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 AvatarJohn Marriott 24th May - 6:47am
    I agree with David. In fact I wasn’t really quite sure what he was trying to infer. Was it an example of irony or sarcasm?
  • User AvatarJoeB 24th May - 1:27am
    Peter, the former Portugese colony of Macau is one of the wealthiest regions of the world in terms of per capita GDP. It has its...
  • User AvatarGlenn 23rd May - 11:10pm
    Nick Baird I sort of agree, but I associate a lot of the language of identity more with American politics and campus culture than anything...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 23rd May - 9:41pm
    It seems to me there is a sub-text in the idea that 'we should help people in communities to take and use power'. I think...
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 23rd May - 9:19pm
    I'm afraid it didn't have the impact of referring to Gordon Brown as Mr. Bean.
  • User AvatarDavid Raw 23rd May - 9:17pm
    @ Richard Underhill "The context could have included the fact that Heath’s predecessor Sir Winston Churchill had offered a Cabinet post to a former Liberal...