Different news Scotland and England

[Milfmog]

I don't know specifically about the referendum vote, but UK national and local elections are all "secret ballots" in so far as it is not easy to find out how an individual voted. However, every ballot paper is serialised and traceable, should a court grant a suitable order to permit that to be checked, so the way any individual voted is most certainly not untraceable.

I suspect that even given the serial number it'd be difficult to find out what individual cast a particular ballot. Sure they could narrow it down to a certain location and a rough block of time, but unless the serial number of the ballot is recorded alongside a voter's name (which here in the US gets a tick-box checked upon arrival to vote, and another list gets ticked at exit) then nailing it to a person would be a statistical game.

The serial number of the ballot paper is recorded against the individuals name in the printed copy of the electoral role, so tracing a paper to an individual is easy. Going the other way is harder but can be done. My brother has been a returning officer at the past four general elections and assures me that one of his duties is to ensure that the way the papers are stored allows a serial number to be traced to a small block of voting slips, so they can indeed be retrieved, with some manual sorting, for a given individual. Apparently this is part of the process by which electoral fraud is managed.

Have fun,


Ian.

[crfriend]

The serial number of the ballot paper is recorded against the individuals name in the printed copy of the electoral role, so tracing a paper to an individual is easy.

Wow. So much for the concept of untraceability.

Apparently this is part of the process by which electoral fraud is managed.

Electoral fraud by ballot-stuffing and such measures is so 19th Century. Nowadays the way it's done is to make sure all the candidates have been hand-picked and vetted for loyalty before the "election" is even held. That's the way it's been working here since the 1990s, at least for meaningful positions.

Still, the notion that somebody can look up the way one voted is rather troubling. One would hope that those papers are closely guarded to keep prying eyes (e.g. employers, present and prospective) away from them.

[Big and Bashful]

Personally I don't give a monkey's, I voted "No", I am not ashamed of it, however I have not been wandering round waving flags and trying to stoke up dissent. Just as I am not ashamed of the fact that I have almost never voted for an MP in any parliamentary or European election. The reason is simple; I have never seen a politician worth voting for. Now that all parties have near enough the same policies there seems even less point in voting.

[dillon]

The demographics of the vote suggest that maybe if the issue emerges again in a decade or so, the seccessionists may prevail. For this vote, the voting age was lowered to sixteen, presumably to skew the vote toward yes, as younger voters tended to support secession.

If memory serves, Scotland makes use of the "Australian ballot" (secret voting in which no voter's submission is individually traceable) so the above assertion must have been based on "exit polling" strategies which are notoriously inaccurate as folks tend to lie when pressed for information after voting so as not to betray their position (or merely to have some fun with the pundits).

We shall see what the future holds. However, based on this particular ballot, and the fallout it's likely to cause, I'm not certain what the future may hold. All we know for the moment is what the "now" holds.

My comments were based of the nearly daily pre-vote polling done in the run up to the vote.

I actually think the US should go to all paper op-scan ballots as mentioned in this Scotland discussion. Any vote is traceable if a circumstance develops and is so decreed by preset rules where individuals need to check their ballots against the recorded vote. Carl may not like this opinion, but I don't trust the computer world with my vote; the opportunity for electronically stealing an election is just too easy and tempting. I'd favor a nationwide system where, once the ballot is cast, a printed receipt is given to the voter identifying him/her and the number of the ballot, though not revealing how he/she voted. This could be critical in the event of a very close or contested election, where recounts are needed, or fraud suspected. Under certain conditions, a voter could recheck the ballot he/she cast to confirm that it was counted as marked, and to be sure it was in fact recorded. Op-scan ballots can be hand-read if necessary, and when an unreadable ballot is found, the voter who cast it can be identified, and his/her intent can be determined by confirming the vote with his/her receipt and ID.

I am not totally opposed to voter ID laws, however I do oppose those recent measures, including those here in NC, which appear clearly aimed at discouraging the poor, or minorities, or those for whom English is not a native tongue from participating in democracy. I think that states which adopt voter ID measures should be made responsible for identifying every potential eligible voter in advance and for making sure they have valid ID or seeing that they are issued such an ID. This can be done well in advance of an election, and late registrants can be required to obtain, at the state's expense, such an ID at the time they register. This is why motor-voter works...when a driver license is issued, a voter is registered, and there is no question about a picture ID having been provided. If conservative politicians are so sure fraud is an issue, let the states they govern be held responsible for making sure voters are properly registered and identified. Then the legislatures can decide if it is worth the cost of having restrictive laws.

Also, there should ALWAYS be conditional ballots available for those who may show up at their polling place without the required ID, or show up at the wrong polling place. No state should be permitted to certify an election until every vote cast has been correctly counted and no eligible voter has been prevented from casting his/her ballot. The measures would be costly, but what price do we place on the functionality of our Republic? That cost comes above anything else.

[Milfmog]

Electoral fraud by ballot-stuffing and such measures is so 19th Century.[/color]

We have been having elections for a long time and the "safeguards" have developed throughout that period. Unfortunately, politicians are unlikely ever to remove safeguards like this as they have nothing to gain by so doing, but could have plenty to lose if their opponents decide to make an issue of it or allege that it is an attempt to create an opportunity to rig a vote.

Nowadays the way it's done is to make sure all the candidates have been hand-picked and vetted for loyalty before the "election" is even held. That's the way it's been working here since the 1990s, at least for meaningful positions.

That is probably true of all electoral systems throughout the ages to some degree. When politics was something for the aristocracy, only aristocrats could be elected because the system was designed to keep in power those who already held the reins of power. The same was true of the eastern block countries under communism. Sadly the common factor is unlikely to change as it is a direct consequence of human nature; people who have power and / or wealth seldom really want to give it up, whatever they may say to the contrary.

Still, the notion that somebody can look up the way one voted is rather troubling. One would hope that those papers are closely guarded to keep prying eyes (e.g. employers, present and prospective) away from them.

The records are only available as physical papers and a paper electoral log; that makes electronic theft of the data impossible. The physical records are locked away in separate archives, so to go from an individual to the ballot paper would require access to two locations, both of which are sealed and require a court order to open them. Is it unbreachable? No of course not, but one has to ask what could usefully be gained by going to the trouble of stealing the information and I suspect the answer is "not enough to justify the effort". Quite frankly I suspect the risk / reward equation provides the greatest security to this information.

Have fun,


Ian.

PS I must ask how long the records are kept; I may have been told but, if so, I do not remember.

[skirtyscot]

I thought that the Govt use the ballot papers to find out who voted for extremist parties on the right and the left. So they know who to keep an eye on, you understand. It's only what I've heard!

[Milfmog]

I thought that the Govt use the ballot papers to find out who voted for extremist parties on the right and the left. So they know who to keep an eye on, you understand. It's only what I've heard!

What a scurrilous rumour . I do not believe that would be an easy exercise to justify through the legal system, although it might be easy to do. Maybe those who voted Yes need to take care, or maybe those who voted No will be getting a visit from the heavy mob . I guess we all need to be a bit paranoid.

Have fun,


Ian.

[skirtingtoday]

I haven't posted of this section sence the referendum but here are a few recent "love-bombs" courtesy of the Sun - different editions in Scotland and England.

In all the kerfuffle after the Referendum, we had thought that we would be welcomed as part of the UK - see what you think

First a pair of articles on 14th March - English Sun on the leaft, Scottish Sun on the right - note that the first two paragraphs are identical but the third and subsequent ones are missing from the Scottish version

Sun 14-03-15 reduced.jpg

Paragraph No 3 reads:- “Polls suggest the SNP could win more than 50 seats, leaving Labour with a handful. One Labour source The Sun: ‘If those Scottish monkeys had done their jobs, we wouldn’t be in this mess.'” (Emphasis mine) Nice to be appreciated as part of the UK.

And from yesterday's Sun editions, two more differences without comment:-

English view

Sun 16-03-15 England.jpg

And the Scottish view

Sun 16-03-15 Scotland.jpg

There are a lot more of them in recent weeks (and months) and I am sure there will be more to come - watch this space.

[skirtingtoday]

Here's another one - from the two Suns (Scottish and UK versions)

Does it appear that the Scottish Sun is now leaning towards the SNP?

thesuns 24-03-15-reduced.jpg