Glenrothes by-election marked register set to rise from the dead

A week today, starting at 10am on Monday 16th November, an act of political record keeping resurrection will commence as the lost marked register from the Glenrothes Westminster Parliamentary by-election is recreated.

The lost of the Glenrothes marked register caused more controversy than such loses usually do both because it happened at a Parliamentary by-election and because the result in that election was, to many people, a surprise.

The Goverment’s reaction to the loss of marked registers after the 2005 general election was underwhelming. As I described it in February:

In other words [the Government line is]: ‘we don’t know on what dates records were received, we haven’t made an assessment, and let’s shift the buck around a bit’. Woking’s marked register was lost in its entirety and although in other Parliamentary questions the government stuck to the line that this was the only data lost, that didn’t seem to chime with people’s experiences.

For Glenrothes, however, a special House of Commons order has been made allowing the inspection of other records which have not been lost and from which the marked register can be recreated.

The records in question are the “corresponding number lists”, which had electoral register numbers written on them as each ballot paper was handed out and at the same time as numbers were crossed off on the (now lost) marked register. Therefore the list of register numbers from these corresponding number lists can easily, if slowly, be used to recreate the marked register.

The recreated marked register will be available for public inspection in the usual way once it has been compiled.

And if you’re wondering why there are both corresponding number lists and a marked register – the former allow individual ballot papers to be traced, e.g. in the case of suspected postal vote fraud, and are therefore kept secret whilst the marked register is made public for inspection and does not have that extra tracing information.

(Thanks to Andrew Reeves for providing me with copies of the correspondence about the above.)

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Election law and News.
Advert

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 23rd Jun - 4:22am
    It's important that you note we currently have little influence and in the next parliament I would abandon the "no deals" pledge. On the informal...
  • User AvatarTom 23rd Jun - 4:06am
    So it'll be Sir Vince versus Sir Ed. Brilliant! What a great image for a party that is supposed to be against privilege and patronage....
  • User AvatarMichael BG 23rd Jun - 2:20am
    Firstly we need to recognise that it is unlikely we will be in the EU and have mass immigration from the EU into the UK....
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 23rd Jun - 2:00am
    Lorenzo Cherin Your comments suggest you have no idea whatsoever of what the real SDP and real Liberal Party were like when the two merged....
  • User AvatarMichael 23rd Jun - 1:59am
    @ Paul Holmes Lord Ashcroft polling has Brexit has the top issue . clearly this is both pro and anti brexit. 28% against 19% for...
  • User AvatarEddie Sammon 23rd Jun - 1:44am
    By the way, I want to praise Norman's call for a new kind of politics that rejects abuse, aggression and name-calling. This is a vote...
Sat 1st Jul 2017