All posts in the topic Scottish Election (Short link)
Summary
- There are 9 posts — by 6 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by James Gilmour at 2007 May 06 23:02 UTC
Hi, thought I should open this thread. Some of you may know that there are some difficulties with the election in Scotland - specifically around the casting and counting of votes. here are some accounts of what's going on: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=690662007 (I like the bit at the end where they say that the Western Isles seat might delay the final count till this afternoon!) A couple of basic statements from Edinburgh council: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/ Nothing about the delays from the Scottish Parliament http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/elections/2007/07index.htm Various from the bbc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6623287.stm I'd love to hear more from anyone who observed (though they might still be observing) -Ella Ella Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email: <email obscured> http://itc.napier.ac.uk This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
Yes, all very interesting.
It's going to be important for everyone to get the 'e' bit in perspective in
the aftermath, as well - from reading hte early reports it seems that
problems with postal voting and problems with physical ballot design are the
biggest problems, followed by glitches with electronic counting that have
caused delays but may or may not lead to any errors in the results. But I
fear it will be electronic voting in general that gets a pounding in some
quarters.
I'm not saying this as a huge fan of e-voting - I have many serious
reservations, and am far from convinced that it's a good idea. But it's
important to focus on the relevant facts in deciding.
cheers,
Dan.
Dan Jellinek
Headstar Publishing and Events
E-Government Bulletin/E-Access Bulletin
Tel: +44 (0)1273 267172
Mobile: +44 (0)7748 988092
Email: <email obscured>
Web: www.headstar.com
Hi, It is true that these things will all get bundled together and holding 2 elections with 2 (arguably 3) different voting methods at the same time, seems to have caused problems for voters. However, at the moment it is the electronic counting that seems to be causing the delay. Also -the nature of the electronic count (its use of scanning) had an impact on the paper design - A4 sheets that voters SHOULD NOT fold - obviously contrary to all voting instincts and (in my case anyway) hard to slide into the ballot slot. -Ella Ella Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email: <email obscured> http://itc.napier.ac.uk This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
The best take is from http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/, "SCOTLAND BRANDED 'IDIOT STATE' BY UN ELECTION OBSERVERS".
Ella said:
> I'd love to hear more from anyone who observed (though they
> might still be observing)
As an Accredited Observer (Individual), I visited 5 Polling Places on 3 May as
well as voting myself, and asked lots of questions and recorded lots of
comments.. I also attended the Edinburgh count from 10 pm on 3 May to 6 am on
Friday and again from 12 noon on Friday until the end at 7.00 pm. There are
many things to say and report and maybe I'll post some of them here in due
course, some after some analysis.
It is the combination of problems that has created such a high profile. First,
there were significant problems with the issuing of SOME postal ballot papers.
At Edinburgh there was a problem with the e-counting system. This was due to
over-loading of the management system (software module) that controls to the
whole operation. The problem was caused by the exceptionally large numbers of
ballot papers (especially Scottish Parliament papers) that were sent for
'adjudication' (no time at present to explain the multi-step process, but maybe
I'll be able to add more later). The adjudication queues were so big and there
were so many adjudications that the overload caused 'timeouts' in parts of the
computer system. No-one had anticipated such large numbers of adjudications
(see below) and so the sytem had never been tested under such conditions
(everything else that had been thought of, had been tested and found OK). From
reports at other counting centres the e-counting system seemed to have worked
OK, e.g. Alex Salmond, in his acceptance speech, referred to watching the bar
charts of constiteuncy votes and regional votes that were not available in
Edinburgh because the mangament system was not working properly.
The MAIN problem, without any doubt has been the numbers of spoilt papers for
the Scottish Parliament election. These were mostly because voters had put two
'X's in the Regional Vote column instead of one 'X' in the Regional Vote column
and one 'X' in the Constituency Vote column. These incorrectly completed
ballot papers were all queued for adjudication (on screen) by a Returning
Officer, and it was this that led to the system overload. It seems likely that
the recommendation of the Arbuthnott Commission that both of the AMS (= MMP)
votes should be on one paper (as in New Zealand) has caused problems for
electors in Scotland - in 1999 and 2003 these two votes were on separate
papers. The design of the ballot papers for the Lothians Region and for the
Glasgow Region MAY have added to the problem because they were slightly
different from the "standard" as both were "squeezed" to accommodate 23 entries
in the Regional section of the ballot paper. Some simple analysis should
reveal whether Glasgow and the Lothians had significantly more spoilt papers
than the other six electoral regions.
In contrast, the numbers of spoilt papers for the local government elections
were VERY much smaller, even though it was the first time most electors had
used STV for public elections in Scotland and they had to number the candidates
"1", "2", "3", etc in the order of their preference (as many or as few as they
wished). Of course, some papers were marked "X", "X" or "X", "X", "X", etc and
these were declared invalid. But some papers that were presented for
adjudication (character recognition) were clearly marked for all 10 preferences
or all 14 preferences where there were these numbers of candidates (wards
elected either 3 or 4 councillors). More on that later, maybe.
James
James - You should send this evidence to the Electoral Commission, which is
conducting an urgent inquiry into this fiasco. Perhaps your evidence, and their
report, will help to convince the Government that running elections is a rather
more serious matter than they have assumed and that democratic principles of
voting and counting must always take priority over ill thought through
organisational novelties.
Stephen Coleman
We're still collating full details from our team of observers but at
this point I can say that we've had reports of problems in every area
we were monitoring across Scotland and England. The reports are
serious cause for concern and we're following them up with the
suppliers and local authorities.
Our report will be published June 20th.
Stephen wrote
> James - You should send this evidence to the Electoral
> Commission, which is conducting an urgent inquiry into this
> fiasco. Perhaps your evidence, and their report, will help to
> convince the Government that running elections is a rather
> more serious matter than they have assumed and that
> democratic principles of voting and counting must always take
> priority over ill thought through organisational novelties.
Stephen, and All
As an Accredited Observer I, along with all the other Election
Observers, was asked by the Electoral Commission to report my
observations and they provided us with copies of report forms for the
purpose. At the count I spoke to both Sam Younger, the Chairman of the
Electoral Commission, and to Sir Neil McIntosh (Scottish Commissioner),
whom I've known for several years (from his time as chairman of the
McIntosh Commission). I also know Andy O'Neil (Head of EC Office in
Scotland) very well: I sent him the Edinburgh analysis below and he has
already asked me to meet him early next week.
Scottish Parliament AMS Elections 2007
Edinburgh Constituencies of Lothians Electoral Region
> From: Dan Jellinek > Sent: 04 May 2007 14:41
> Yes, all very interesting.
> It's going to be important for everyone to get the 'e' bit in
perspective in
> the aftermath, as well - from reading the early reports it seems that
> problems with postal voting and problems with physical ballot design
are the
> biggest problems, followed by glitches with electronic counting that
have
> caused delays but may or may not lead to any errors in the results.
But I
> fear it will be electronic voting in general that gets a pounding in
some
> quarters.
>
> I'm not saying this as a huge fan of e-voting - I have many serious
> reservations, and am far from convinced that it's a good idea. But
it's
> important to focus on the relevant facts in deciding.
Dan and All
(I am just catching up with some of the earlier posts - it seems to
have been somewhat hectic here since 7.00 am on Thursday!).
You may be right the "the Scottish problems" will be used to give
electronic voting in general a pounding. It is, however, important to
emphasise, and to repeat ad nauseam, that there was NO e-voting in
Scotland on 3 May. I have already had to correct a number of bloggers
who have tried to leap onto this bandwagon - several form the USA
where there have been some real problems with e-voting.
Paradoxically, e-voting would have prevent nearly all the voter errors
that spoilt one or other part or both parts of so many of the Scottish
Parliament ballot papers. The main problem was voters putting two Xs in
the regional vote column and no mark at all in the constituency vote
column. An e-voting machine would have accepted the blank, but it would
not have accepted the over-vote (two Xs in the same column). Then the
voter could have corrected it immediately.. Where the voters did not put
their ballot papers in the ballot box face down, the Polling Clerks did
see papers with two Xs in one column, but of course, under the Election
Rules, they were not permitted to tell the voter about the mistake they
had seen.
James