Alphabetical discrimination
Obviously with a surname beginning with "W" I have to declare an interest here, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that names should be ordered on ballot papers in random order rather than alphabetically and that the continued use of alphabetical order is a form of discrimination.
The BBC web site currently has a report up on the book "Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box" which you can read in full at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30129990
and which includes the following:
"Voters don't read to the bottom of the ballot paper
Research into local election results shows candidates with surnames beginning with A to F gain an advantage by appearing at the top of the ballot paper. Some voters cannot be bothered to read to the end it seems. Candidates with British surnames also do better."
It is ridiculous that some people who take the trouble to vote at all cannot be bothered to do it properly, but having spent two-thirds of my life active in politics I have seen it proved many times over that the kind of daft behaviour referred to in the book does sometimes happen.
My very first election campaign was the combined General Election and District Council Elections in 1979, when Mrs T was first elected, and St Albans Young Conservatives which I had recently joined were asked to run the St Peters ward campaign.
Some of the voters who had obviously just turned out for the General Election did not appear to have strong views on who should be their councillor, and put their crosses against the first three names on the local election ballot paper.
The number of people who did this was not enormous but it was a close election and there were enough of them to tip the balance, so that the ward returned the first three candidates by alphabetical surname - who happened to be one Labour, one Independent, and one Conservative candidate.
The successful Conservative candidate was extremely upset at getting elected in such a ridiculous way - in fact my first memory of someone who was to give many years of devoted service to the people of the City and District, and become a valued friend and colleague, is of her explaining in no uncertain terms shortly after the declaration how upset she was at a result which made such a nonsense of the election process.
Mind you, at least those voters had bothered to read the instructions on the ballot paper about how to fill in a valid vote, e.g. how many crosses to put where and so on. In the subsequent thirty-five years I have been shown by various returning officers literally thousands of ballot papers submitted by electors who could not even manage that.
In most elections alphabetical discrimination is not a serious problem but in certain circumstances it can be and one distorted election is too many.
At the very least we should replace ordering the names on a ballot paper alphabetically by surname by a draw for the ballot paper order.
Fairer still would be to have several versions of the ballot paper so that each candidate's name appears a similar number of times at the top, middle and bottom of the paper.
The BBC web site currently has a report up on the book "Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box" which you can read in full at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30129990
and which includes the following:
"Voters don't read to the bottom of the ballot paper
Research into local election results shows candidates with surnames beginning with A to F gain an advantage by appearing at the top of the ballot paper. Some voters cannot be bothered to read to the end it seems. Candidates with British surnames also do better."
It is ridiculous that some people who take the trouble to vote at all cannot be bothered to do it properly, but having spent two-thirds of my life active in politics I have seen it proved many times over that the kind of daft behaviour referred to in the book does sometimes happen.
My very first election campaign was the combined General Election and District Council Elections in 1979, when Mrs T was first elected, and St Albans Young Conservatives which I had recently joined were asked to run the St Peters ward campaign.
Some of the voters who had obviously just turned out for the General Election did not appear to have strong views on who should be their councillor, and put their crosses against the first three names on the local election ballot paper.
The number of people who did this was not enormous but it was a close election and there were enough of them to tip the balance, so that the ward returned the first three candidates by alphabetical surname - who happened to be one Labour, one Independent, and one Conservative candidate.
The successful Conservative candidate was extremely upset at getting elected in such a ridiculous way - in fact my first memory of someone who was to give many years of devoted service to the people of the City and District, and become a valued friend and colleague, is of her explaining in no uncertain terms shortly after the declaration how upset she was at a result which made such a nonsense of the election process.
Mind you, at least those voters had bothered to read the instructions on the ballot paper about how to fill in a valid vote, e.g. how many crosses to put where and so on. In the subsequent thirty-five years I have been shown by various returning officers literally thousands of ballot papers submitted by electors who could not even manage that.
In most elections alphabetical discrimination is not a serious problem but in certain circumstances it can be and one distorted election is too many.
At the very least we should replace ordering the names on a ballot paper alphabetically by surname by a draw for the ballot paper order.
Fairer still would be to have several versions of the ballot paper so that each candidate's name appears a similar number of times at the top, middle and bottom of the paper.
Comments
Now in the last referendum (on AV) then there was a question, the answers were Yes or no.
Now Yes came first, no came second on the ballot form, even though last time I checked N was quite a long way before Y alphabetically.
No actually gave its "advantage" away to yes and still won rather convincingly.
Next thing you know they will say that NO had an advantage over Yes on the grounds its a shorter word, and so it does not take so long for the general public to read it.
7:19 pm Delete
please don't take it seriously.
Appreciate the joke.
It's a sad commentary that enough people behave in the manner described in the book for it to occasionally be a problem - although I think it is usually a small minority of those who vote, and does not usually become an issue except in elections when there are more than half-a-dozen candidates.
The choice was "José Manuel Barroso" and just in case anyone who's surname started with an "a" they eliminated the problem by making him the one and only candidate. "Democracy" in action