The knife-edge Minnesota Senate race is being recounted, and you can browse some of the ballot papers under scrutiny here. I particularly liked the attempt to disqualify one ballot paper because it had a fingerprint … and as for the Lizard People Party, there were clearly robbed of a vote.
Share:- Most Read
- Recent Comments
- Op-eds
Search
Liberal Democrat Voice is an independent, collaborative website run by Liberal Democrat activists,
where any individual inside or outside the party can express their views. Views expressed on this website are those of the
individuals who express them and may not reflect those of the party.
Poll
-
New Who Post On Mindless Ones
-
Boltzmann And Boltzwomann
-
'This NHS Bill is Bad...' My latest blog post for The Huffington Post!
-
A departure from tradition at the Islington Liberal Democrats new year party...
-
Friday favourite 45
-
LibDem Activists Need to Relax Too, Sometimes
-
Off for training in the morning...
-
Dowery Dell viaduct and the Southwell branch: Midlands railway gold
-
The Art of War: On analysis
-
A letter to MLB.TV
6 Comments
A brilliant site – UK should do the same.
Best website ever!
I like this:
“Even though the voter filled in the bubble next to Barkley’s name, a Franken representative said what appear to be eraser marks over Franken’s bubble indicated the voter intended to vote for Franken.”
Ok we’ve all got a bit desperate about arguing over spoilt ballots in close races but I think I’d feel a bit embarrassed arging that.
I think the Lizard people is void for uncertainly – though I can see your point.
Tim – I don’t see what would be gained by doing this in the UK. The vast majority of spoilt ballots are incredibly dull. This site does little to educate the reader as it doesn’t give any information about the rules regarding assessment of spoilt ballots. There is a link to the relevant statute but it’s hardly a user-friendly approach.
Using the UK rules the vast majority of those ballots are pretty easy to make a decision on – and most of them seem clear under Minnesotan law.
One thing the UK system has going for it is this. Because people have been voting in the same way for many years the vast majority of permutations have been considered either by the courts or in manuals of standard practice used by Returning Officers.
The general rule is that where the intention is clear the vote should stand
However in the US where different ballot machines are used (in some cases from county to county), and can be changed from year to year no such body of opinion and case law can develop. This is a supportive – thought not conclusive – argument against a change in voting methods.
There are confidentiality issues over publishing a ballot paper with an identifying mark as well.
If it identifies the voter then we know who they voted for. If not then…..
Hywel “The vast majority of spoilt ballots are incredibly dull.”
Apart from last May in Scotland of course.
They were significant (in part because of a strangely designed ballot IIRC).
What I was referring to is that most spoilt ballots are blank or people voting for more candidates than they should. As opposed to the smiley faces/question mark/”he’s the one for me” written on the paper.
That held true for most in Scotland as most were a case of spoiling them in ways which are already understood and there are accepted ways of dealing with them. 2 Xs when your asked to vote for one candidate is a spoilt ballot paper.
That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be questions asked about the ballot papers etc in Scotland of course.
The actual ways in which they were spoilt were still pretty dull(two crosses rather than one).
If we are prepared to allow party workers to see the voting papers on election night, when we sit and watch them being counted up, then I don’t see why we should not let people in general see them. If we are worried about the numbers, they could be shown without.
It would also be useful training for people doing the counting and monitoring the counters.
When someone suggests making politics more open, the reaction should not be “I don’t see what would be gained by doing this”, but rather “Is there any compelling reason not to do it?”. We are liberals and believe in openness!