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 AvatarOnceALibDem 24th Nov - 1:37am
    5) So hacks 1, 2 and 3 would create something that was fairly easy to spot and even 4 would be easy to remedy if...
  • User AvatarOnceALibDem 24th Nov - 1:27am
    I've though (obsessed!) about this driving home tonight. It smacks of BS: 1) It is conceptually easy to trash a voting database. Very straightforward to...
  • User AvatarOnceALibDem 24th Nov - 1:06am
    @Riccardo Sallustio - do you have a case name/reference for that as it's not something I'd heard about? Where is it being brought. It's being...
  • User AvatarJeff 24th Nov - 12:28am
    steve white 24th Nov '17 - 12:15am: How does she know it was the Russians? I expect she buys Kremlin brand tinfoil.
  • User Avatarsteve white 24th Nov - 12:15am
    How does she know it was the Russians? Didn't know Russians had got into state DNC lists?
  • User AvatarJeff 24th Nov - 12:05am
    Katharine Pindar 23rd Nov '17 - 11:52pm: ...people have to face the fact that the country has a grim economic prospect for years to come...