Q about AV
Frederick Williams
2 or 1, 2, 3; etc. If I were to number them, say, 2, 3 would I be
spoiling my ballot paper?
--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
Paul Oldham
> If we get AV (let's hope!) we are expected to number candidates 1 or 1,
> 2 or 1, 2, 3; etc. If I were to number them, say, 2, 3 would I be
> spoiling my ballot paper?
This came up on Radio 4's "PM" programme the other day. The answer is:
yes, that's a spoiled paper. You must number them starting from 1.
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"Just remember - if the world did not suck, we would all fall off"
The Natural Philosopher
> On 04/05/11 13:31, Frederick Williams wrote:
>
>> If we get AV (let's hope!) we are expected to number candidates 1 or 1,
>> 2 or 1, 2, 3; etc. If I were to number them, say, 2, 3 would I be
>> spoiling my ballot paper?
>
> This came up on Radio 4's "PM" programme the other day. The answer is:
> yes, that's a spoiled paper. You must number them starting from 1.
>
complicated enough for thick people to have a far higher chance of
spoiling their ballot papers!
Now if we combine it with an IQ test, so that the vote gets weighted
according to how much common sense and intelligence you have, that would
be brilliant!
Why would anyone with any intelligence and common sesne pick - say -
Tony Bliar, or John Prescunt?
Tim Ward
news:4DC1471F...@btinternet.com...
> If we get AV (let's hope!) we are expected to number candidates 1 or 1,
> 2 or 1, 2, 3; etc. If I were to number them, say, 2, 3 would I be
> spoiling my ballot paper?
In the absence of any more specific regulation in due course, the basic test
is whether the intention of the voter is clear. In this case it seems to me
that it is clearly the intention of the voter to take the piss by spoiling
their ballot; however it wouldn't be my judgement, it would be that of the
returning officer.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Naich
> Why would anyone with any intelligence and common sesne pick - say -
> Tony Bliar, or John Prescunt?
Get with the 2010's grandad! It's Cleggie we all hate now. Strangely
not Camoron so much - everyone expected him to fuck us over so it's no
real shock that he's doing it with such glee.
Naich.
--
http://naich.net ..... My rubbish blog
http://asshol.es ..... Stupidity in pictures
http://sodwork.com ... A waste of time
Motto: Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
Jules Richardson
> On 04/05/11 13:31, Frederick Williams wrote:
>
>> If we get AV (let's hope!) we are expected to number candidates 1 or 1,
>> 2 or 1, 2, 3; etc. If I were to number them, say, 2, 3 would I be
>> spoiling my ballot paper?
>
> This came up on Radio 4's "PM" programme the other day. The answer is:
> yes, that's a spoiled paper. You must number them starting from 1.
Can you use Roman numerals, or binary?
Tim Ward
news:iprm7s$o5i$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> Can you use Roman numerals, or binary?
Another rule is that the ballot must not be identifiable. So if you ask "can
you use Roman numerals" and then exactly one ballot is found with Roman
numerals on it, it could be rejected on the grounds that we know it's your
vote.
magwitch
> "Frederick Williams" <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4DC1471F...@btinternet.com...
>> If we get AV (let's hope!) we are expected to number candidates 1 or 1,
>> 2 or 1, 2, 3; etc. If I were to number them, say, 2, 3 would I be
>> spoiling my ballot paper?
>
> In the absence of any more specific regulation in due course, the basic test
> is whether the intention of the voter is clear. In this case it seems to me
> that it is clearly the intention of the voter to take the piss by spoiling
> their ballot; however it wouldn't be my judgement, it would be that of the
> returning officer.
>
Oh god Lord, not the hanging chads bollocks again! That worked out well
didn't it?
Jon Green
> Another rule is that the ballot must not be identifiable. So if you ask "can
> you use Roman numerals" and then exactly one ballot is found with Roman
> numerals on it, it could be rejected on the grounds that we know it's your
> vote.
How would they know that? After all, it's (supposedly) a secret ballot,
and it may not have been Jules that used Roman numerals, even if Jules
had expressed an interest in doing so. This is, after all, home to
Cambridge Uni, and some rather old-fashioned ideas!
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Blog: http://bit.ly/45cLHw Pix: http://bit.ly/d8V2NJ
Website: http://www.green-lines.com/
Tim Ward
news:SOGdnZVDUcN1_VzQ...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 04/05/2011 15:07, Tim Ward wrote:
>> Another rule is that the ballot must not be identifiable. So if you ask
>> "can
>> you use Roman numerals" and then exactly one ballot is found with Roman
>> numerals on it, it could be rejected on the grounds that we know it's
>> your
>> vote.
>
> How would they know that? After all, it's (supposedly) a secret ballot,
> and it may not have been Jules that used Roman numerals, even if Jules had
> expressed an interest in doing so. This is, after all, home to Cambridge
> Uni, and some rather old-fashioned ideas!
I only said "could". We have recognised voters, and rejected ballots, on the
basis of slogans or essays written on them which made it obvious who it was.
daz9643
wrote:
since when have intelligent people had any common sense ?
cpp4ever
More to the point, does anyone think that there is much intelligence or
common sense to be found in any level of government in this country? As
for the trust in politicians, they regularly come bottom of the list of
trusted people in public life, along with journalists. Perhaps this
explains why elections regularly have such low turnouts.
Tim Ward
news:qFewp.43417$o81....@newsfe28.ams2...
>
> More to the point, does anyone think that there is much intelligence or
> common sense to be found in any level of government in this country?
There is quite a lot actually.
But it's not universal. (The only qualification for being an elected
politician is, after all, getting more votes than the other guy - there's no
intelligence test or common sense test or anything.) And given a choice of
writing about sensible people doing sensible things or silly people doing
silly things guess which the media choose approximately 100% of the time?
cpp4ever
Did you have a politician called Chad who was hanged? Come back Mr
Fawkes, all is forgiven. Given the tendency of politicians and bankers
to brown nose up to each other, I doubt our comments will make much
difference.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Jules Richardson) wrote:
As long as the voter's intention is clear.
We once had a CUSU STV ballot paper in which the preferences had been
expressed as simultaneous equations. One of the counters solemnly sat down
to solve them and proved they had no unique solutions in real integers.
The vote was therefore declared spoilt.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
The Natural Philosopher
> Wed, 04 May 2011 14:26:56 +0100 - The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Why would anyone with any intelligence and common sesne pick - say -
>> Tony Bliar, or John Prescunt?
>
> Get with the 2010's grandad! It's Cleggie we all hate now. Strangely
> not Camoron so much - everyone expected him to fuck us over so it's no
> real shock that he's doing it with such glee.
>
I think Cleggie is very sweet really.
Totally useless, and completely out of his depth, like a toddler whose
accidentally jumped in the Olympic swimming pool when he expected to be
in the paddler next door, but still cute..
No, I think he will retain his seat next electon. Wont be much party
left, but he will stay.
The real trolls are Huhne and Cable.
Huhne has I think completely blown it. He is only in place to make a
good excuse for a totally incompetent energy policy.
Cable is probably someone who appeals to the nastier labour voter. They
go for the class hatred and sneer bit. So he will probably jump ship.
The real winners are probably UKIP.
The only even faintly credible party that hasn't made a complete mess of
actually being in power. Of course they would as well, but that hardly
matters these days, does it?
We don't vote for competence, we vote for prejudice instead.
> Naich.
magwitch
You may be too young to remember but this was the situation in the
Florida Presidential elections of 2000 - lots of the punched paper cards
couldn't be read because the holes had bits of card hanging off them or
weren't punched out properly. So there was a big argument about whether
these votes could be counted.
In the end a judge ruled they couldn't so Bush won instead of Gore.
The Natural Philosopher
> "Jon Green" <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:SOGdnZVDUcN1_VzQ...@brightview.co.uk...
>> On 04/05/2011 15:07, Tim Ward wrote:
>>> Another rule is that the ballot must not be identifiable. So if you ask
>>> "can
>>> you use Roman numerals" and then exactly one ballot is found with Roman
>>> numerals on it, it could be rejected on the grounds that we know it's
>>> your
>>> vote.
>> How would they know that? After all, it's (supposedly) a secret ballot,
>> and it may not have been Jules that used Roman numerals, even if Jules had
>> expressed an interest in doing so. This is, after all, home to Cambridge
>> Uni, and some rather old-fashioned ideas!
>
> I only said "could". We have recognised voters, and rejected ballots, on the
> basis of slogans or essays written on them which made it obvious who it was.
>
on the oppositions papers then?
The Natural Philosopher
The Natural Philosopher
> On 04/05/11 14:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Paul Oldham wrote:
>>> On 04/05/11 13:31, Frederick Williams wrote:
>>>
>>>> If we get AV (let's hope!) we are expected to number candidates 1 or 1,
>>>> 2 or 1, 2, 3; etc. If I were to number them, say, 2, 3 would I be
>>>> spoiling my ballot paper?
>>> This came up on Radio 4's "PM" programme the other day. The answer is:
>>> yes, that's a spoiled paper. You must number them starting from 1.
>>>
>> That's the first justification for AV yet, that makes sense. Its
>> complicated enough for thick people to have a far higher chance of
>> spoiling their ballot papers!
>>
>> Now if we combine it with an IQ test, so that the vote gets weighted
>> according to how much common sense and intelligence you have, that would
>> be brilliant!
>>
>> Why would anyone with any intelligence and common sesne pick - say -
>> Tony Bliar, or John Prescunt?
>>
>>
>
> More to the point, does anyone think that there is much intelligence or
> common sense to be found in any level of government in this country?
Nope. But that is what you get when the art of winning elections is to
be seen to be
1/. As stupid as the average voter
2/. to put the intellignce into spin, and none into problem solving.
> As
> for the trust in politicians, they regularly come bottom of the list of
> trusted people in public life, along with journalists. Perhaps this
> explains why elections regularly have such low turnouts.
Why would you trust professional liars?
magwitch
Yeah I thought that too.
Michael Kilpatrick
>
> You may be too young to remember but this was the situation in the
> Florida Presidential elections of 2000 -
was it as long ago as that? It doesn't seem like it!
Michael
Espen Koht
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jon Green" <jo...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:SOGdnZVDUcN1_VzQ...@brightview.co.uk...
> > On 04/05/2011 15:07, Tim Ward wrote:
> >> Another rule is that the ballot must not be identifiable. So if you ask
> >> "can
> >> you use Roman numerals" and then exactly one ballot is found with Roman
> >> numerals on it, it could be rejected on the grounds that we know it's
> >> your
> >> vote.
> >
> > How would they know that? After all, it's (supposedly) a secret ballot,
> > and it may not have been Jules that used Roman numerals, even if Jules had
> > expressed an interest in doing so. This is, after all, home to Cambridge
> > Uni, and some rather old-fashioned ideas!
>
> I only said "could". We have recognised voters, and rejected ballots, on the
> basis of slogans or essays written on them which made it obvious who it was.
This being on the basis that the vote counters aren't above bit of
bribery?
Tim Ward
news:ehk20-D9244F....@nnrp.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>
>> I only said "could". We have recognised voters, and rejected ballots, on
>> the
>> basis of slogans or essays written on them which made it obvious who it
>> was.
>
> This being on the basis that the vote counters aren't above bit of
> bribery?
No, on the basis that it's a secret ballot.
Michael Kilpatrick
> This being on the basis that the vote counters aren't above bit of
> bribery?
Either way it would be nigh on impossible to bribe a counter to have any
effect whatsoever on the results. In most counts there are members from
the various candidates' parties hovering over the counting tables like
hawks, watching everything. For my elections in the last couple of years
(or non-elections, I should say) for South Cambs and CCC, the hall at
SCDC in Cambourne has been stuffed full of people. Not all the
district/county seats can be counted simultaneously so even if only the
candidates themselves are there, there are enough people to view in
detail most of the activity on most of the count tables for most of the
time.
Every spoilt or ambiguous paper is placed in a separate pile and
inspected by the returning office (or someone) and held up for the hawks
to see and contest the decision either to bin the ballot paper or place
it on a count-pile.
Michael
Tim Ward
news:NbqdnahFwdzXXlzQ...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> Every spoilt or ambiguous paper is placed in a separate pile and inspected
> by the returning office (or someone) and held up for the hawks to see and
> contest the decision either to bin the ballot paper or place it on a
> count-pile.
Counters will sometimes ask the counting agents ("hawks") whether they think
a paper is valid. It would be rude not to answer, despite the rule that
we're not supposed to talk to the counters, so we correctly tell them that
if the paper is dubious it should go on the pile for adjudication, it's not
up to the counters or the counting agents to make the decision. The decision
is made by the returning officer in the presence of the agents.
Having said which - "it's not up to the counters or the counting agents to
make the decision" - whilst we don't come to a judgement on a dubious paper
we do offer advice as to whether the paper is dubious or not! For example a
new inexperienced counter might ask us what we think of a paper with a tick
rather than a cross marking the vote, and we will tell the counter that that
one is not dubious.
Espen Koht
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> "Espen Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:ehk20-D9244F....@nnrp.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> >>
> >> I only said "could". We have recognised voters, and rejected ballots, on
> >> the
> >> basis of slogans or essays written on them which made it obvious who it
> >> was.
> >
> > This being on the basis that the vote counters aren't above bit of
> > bribery?
>
> No, on the basis that it's a secret ballot.
The purpose of a secret ballot is to prevent anyone from influencing the
voter by intimidation or bribery. If the voter has identified themselves
in casting the ballot but there is no chance that it relates to
intimidation or bribery the voter in question, the value of counting the
vote outweighs the value of discarding it.
Duncan Wood
No offence, but that's seriously naive, if you're intimidating people into
the direction they vote then you might as well intimidate them into
identifying themselves so you can check.
> , the value of counting the
> vote outweighs the value of discarding it.e intimidating people into the
> direction
Michael Kilpatrick
>>
>> The purpose of a secret ballot is to prevent anyone from influencing the
>> voter by intimidation or bribery. If the voter has identified themselves
>> in casting the ballot but there is no chance that it relates to
>> intimidation or bribery the voter in question
>
>
> No offence, but that's seriously naive, if you're intimidating people
> into the direction they vote then you might as well intimidate them
> into identifying themselves so you can check.
But that's silly. No one person is likely to see all of the ballot
papers that go through the count, and so it would be impossible to
guarantee that the self-identified ballot paper gets spotted by the
agent of the intimidator. The intimidator would be unlikely to be able
to satisfy himself that he hadn't missed the paper as it went through.
Michael
Espen Koht
"Duncan Wood" <nnt...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote:
This is scenario where the intimidator has access to the ballots after
they have been cast to make this check.
Espen Koht
August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>
> The entity calling itself Espen Koht wrote:
> >
> > The purpose of a secret ballot is to prevent anyone from influencing
> > the voter by intimidation or bribery. If the voter has identified
> > themselves in casting the ballot but there is no chance that it
> > relates to intimidation or bribery the voter in question, the value of
> > counting the vote outweighs the value of discarding it.
>
> Um, no; identifying themselves allows others to know how they've voted,
> allowing them to prove to an intimidator, or briber, that they've voted
> as they were instructed, and so avoid a beating, or collect their pay.
That's what I said.
Richard Torrens (News)
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
> Followup-To: cam.misc
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > Now if we combine it with an IQ test, so that the vote gets weighted
> > according to how much common sense and intelligence you have, that
> > would be brilliant!
> >
> > Why would anyone with any intelligence and common sesne pick - say -
> > Tony Bliar, or John Prescunt?
> Some people go by the colour of the rosette. Put it on a dog and the dog
> would get elected in some parts of the UK.
...and might do a better job in those parts!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
http://www.Torrens.org.uk for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!
Duncan Wood
The intimidator doesn't need to satisfy themself, they just have to scare
the voter.
Jon Green
> This is scenario where the intimidator has access to the ballots after
> they have been cast to make this check.
(nods) Not so likely in this country, but there's a whole load of others
out there where it's anywhere from plausible to proven.
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Blog: http://bit.ly/45cLHw Pix: http://bit.ly/d8V2NJ
Website: http://www.green-lines.com/
Jon Green
> We once had a CUSU STV ballot paper in which the preferences had been
> expressed as simultaneous equations. One of the counters solemnly sat down
> to solve them and proved they had no unique solutions in real integers.
> The vote was therefore declared spoilt.
Surely, so long as the voter had submitted _one_ of the possible
solutions, the vote is valid?
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jo...@deadspam.com (Jon Green) wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 17:34, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > We once had a CUSU STV ballot paper in which the preferences had been
> > expressed as simultaneous equations. One of the counters solemnly sat
> > down to solve them and proved they had no unique solutions in real
> > integers. The vote was therefore declared spoilt.
>
> Surely, so long as the voter had submitted _one_ of the possible
> solutions, the vote is valid?
Indeed. He didn't submit a valid solution, sadly. If the solutions were
not unique the order of preferences was uncertain.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Richard Meredith
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:
> *From:* rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> *Date:* Sat, 07 May 2011 16:26:07 -0500
Depends on the nature of the non-uniqueness, surely. If all the different solutions
were all ordered the same way, say:
A B C
solution 1 1 3 5
solution 2 2 4 6
solution 3 100 200 500
the order of preferences would be unambiguous even though the solution itself was
not.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
ric...@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard Meredith) wrote:
Indeed but IIRC they weren't even integer solutions.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Richard Meredith
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk () wrote:
> *From:* rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> *Date:* Sun, 08 May 2011 09:29:51 -0500
So what, provided they were ordered?
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
I don't have any more details. Sorry.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jo...@deadspam.com (Jon Green) wrote:
> On 05/05/2011 10:54, Espen Koht wrote:
> > This is scenario where the intimidator has access to the ballots after
> > they have been cast to make this check.
>
> (nods) Not so likely in this country, but there's a whole load of
> others out there where it's anywhere from plausible to proven.
Not so unlikely at all if the intimidator is at the count. If he was doing
it to assist one of the candidates that is not so implausible. See my
other post giving some details of what happened last Thursday night.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Wood) wrote:
> The intimidator doesn't need to satisfy themself, they just have to
> scare the voter.
This thread is really weird. We have never had this sort of discussion
here in the last decade or so yet following this very erudite discussion
on the hazards of bribery and undue influence on voters there was exactly
the sort of example ballot paper discussed here in the City Council
election count on Thursday night.
One ballot paper was marked with the sort of squiggle that could be
someone's initials or monogram. It was only pulled out for adjudication at
my personal insistence as a scrutineer. I was mindful of this thread and
concerned that someone attempting to bribe or coerce a voter could indeed
have specified the use of such a mark to confirm the voter's actions.
The Council's solicitor who had not seen this thread (I've since pointed
him to it) decided the vote should count, despite the objections of two of
the party agents.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Jon Green
Yes, that was interesting. How easy would it be for a given person
(with no special connections) to get involved in a count to the point
where they could have oversight of questionable ballot sheets?
(I'm not asking for _how_ - that's probably best kept unsaid - but how
_easy_.)
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jo...@deadspam.com (Jon Green) wrote:
> How easy would it be for a given person (with no special connections)
> to get involved in a count to the point where they could have oversight
> of questionable ballot sheets?
>
> (I'm not asking for _how_ - that's probably best kept unsaid - but
> how _easy_.)
Trivially so with the right connections, that is to say involvement with
any candidate's campaign in the relevant ward where the ballot will be
cast.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Jon Anderson
Someone may have done it deliberately to see what would happen having
read the thread!
Jon
Espen Koht
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <x5adnXHkNZvCDVnQ...@brightview.co.uk>,
> jo...@deadspam.com (Jon Green) wrote:
>
> > On 05/05/2011 10:54, Espen Koht wrote:
> > > This is scenario where the intimidator has access to the ballots after
> > > they have been cast to make this check.
> >
> > (nods) Not so likely in this country, but there's a whole load of
> > others out there where it's anywhere from plausible to proven.
>
> Not so unlikely at all if the intimidator is at the count.
Which would be more or less likely than the person 'marking' the ballot
realising that this would invalidate it?
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Anderson) wrote:
Funny you should say that. So it was you then?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Jon Anderson
> Funny you should say that. So it was you then?
Do you mean my children are still in danger??
Jon