andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2012-03-07 11:00 am

Interesting Links for 07-03-2012

[identity profile] gonzo21.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 11:46 am (UTC)(link)
Damn, that's a really good question. Why does voting all have to happen on one day? Surely if it was an all week event, turn outs would be way up... and that would be awesome for democracy.

If, perhaps, very bad for tv stations.

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:00 pm (UTC)(link)
I suspect it is a hangover from when voting was done by acclamation or by hands up and everyone had to be in one place at the same time.

Not convinced by the idea of having updates on the score during the voting but this may be a bit of conservatism on my part.

[identity profile] a-pawson.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:06 pm (UTC)(link)
Releasing as the count went along would be a nightmare. I expect you would reach a situation where huge numbers of people delayed voting until the very end so they could decide if/how to vote tactically.

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:25 pm (UTC)(link)
I would certainly do that in my constituency when using single member plurality voting.

I live in a multi-way marginal. The Labour majority over the Lib Dems is in the hundreds, the SNP won the Holyrood constituency that my Westminster constituency overlaps and I think the Tories would consider this a target seat.

So, I’d love to wait until the end of the week and then vote tactically.

[identity profile] gonzo21.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:06 pm (UTC)(link)
When it happened in America, and Fox declared Bush the winner even though polls were still open on the west coast, it seemed to result in a lot of people not bothering to go out. Which is odd, I would have assumed that a party being in the lead would seriously motivate the opposition to get out there and vote.

Still. I think updates could be useful, just. Anything that gets better turn-outs in our elections. It's shameful how few people bother to vote.

[identity profile] naath.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:10 pm (UTC)(link)
gotta have people manning (and womanning) the polls

[identity profile] gonzo21.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Ah yes, we can hardly have the volunteers taking a whole week off work can we.

[identity profile] naath.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:20 pm (UTC)(link)
We could make it be like jury duty...

[identity profile] a-pawson.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:29 pm (UTC)(link)
They aren't volunteers, they are paid. OK it's only for 1 day, but when I did it I got about £500 (about 10 years ago). I doubt you would find it hard to get more people willing to do it as the pay is pretty good and as I recall all that was involved was 1 evening training.

[identity profile] gonzo21.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:30 pm (UTC)(link)
Crikey! I had no idea they got paid for it. That's amazing. I wonder where you sign up.

[identity profile] a-pawson.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:34 pm (UTC)(link)
The local council organises it. There may be details on your council website. I only got the job because I knew someone who had done it before. I suspect the same people do it every time. It's very boring, but the pay was good (although only for 1 day obviously).

[identity profile] a-pawson.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think turn-outs would be increased. A huge amount of effort is put into ensuring everyone gets the opportunity to vote. Pretty much anyone can get a postal vote. The polls open very early and close late. Everyone receives leaflets explaining the numerous different ways they can vote.

There can be very few people who genuinely are unable to cast their vote. I tend to think that if people cannot be bothered to do so on polling day then tough. I also doubt that if people are not interested enough to vote on one day then I doubt they would do so on a different day.

ext_16733: (Default)

[identity profile] akicif.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 12:54 pm (UTC)(link)
You'd have to be very careful to ensure that information on the count so far didn't get released - I think it's only been in comparativelty recent years that even exit poll results have been published while the polls were still open.

But the whole "disenfranchising people by holding the vote on a day when they can't get to the poll" thing is a complete and utter straw man: it's possible to vote by post.
ext_16733: (Default)

[identity profile] akicif.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 01:06 pm (UTC)(link)
That would mean that you would need tellers (paid) and scutineers (unpaid) for a week rather than just a day. I'm also fairly sure that publicising how a poll is going has got more drawbacks than advantages (numbers at each individual polling station can be low enough that split over a week you've a reasonable chance of being able to tell how a particular group of individuals voted, so you can re-invent the market in buying and selling votes: which is a seriously bad thing).

[identity profile] errolwi.livejournal.com 2012-03-07 06:35 pm (UTC)(link)
It's a total straw man, especially given that laws can be changed. You would think that there is nowhere civilised, with a similar country size, using a very similar electoral system, that votes on Saturday, whose law and experience could be referred to.
More than 10% of the votes in the recent NZ election were Advance Votes. Most of those were from people walking into one of the polling stations that were available for the two weeks before polling day. IT'S NOT DIFFICULT!