Spoiled Votes??

timmywex

what exactely is a spoiled vote(like,i know its a vote that ca't be taken into account, but what has to be on it)?? are they strict on it??

daymobrew

I'd love to see the returning officer release a few of the spoiled ballot papers as an educational exercise for voters, especially if the spoiling was probably unintentional.

MarkR

I was wondering about that. Maybe repeated numbers, or additions to the choices (Mr Tayto for example!)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Afaik it's more-or-less a vote that's uncountable. This would include;

1. Blank voting cards (i.e. cards with no number on them, including stuff with scribbles or other text written on them)
2. Cards where more than one box was "ticked" instead of numbered
3. Cards where the numbers are illegible

In the case of number 2, as best I know, a single ticked box will count as a first preference vote for a candidate.
In the case of number 3, I'm not sure who rules that the card is illegible, or what happens if, say the 1-5 preferences are perfectly readable, but you can't tell the difference between 6 and 8.

dulpit

Am i right in saying that some people intentionally go into a voting booth to spoil their vote... (Anarchists or the like?)

Taken from
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Voting/FileDownLoad,1882,en.pdf

joxerdaly

A vote is spoiled if the entire number is not inside the box. Some people put an X beside who they want to vote for. My Father was at count and he saw a lot of votes with all number one's on them. No excuse for wasting a vote. Some of the more intentual spoiled vote's are by people who just write "F*** all of you" accross the ballot card. Could you be bothered going the whole way to vote to do that? personally I'm glad these idots vote doesn't count...........

mukki

what about if you put a number in the wrong box by mistake, can you get a new page, or do you just scribble it out and start again

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Thats under "want of official mark" isn't it?

timmywex

mukki wrote:

what about if you put a number in the wrong box by mistake, can you get a new page, or do you just scribble it out and start again

yeh, you can bring it back up and get a new one i think

monkeyfudge

The the intentional spoiled vote serve their purpose.

It's almost like an abstention. It shows an individual is willing to take part in the democratic process but have no interest in any of the choices they have been offered.

E-voting didn't take spoiling your vote into consideration.

delta_bravo

I was at the count in the RDS and i saw one vote that I was wondering whether or not it was spoiled. This is what is looked like:

Candidate #1: 3
Candidate #2: 1
Candidate #3: X
Candidate #4: 2
Candidate #5: X
Candidate #6: X
Candidate #7: X
Candidate #8: X

Obviously they didnt want to transfer votes after the 3rd pref but i presume the vote was not counted at all?

Evieweavy

A vote is spoiled if the entire number is not inside the box

I think they are a bit more lenient than that I was doing the tally on Friday and they were calling anything with a clear preference unspoiled basically if you had a number one and 2 number 2s you'd get your first preference but you wouldn't get transferred etc. There were people writing the words one and two I am not sure about that but you would think that would be a clear preference. And yes people did go all the way to their polling booth to draw a line through the card or just to fold the card in half with no preferences cast what a shower of wasters with too much time on thier hands. All of the agents from each candidate went up at the end to agree in what was spoiled and unspoiled and if they could get agreement from the agents they seemed to use that I'm not completely sure what the exact criteria is though.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gonk

daymobrew wrote:

I'd love to see the returning officer release a few of the spoiled ballot papers as an educational exercise for voters, especially if the spoiling was probably unintentional.

This is a very good point. Much was made of the capacity of electronic voting to eliminate voter error and unintentionally spoiled ballots. This was one of the main arguments advanced in its favour.

A fortune was wasted on voting machines and continues to be spent on storing them, yet to my knowledge not a cent has ever been spent on educating voters on how to complete a paper ballot correctly and avoid spoiling it, which would have been a much more cost-effective approach.

Evieweavy

Why are people so upset with people who choose to spoil their votes. I've often thought about doing it.

Why bother going in at all? I had my first introduction, at the count last week, as to why each persons vote and preference counts I think everybody should be encouraged to go to their local count centre so you can see democracy in action and just how above board and open to scrutiny the whole counting process is. Everybodies vote counts what is the point wasting it.

monkeyfudge

Evieweavy wrote:

Why bother going in at all? I had my first introduction, at the count last week, as to why each persons vote and preference counts I think everybody should be encouraged to go to their local count centre so you can see democracy in action and just how above board and open to scrutiny the whole counting process is. Everybodies vote counts what is the point wasting it.

As I said it shows that the person is interested in the democratic system, but when the all the choices are atrocious they'd rather not give any of them a vote.

PH01

delta_bravo wrote:

I was at the count in the RDS and i saw one vote that I was wondering whether or not it was spoiled. This is what is looked like:

Candidate #1: 3
Candidate #2: 1
Candidate #3: X
Candidate #4: 2
Candidate #5: X
Candidate #6: X
Candidate #7: X
Candidate #8: X

Obviously they didnt want to transfer votes after the 3rd pref but i presume the vote was not counted at all?

I would have assumed that the above example was counted, was it?
As '1' would have priority over 'x'?

wow sierra

delta_bravo wrote:

I was at the count in the RDS and i saw one vote that I was wondering whether or not it was spoiled. This is what is looked like:

Candidate #1: 3
Candidate #2: 1
Candidate #3: X
Candidate #4: 2
Candidate #5: X
Candidate #6: X
Candidate #7: X
Candidate #8: X

Obviously they didnt want to transfer votes after the 3rd pref but i presume the vote was not counted at all?

That vote would be counted. The returning officer will take the attitude it the intent is clear it is allowed.

You should avoid doing this to your ballot paper though as when it comes to close contests and recounts you will have legal teams there from the opposing candidates trying to get votes excluded for technical errors.

Ive seen them trying to argue that "NO 1" means "not no one" as opposed to being what it is - a vote for the candidate it is beside. They can also try to object to votes where the number is written over with another number even if it is clear what the new number is. You shouldnt put a ring around the number or a line under it. The returning officer will always argue to include disputed votes where the intent is clear, but the legal teams will fight them all.

The official rule is if there is anything other than a clear 1, 2 ,3 etc in the box opposite the candidate it can't be counted. Anything else is looking for trouble. If you make a mistake you can get another ballot paper. Also make sure it is stamped - if it isnt it cant be counted and there are always some of them.

aequinoctium

is it not a democratic right to spoil one's vote?

that right will be taken away with the introduction of e-voting!

delta_bravo

aequinoctium wrote:

is it not a democratic right to spoil one's vote?

that right will be taken away with the introduction of e-voting!

Just dont vote then

SeanW

But AFAIK it is a specific right to cast a spoiled vote. Personally, I would never spoil a vote, but then again my political views tend to be against something bad rather than for something good, so my view is always to support whoever is worth a chance/is good/is the least worst.

But some would view even this as pointless if none of the choices appeal to the voter or the voter has decided none of the candidates deserve a vote. "Just don't vote" isn't an answer, because your vote is your say. And your view may just be "the whole thing is a joke." Under manual voting, you have the right to draw in an extra box for "Michael Collins" or "Mr. Tayto," leave the whole thing blank, put a line down the page or whatever, under e-voting you don't.

Ok, so I personally think that's just a complete waste of time, but to the small minority who don't, that right should be respected.

miju

spoiling a vote is the exact same thing as TD's do when they abstain from certain matters.

it clearly shows your taking part in the political process but have no preference. in the case of the TDs there all lazy , lol

simu

Is it a right? Where is this stated if it is so? I'm dubious... after all, the point of an election is to elect someone, not guage the electorate's level of dissatisfaction with the democratic process/the candidates/whatever.

daymobrew

aequinoctium wrote:

is it not a democratic right to spoil one's vote?

that right will be taken away with the introduction of e-voting!

For e-voting, how about Lotto-like forms? This would provide a paper trail to allow for manual recounts. There could be a "Spoil" box.

When this ballot paper is completed it could be scanned for accuracy, with the person given a chance of fixing the error. The nature of the error would not be seen by the polling station worker.

gonk

delta_bravo wrote:

Just dont vote then

The right to cast one's vote in secret implies an equal right to abstain secretly. You might not want, for example, your family members to know you had abstained. This is a scenario which is easy to imagine in, say, the referenda on abortion. Deliberate spoiling of votes allows this.

The proposed e-voting system removed this possibility and this was one of the criticisms the Commission on Electronic Voting had of it.

The Muppet

delta_bravo wrote:

Just dont vote then

There is a difference between not voting and spoiling a vote.

If you don't vore you are stating that you have no interest in the democratic process. By intentionally spoiling your vote you are stating that you are willing to vote but not for any of the candidates on the ballot paper.

Judes

The only opinion I have on people who choose not vote, or purposely spoil a vote is that they have NO say in what happens in this country. So if you know of people who do this and then start mouthing off about things that displease them in this country - just tell them to shut up - that they forfeited the right to be heard! So we have no intention of listening to them.

For centuries people have fought and died for the right to vote. How any citizen can stick their fingers up at this right - it just astounds me.

Zaph

Judes wrote:

The only opinion I have on people who choose not vote, or purposely spoil a vote is that they have NO say in what happens in this country. So if you know of people who do this and then start mouthing off about things that displease them in this country - just tell them to shut up - that they forfeited the right to be heard! So we have no intention of listening to them.

For centuries people have fought and died for the right to vote. How any citizen can stick their fingers up at this right - it just astounds me.

There is a significant difference between not voting and deliberately spoiling your vote. The former implies a laziness to get involved (although some people may not have voted for genuine reasons, out of the country on business that day, for instance) in the democratic process and that you really couldn't be arsed voting. In this case I agree with you, these people had their chance to do something about the country, they didn't, so therefore I choose not to listen to their whining about stuff the government has done that they don't agree with.

On the other hand, I have once deliberately spoiled my vote, in the 1997 presidential election. The candidates that year were Mary McAleese, Mary Banotti, Adi Roche, Dana Rosemary Scallon and Derek Nally, none of whom I wished to be elected for various reasons so I wrote "None of the above" on my ballot paper. I could just as easily have stayed at home, but it was important to me to turn out and register my opinion, and I certainly wasn't sticking my two fingers up at the right to do this (although I was sticking them up at the candidates). Admittedly I'd be less likely to do something like this in a general or local council election as I could vote for a party even if I didn't like the particular candidate.

LuckyLloyd

Judes wrote:

The only opinion I have on people who choose not vote, or purposely spoil a vote is that they have NO say in what happens in this country. So if you know of people who do this and then start mouthing off about things that displease them in this country - just tell them to shut up - that they forfeited the right to be heard! So we have no intention of listening to them.

For centuries people have fought and died for the right to vote. How any citizen can stick their fingers up at this right - it just astounds me.

I think the response from Zaph to your post is very good. Simply put, I am strongly of the opinion that there is a significant difference between spoiling and not turning up - and I will respect the opinions of someone who chooses to do the former; and have no time for he who sits at home for no good reason.

For instance, I am sure there were voters who strongly agreed with the policies of the PDs last Thursday; yet did not have a candidate from that party in their constituency. Why should they have to choose any of the other candidates? In such a case - turning up to use your vote and deliberately spoiling is perfectly valid IMO as it is a national election (I voted Sinn Feinn btw).

simu

LuckyLloyd wrote:

For instance, I am sure there were voters who strongly agreed with the policies of the PDs last Thursday; yet did not have a candidate from that party in their constituency. Why should they have to choose any of the other candidates? In such a case - turning up to use your vote and deliberately spoiling is perfectly valid IMO as it is a national election (I voted Sinn Feinn btw).

Well ,they could vote for the party most likely to give the PDs a place in government.

For all the meaning people in this thread are ascribing to spoiled votes, they are pretty much ignored during the count, as far as I've seen anyway. The candidates who are elected aren't bothered.

LuckyLloyd

simu wrote:

Well ,they could vote for the party most likely to give the PDs a place in government.

For all the meaning people in this thread are ascribing to spoiled votes, they are pretty much ignored during the count, as far as I've seen anyway. The candidates who are elected aren't bothered.

That's not really the point that is being made is it? You used your vote. You contributed to the national turnout figure. You know you participated in the democratic process. You didn't choose to add to the totals of any of the candidates.

I'm sure the elected politicians don't really give a fcuk about the miniscule amount of voters for any of the candidates eliminated first in a particular constituency. But those who voted for such candidates will know where their preferance went.

Zaph

If I was a candidate I'd probably not be too concerned about the deliberately spoiled votes, everyone loses equally there, but I would be concerned by the votes discounted because they without the official mark. It doesn't say a lot for the people in the polling stations if 2,000 papers can be given out without the simple act of stamping them, and I'd say the vast majority of them would have been valid votes otherwise.

Cake Fiend

Can anyone explain an actual effect of spoiling a vote as opposed to not bothering to turn up, apart from some sort of personal satisfaction that you 'voiced your opinion' (to whom? the vote counters??) or whatever?

simu

Cake Fiend wrote:

Can anyone explain an actual effect of spoiling a vote as opposed to not bothering to turn up, apart from some sort of personal satisfaction that you 'voiced your opinion' (to whom? the vote counters??) or whatever?

I too would like to hear this...

nesf

Cake Fiend wrote:

Can anyone explain an actual effect of spoiling a vote as opposed to not bothering to turn up, apart from some sort of personal satisfaction that you 'voiced your opinion' (to whom? the vote counters??) or whatever?

The voter in question might feel like they'd done something about their apathy or something silly like that. Personally, I don't get people who spoil their vote or people who commend it as "participating in democracy".

LuckyLloyd

Cake Fiend wrote:

Can anyone explain an actual effect of spoiling a vote as opposed to not bothering to turn up, apart from some sort of personal satisfaction that you 'voiced your opinion' (to whom? the vote counters??) or whatever?

What is the efffect of any individual vote?

Your vote contributes to the statistics, increases a parties percentage share of the vote - contributes to the possible election of a candidate.

If you deliberately spoil your vote, you contribute to the turnout percentage, and contribute to the percentage of spoiled votes from that percentage - while failing to contribute to the election of any candidate as you didn't perceive any of them as worthwhile.

Statistically, your decision affects the numbers. And it will give you the personal satisfaction of knowing you exercised your democratic right. I am baffled as to why people would think that sitting at home is better - and why they have such a problem with the concept??

Hagar

Cake Fiend wrote:

Can anyone explain an actual effect of spoiling a vote as opposed to not bothering to turn up, apart from some sort of personal satisfaction that you 'voiced your opinion' (to whom? the vote counters??) or whatever?

I suppose if the number of deliberately spoiled votes was a significant percentage of votes cast it would show a disdain on behalf of the voters for the candidates put forward for them to choose from.

How confident of your mandate would you be if you scraped through on the 11th count in a constituancy that had more deliberately spoiled votes than you had first preferences?

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote:

What is the efffect of any individual vote?

That's like asking what's the effect of a single droplet of water in a flood. On it's own it makes little difference but the cumulative effect is much greater than that. Voting is inherently a group action and must be judged in that respect. It is not so much that I vote independent of everything else but that I vote as part of a group and it is the group's action that determines things or the aggregate of the individual actions if you want to be precise.

The problem is that it is easy to point to a single vote and say it makes little difference, but if you applied that to every single vote it makes no sense. Voting is not about the individual actions in isolation as much as it is about community or group action as a whole.

Hagar

Slightly OT quoted from "Overheard in Dublin"

Overseen in a counting station in Monaghan (I know its not Dublin but give me a break):

Beside all the candidates was "1"

Written at the bottom: "As promised"

LuckyLloyd

nesf wrote:

That's like asking what's the effect of a single droplet of water in a flood. On it's own it makes little difference but the cumulative effect is much greater than that. Voting is inherently a group action and must be judged in that respect. It is not so much that I vote independent of everything else but that I vote as part of a group and it is the group's action that determines things or the aggregate of the individual actions if you want to be precise.

The problem is that it is easy to point to a single vote and say it makes little difference, but if you applied that to every single vote it makes no sense. Voting is not about the individual actions in isolation as much as it is about community or group action as a whole.

And those that deliberately spoil their vote are voicing their opinion that they do not wish to be part of any of the groups that are on offer. And the small percentage of people who do deliberately spoil their vote are part of a group - a group dissatisfied with the available political choices.

I can understand that for those who have a strong affiliation to a political party and / or actively campaigned in the run up to the election would strongly dislike the idea of a deliberately spolied vote as it flys in the face of all that they are trying to achieve. Those who choose to do it have gone out to vote - and actively rejected the ideas and efforts of those campainging for a particular political party and ideology. And that is why I think it is important.

I think one should have the right to spoil, and would be one of the reasons why I think E - voting is a very bad idea. And again, I think that contributing to the minority statistic of those who go out to vote and deliberately spoil is much better than contributing to that bigger number of those who simply don't bother. It is a small group - but should be respected nonetheless.

johnlambe

delta_bravo wrote:

I was at the count in the RDS and i saw one vote that I was wondering whether or not it was spoiled. This is what is looked like:

Candidate #1: 3
Candidate #2: 1
Candidate #3: X
Candidate #4: 2
Candidate #5: X
Candidate #6: X
Candidate #7: X
Candidate #8: X

I saw some of those in this election (in Dublin city) and they were counted.
The voter's intention was probably to ensure that noone could alter the vote by adding numbers in the blank spaces.
One could argue that the 'X' is a "superflous mark" (if I remember correctly, that's the wording in the Act) and therefore spoils it, but I think that such an argument would be rejected on adjudication.
(Still, I wouldn't recommend filling in a ballot this way. Different returning officers could make different decisions on doubtful votes).

I also saw votes that had an 'X' or a tick as well as the number in each box, "No 1", etc., lines under the numbers, circles around the numbers, and corrections (both by crossing out a number and by writing a number over another), all of which were counted (in Dublin city, at least), but it could be argued that they are invalid.

I saw one that had 3 lines intersecting at odd angles. I asked the counter to show me it again. On examination, it seemed that the three lines were a "1" and a badly written "X" written in the same place. That was counted too.

I single "X" or tick is counted as a one (although it is technically wrong).

Some people's handwriting is so bad that it's difficult to identify some of the preferences.
I've seen 7's counted as 1's and vice versa (the "7" can look like a "1" with a serif).

A vote is spoiled if the entire number is not inside the box

I've seen these being counted too, even one with all numbers completely outside the boxes (to the side of the boxes). I don't think the law actually requires the number to be in the box (I read the Electoral Acts once, but don't remember everything).

Of course, any peice of text written on the ballot always spoils it, because it might potentially identify the voter (e.g. a candidate might have potentially told a voter to write "As promised" or other specific comment, in exchange for some political favour).

A counter told us of one that read "I'd rather chew my arm off than vote for Ardagh" (in Dublin South Central). I saw spoiled votes at the second Nice referendum with things like "Yes to enlargement, No to Nice" written on them, with an "X" beside "No".


The most common type of spoiled vote that I noticed in this election was multiple ticks or "X"s and no numbers - effectively indicating multiple candidates with no sequence. Some countries use a voting system (Approval Voting) in which one does vote like this - Could these have been cast by immigrants who are now Irish citizens?


I agree that voters should be given better instructions.

Also, they should be made aware that they can get another ballot paper if they make a mistake.
In the polling station where I was, only one voter out of 282 asked for another paper. I would be surprised if she was the only one to make a mistake.


I wrote a page of instructions myself: http://evoting.jlambe.com/voting.html
I'll update it with details about spoiled votes.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote:

And those that deliberately spoil their vote are voicing their opinion that they do not wish to be part of any of the groups that are on offer. And the small percentage of people who do deliberately spoil their vote are part of a group - a group dissatisfied with the available political choices.

I can understand that for those who have a strong affiliation to a political party and / or actively campaigned in the run up to the election would strongly dislike the idea of a deliberately spolied vote as it flys in the face of all that they are trying to achieve. Those who choose to do it have gone out to vote - and actively rejected the ideas and efforts of those campainging for a particular political party and ideology. And that is why I think it is important.

I think one should have the right to spoil, and would be one of the reasons why I think E - voting is a very bad idea. And again, I think that contributing to the minority statistic of those who go out to vote and deliberately spoil is much better than contributing to that bigger number of those who simply don't bother. It is a small group - but should be respected nonetheless.

I would disagree with you on there being a meaningful difference between a spoiled vote and a vote not cast. Then, at that level it's a matter of opinion really.

That and I take a relatively dim view of rejecting the ideas and efforts of all parties. Politics, like a lot of life is about picking the least imperfect out of a bunch of things that don't quite fit what you want. Even if you think they are all a waste of space, surely there must be some form of ranking there of which one is the best out of a very bad lot etc. I've a feeling that most people who protest by spoiling have unrealistic assumptions about politics and such. I've always wondered the effect of raising the age to vote to 21 or 25 would have on the number of spoiled votes.

LuckyLloyd

nesf wrote:

I would disagree with you on there being a meaningful difference between a spoiled vote and a vote not cast. Then, at that level it's a matter of opinion really.

That and I take a relatively dim view of rejecting the ideas and efforts of all parties. Politics, like a lot of life is about picking the least imperfect out of a bunch of things that don't quite fit what you want. Even if you think they are all a waste of space, surely there must be some form of ranking there of which one is the best out of a very bad lot etc. I've a feeling that most people who protest by spoiling have unrealistic assumptions about politics and such. I've always wondered the effect of raising the age to vote to 21 or 25 would have on the number of spoiled votes.

Are you affiliated directly with any particular party? Did you campaign in the recent election? If so, did your candidate get elected? Did it personally annoy you to see members of your constituency turn up and deliberatley spoil their ballot paper?

And yeah, ultimately we might have to agree to disagree on the entire topic.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Are you affiliated directly with any particular party? Did you campaign in the recent election? If so, did your candidate get elected? Did it personally annoy you to see members of your constituency turn up and deliberatley spoil their ballot paper?

And yeah, ultimately we might have to agree to disagree on the entire topic.

Nope to all of the above. I didn't campaign for anyone, am not directly affiliated with any party (though I do have rightish leanings), I'm not annoyed by spoiled ballots and I didn't back any individual candidates. So my thoughts aren't from that perspective.

Edit: To be more clear here's roughly my thoughts on this:

We live in a stable democracy. More than likely there's going to be a Government after an election and not a military coup or anything. So I'm left with two decisions, either doing nothing in some sense of protest or doing my bit to try and shape the Government a bit more in the direction I'd like it to be (though I completely accept it will never match what I want exactly or even that closely tbh). The thing is, I just cannot see a reason to not do the latter. Whatever your opinions on the Government, assuming you believe in "democracy" and don't want a dictator or something, surely it is better to nudge things just that little bit in the direction you want than to just do nothing and being stuck with something that had absolutely nothing to do with you?

LuckyLloyd

nesf wrote:

Nope to all of the above. I didn't campaign for anyone, am not directly affiliated with any party (though I do have rightish leanings), I'm not annoyed by spoiled ballots and I didn't back any individual candidates. So my thoughts aren't from that perspective.

Edit: To be more clear here's roughly my thoughts on this:

We live in a stable democracy. More than likely there's going to be a Government after an election and not a military coup or anything. So I'm left with two decisions, either doing nothing in some sense of protest or doing my bit to try and shape the Government a bit more in the direction I'd like it to be (though I completely accept it will never match what I want exactly or even that closely tbh). The thing is, I just cannot see a reason to not do the latter. Whatever your opinions on the Government, assuming you believe in "democracy" and don't want a dictator or something, surely it is better to nudge things just that little bit in the direction you want than to just do nothing and being stuck with something that had absolutely nothing to do with you?

Ok - fair play and nice post. Your point is very clear. Food for thought.

tampopo

Hello,

I was at the RDS for several hours on the Friday looking at the count. I saw some unfranked ballot papers counted and others not counted.
People wrote their preferences in the boxes of the party logo, not in the blank box for the number!
There were several X's so you couldn't distinguish a preference.
More than one No.1's.
Numbers not in a sequence e.g. 1, 3, 4, 5 etc
7's looking like 1's and vice versa
Circled candidates. No distinguishable preference.
Incomprehensible scrawling.

I was surprised and amazed at the stupidity or the mistakes that people made when expressing their choices. Especially those that put an X! I mean, every election poster or leaflet has on it "Vote No.1 for blah blah blah"

And as for a spoiled vote counting...hmmm...aswell as the reasons listed before, I heard that you can claim up to €8,500 in expenses if you reached 25% of the quota. Maybe somewhere the spoiled votes had an effect on people's reaching the 25% mark...

Victor

I think the presumption has to be towards allowing the vote where a clear intention exists, unless ther eis good reason to discount it.

mukki wrote:

what about if you put a number in the wrong box by mistake, can you get a new page, or do you just scribble it out and start again

You can get a new one, although some peopl just obliterate the wrong number and re-do it.

delta_bravo wrote:

I was at the count in the RDS and i saw one vote that I was wondering whether or not it was spoiled. This is what is looked like:

Candidate #1: 3
Candidate #2: 1
Candidate #3: X
Candidate #4: 2
Candidate #5: X
Candidate #6: X
Candidate #7: X
Candidate #8: X

Obviously they didnt want to transfer votes after the 3rd pref but i presume the vote was not counted at all?

This would appear to be indicating a clear preference.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Much of the spoiling isn't intentional, with the Sottish Parliament elections being the best example.

Hagar wrote:

How confident of your mandate would you be if you scraped through on the 11th count in a constituancy that had more deliberately spoiled votes than you had first preferences?

Hey! Leave Cyprian alone!

tampopo wrote:

I was at the RDS for several hours on the Friday looking at the count. I saw some unfranked ballot papers counted and others not counted.

People wrote their preferences in the boxes of the party logo, not in the blank box for the number!

There were several X's so you couldn't distinguish a preference.

More than one No.1's.

Numbers not in a sequence e.g. 1, 3, 4, 5 etc

7's looking like 1's and vice versa

Especially those that put an X! I mean, every election poster or leaflet has on it "Vote No.1 for blah blah blah"

hedro

I was a tally man at the monster recount in Dublin South Central involving Eric Byrne in 2002. Back then it got into looking at indentation on the paper caused the force used to make a mark on the ballot paper to see if the voters clear intention could be identified. (the Irish version of hanging chads?)

On one vote there was transfer from the number one where the voter had folded his paper and pressed it down to form a good crease.

The biggest problem is the pencils they must have the softest 'lead' I've ever seen this can lead to inadvertent marks when running down the page to mark your next vote.

I've tallied at general elections, local elections, European elections and referenda and the damn pencils always seem to cause a few spoiled votes but I have to say that the returning officers are usually pretty fair in deciding what is usable and what is just an election agent getting desperate.


On the subject of deliberately spoiling votes, I have to say that I would not personally do it but I can understand the cases where some people feel the need to do it.

It would however be a better system if the was an abstention box on the paper then people could record their refusal to vote for a party without being lumped in with the too stupid to do it properly or the too lazy to show up groups.

My 'protest' vote was to vote for three independant canditates 1,2,3 before indicating a preference for a canditate who had a chance to get in. This is ok for me and it may help some people recoup their expenses, but if enough of us did it there would be some pretty weird TDs.