: Peter Robinson to Quit?)
Amazing - on the day everyone is focused on the fate of one former finance minister who succeeded a political giant another may be about to go.
Anyone heard anything about Brian Cowen's activities today?
UPDATE: It seems the rumours were significantly off key. I'll post my thoughts later.
Amazing - on the day everyone is focused on the fate of one former finance minister who succeeded a political giant another may be about to go.
Anyone heard anything about Brian Cowen's activities today?
UPDATE: It seems the rumours were significantly off key. I'll post my thoughts later.
The UDA decommissions
The Ulster Defence Association has laid down its weapons and decommissioned. (Not that you'd know when the UK media is more concerned with the anti-peace process in the Labour Party but anyway...) Northern Ireland has come many steps through the peace process and every time guns are silenced for good it can only be a positive thing.
This country and snow
So we get another downfall of snow and the country grinds to a halt. And many people start complaining that greater preparations weren't made by governments and councils.
Yet in times when we don't have a heavy downfall of snow do the same people praise governments and councils for setting money aside for snow preparations and stocking up on grit? Or do they see it as an easy target for efficiency savings, pointing to the fact that in most years we don't have a heavy downfall?
The latter is all too frequently the case. There's no point in complaining about the level of preparation at the time it's needed if such preparation won't be supported at the time for preparation.
Yet in times when we don't have a heavy downfall of snow do the same people praise governments and councils for setting money aside for snow preparations and stocking up on grit? Or do they see it as an easy target for efficiency savings, pointing to the fact that in most years we don't have a heavy downfall?
The latter is all too frequently the case. There's no point in complaining about the level of preparation at the time it's needed if such preparation won't be supported at the time for preparation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)