Notes from an election count
I am not a big fan of the AV system, or of the second class AV system with a first and second preference vote which is now used to elect Police and Crime Commissioners and directly-elected mayors.
By a huge irony, one of the candidates who lost out this week under this system when he would have won on first past the post, John Prescott, was Deputy Prime Minister in the government which first introduced that voting system when elected mayors were first introduced.
It was alleged that this was done in an attempt to stop Ken Livingston becoming mayor of London. That worked out well, Tony and John, didn't it? But the system still exists
I had a ground level view of just how badly this went down with Cumbrian voters yesterday at the count, particularly when we were checking spoilt votes.
I took a lot of flak this week (and earlier in the campaign), on the doorstep and at non-political meetings, from voters who complained that the election had not been adequately explained. The most common complaint was not knowing enough about the candidates or the post, but it became very clear at the count that the electoral system had not been adequately explained either.
The message did appear to have got through that you do not have to express a second preference. But we had clearly failed to explain to many hundreds of voters that
* Second preferences would only be used if the candidate for whom one had cast one's first preference has already lost
* Therefore it cannot hurt your first preference candidate to express a second preference: if your first preference candidate is still in the running your vote stays in their pile
* You cannot cast both your two votes in the first preference column unless you wish to spoil your ballot paper, and
* If you cast your first and second preference votes for the same candidate, your first preference vote will count but your second preference vote will be wasted.
One of the things which happen at every election count is that any paper which is either spoilt or in any way abonormal - for example, if something is written on it - gets separated out from all the other papers and shown to the candidates or their agents, or both before a ruling is made on whether that ballot paper should count.
It is against the law for a counting agent to attempt to identify who submitted a particular ballot paper. So, Jim, I do not know for certain whether I saw your ballot paper and would not be allowed to say if I did. But as the late Ian Richardson might have said, "You might very well think that: I couldn't possibly comment."
Usually the non-standard votes will be at most one or two percent of ballot papers: in a council election showing the potentially disputed papers to candidates and agents usually only takes a few minutes, and in a parliamentary election not much longer.
Not this time.
Apart from those who had deliberately spoilt their ballot paper, a disappointing number were void because the voter had tried to cast two first preference votes. These could not be counted for either candidate.
Most voters did express a valid first preference, but it was when we got onto the second round that the fun really started. I use the word fun, of course, with some irony.
A huge proportion of voters deliberately or accidentally failed to include a valid second preference. Thousands of voters just left the second preference column blank. In some cases this would have been a deliberate decision only to support one candidate or because of objections to this voting system. Hundreds of voters used their second preference for the same candidate as their first preference, and the second preference was therefore wasted.
At one point on the second stage of the count myself and the Labour agent spent what seemed like forever with one particular district council's returning officer while he showed us nearly a thousand votes which were spoilt on the second round for that council alone. The same job had to be done on a similar scale for the other five district/borough councils in Cumbria.
At this stage the Lib/Dems, having already lost, had long since left the count: the election was now between the Conservative and Labour candidates. The Independent and Lib/Dem votes were being redistributed.
Yes, that's right. The Lib/Dems. The people who insisted on this wretched system.
And guess what. Hundreds of their own voters hadn't used their second preferences.
I joked to the Labour agent that as the Lib/Dems had landed us with this system they should have been made to stand there with us and be shown all the Lib/Dem ballot papers with no second preference. "Quite" she said, "But they've all gone down the pub." Or words to that effect.
By a huge irony, one of the candidates who lost out this week under this system when he would have won on first past the post, John Prescott, was Deputy Prime Minister in the government which first introduced that voting system when elected mayors were first introduced.
It was alleged that this was done in an attempt to stop Ken Livingston becoming mayor of London. That worked out well, Tony and John, didn't it? But the system still exists
I had a ground level view of just how badly this went down with Cumbrian voters yesterday at the count, particularly when we were checking spoilt votes.
I took a lot of flak this week (and earlier in the campaign), on the doorstep and at non-political meetings, from voters who complained that the election had not been adequately explained. The most common complaint was not knowing enough about the candidates or the post, but it became very clear at the count that the electoral system had not been adequately explained either.
The message did appear to have got through that you do not have to express a second preference. But we had clearly failed to explain to many hundreds of voters that
* Second preferences would only be used if the candidate for whom one had cast one's first preference has already lost
* Therefore it cannot hurt your first preference candidate to express a second preference: if your first preference candidate is still in the running your vote stays in their pile
* You cannot cast both your two votes in the first preference column unless you wish to spoil your ballot paper, and
* If you cast your first and second preference votes for the same candidate, your first preference vote will count but your second preference vote will be wasted.
One of the things which happen at every election count is that any paper which is either spoilt or in any way abonormal - for example, if something is written on it - gets separated out from all the other papers and shown to the candidates or their agents, or both before a ruling is made on whether that ballot paper should count.
It is against the law for a counting agent to attempt to identify who submitted a particular ballot paper. So, Jim, I do not know for certain whether I saw your ballot paper and would not be allowed to say if I did. But as the late Ian Richardson might have said, "You might very well think that: I couldn't possibly comment."
Usually the non-standard votes will be at most one or two percent of ballot papers: in a council election showing the potentially disputed papers to candidates and agents usually only takes a few minutes, and in a parliamentary election not much longer.
Not this time.
Apart from those who had deliberately spoilt their ballot paper, a disappointing number were void because the voter had tried to cast two first preference votes. These could not be counted for either candidate.
Most voters did express a valid first preference, but it was when we got onto the second round that the fun really started. I use the word fun, of course, with some irony.
A huge proportion of voters deliberately or accidentally failed to include a valid second preference. Thousands of voters just left the second preference column blank. In some cases this would have been a deliberate decision only to support one candidate or because of objections to this voting system. Hundreds of voters used their second preference for the same candidate as their first preference, and the second preference was therefore wasted.
At one point on the second stage of the count myself and the Labour agent spent what seemed like forever with one particular district council's returning officer while he showed us nearly a thousand votes which were spoilt on the second round for that council alone. The same job had to be done on a similar scale for the other five district/borough councils in Cumbria.
At this stage the Lib/Dems, having already lost, had long since left the count: the election was now between the Conservative and Labour candidates. The Independent and Lib/Dem votes were being redistributed.
Yes, that's right. The Lib/Dems. The people who insisted on this wretched system.
And guess what. Hundreds of their own voters hadn't used their second preferences.
I joked to the Labour agent that as the Lib/Dems had landed us with this system they should have been made to stand there with us and be shown all the Lib/Dem ballot papers with no second preference. "Quite" she said, "But they've all gone down the pub." Or words to that effect.
Comments
I really don't mind, which party, or which people insisted this system is used. It really does not matter.
What matters is the fact that on 5th May 2011 a national referendum was held on "do you want to use the AV system".
The public voted. the result was an overwhelming NO we don't.
32.1% Yes - 67.9% No.
The electorate had spoken on this matter, and that can be, in any democracy, the only voice that matters.
By using a variation of this system, then this shows that the political class treat the view of the electorate with utter disdain.
There are lots of different types of elections, and it is quite possible to believe that one election system is suitable for one purpose and others are suitable for other purposes.
The referendum asked a highly specific question - whether AV should be introduced for elections to the House of Commons.
The public spoke with crystal clarity on whether AV should be used to elect MPs. They said no. That is the end of the matter.
But they were not asked about the election of MEPs, councillors, elected mayors, or Police Commissioners. We need to be careful about assuming what voters would have said in response to a question they were not asked.
It is entirely possible and consistent to believe that AV, or any other system, is suitable for some elections and not for others.
Suppose the May 2011 referendum had given three options - say,
1) I think AV is s great system and want it used to elect the House of Commons and for other suitable elections,
2) I don't want AV for the House of Commons but might accept it for some other elections, or
3) I think AV is a dreadful system and don't want it used for any election.
There would have been a number of problems with that sort of referendum question, and I am not saying it should have been done like that, but if it had we would know how many of the people who voted "No" to AV were in the second camp and probably not have had a problem with the system used for the PCC elections, and how many were in the third camp and would have.
If the referendum had give the opportunity for voters to say that they didn't want AV used for any election, and if most of the "No" voters had taken it and thereby caused that position to win the referendum, your argument that using AV or similar systems in any election shows contempt for the electorate would be absolutely rock solid.
But because voters were only asked whether they wanted AV for the House of Commons, it is legitimate for people to take differing views on what system should be used for other elections, e.g. for Mayors and Police Commissioners, without showing contempt for the electorate.
Having said all that, I think an awful lot of Cumbrian voters very obviously didn't like the system used, and I agree with you that I would have preferred First Past the Post.
See, when ever anything, or any law is passed it is always a blanket law. then there are exemptions that are granted to said law. So now we have a reason why with out at least a full debate and vote in the commons should an AV or type of it be used
I don't think there was a lot of debate about this point and perhaps with hindsight there should have been.