Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Wicklow

1…1112141617…27

Comments

  • #392
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    lucylu wrote: »
    Ah there wasn't any confusion with the ballot paper.. it was large and awkward filling it out on the tiny booths.but not confusing..
    If people were so stupid to vote 1-12 on both in both columns of ballot paper, honestly do they deserve a vote?

    This.
    If you spoil the ballot, the ballot is spoiled.


  • #393
    Sala
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Sala


    If people were so stupid to vote 1-12 on both in both columns of ballot paper, honestly do they deserve a vote?

    I would agree these type of ballots are spoiled- no real way to prove who they wanted to vote for. The problem is where people wrote the numbers in the empty boxes. This will affect independents obviously as they had an empty logo box, but I would have thought if it was consistent (ie: 1,2,3 in same areas) it shows a clear preference?


  • #394
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    Sala wrote: »
    I would agree these type of ballots are spoiled- no real way to prove who they wanted to vote for. The problem is where people wrote the numbers in the empty boxes. This will affect independents obviously as they had an empty logo box, but I would have thought if it was consistent (ie: 1,2,3 in same areas) it shows a clear preference?

    Yes I agree its a tough one, the ballots are technically spoilt but the voters intention is clear to see. Given the huge body of independents its an understandable enough mistake. Next time round a thin diagonal across the space for candidates without logos might be a smart idea.


  • #395
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    lucylu wrote: »
    Ah there wasn't any confusion with the ballot paper.. it was large and awkward filling it out on the tiny booths.but not confusing..
    If people were so stupid to vote 1-12 on both in both columns of ballot paper, honestly do they deserve a vote?

    Have you seen a picture of it? I don't believe the major difficulty will be with the two columns. When in the booth, the first thing you are confronted with is a choice of boxes (for the non-party candidates). Which one do you fill out, the white box beside their name, or the identical white box beside their photograph? The small print tells you to fill the one beside their photo, but there's no such confusion with the party candidates, who have a party logo in place of where the independents have a white box.

    Appalling design, if no logo was to go in the white box beside their names, it should have a printed cross, or "non-party", instead of presenting voters with a choice of identical white boxes for non-party candidates.

    "Enemies of democracy", indeed.


  • #396
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 31,115 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I'd agree that if the 'blank boxes' are proving to be an issue they should probably be counted if it's clear who is actually being voted for. I can see why candidates would argue against it, especially if the last seat is as tightly contested as it is looking to be. The 'legal types' twitter comment has me extremely curious I must say though, sounds like madness down there!

    Who'd have thought it would take this long to count some numbers :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    hdowney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭hdowney


    well in my polling station they TOLD people how to vote - i.e. b careful because there are some sections where there is no logo, such as for indos. they showed me (altho i already knew) which column of empty boxes were for the numbers.

    i agree either 1-12 twice or numbers in the wrong box = a spoiled vote. sorry to be so blunt but thems the breaks. the people in all the polling stations should have informed each voter which column and remember there are two sides.


  • #398
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    donothoponpop wrote: »
    Have you seen a picture of it? I don't believe the major difficulty will be with the two columns. When in the booth, the first thing you are confronted with is a choice of boxes (for the non-party candidates). Which one do you fill out, the white box beside their name, or the identical white box beside their photograph? The small print tells you to fill the one beside their photo, but there's no such confusion with the party candidates, who have a party logo in place of where the independents have a white box.

    Appalling design, if no logo was to go in the white box beside their names, it should have a printed cross, or "non-party", instead of presenting voters with a choice of identical white boxes for non-party candidates.

    "Enemies of democracy", indeed.

    I looked at the candidates who were in parties and from this rather easily deduced that the box beside the picture was the one to fill in.
    The instructions printed at the top backed this up.

    I figured this out on my own whilst tired, excited and about to drive to Galway.

    This really isn't an issue.


  • #399
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,803 ✭✭✭edanto


    hdowney wrote: »
    numbers in the wrong box = a spoiled vote.

    What are you basing that on?


  • #400
    hdowney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭hdowney


    edanto wrote: »
    What are you basing that on?

    what i mean by that is numbers in the party box instead of in the correct box for numbers. i can however see if it is obvious how the person intended their 1,2,3 etc to go (with some numbers in the correct boxes and some in the wrong) why the count centre staff would decide to keep them as ok votes. however now with all this hooha and recount business i can see that any vote that is not 'perfect' will be deemed a spoiled vote. so i think we can assume wicklow will have considerably more spoiled votes by the time we elect our five tds


  • #401
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 31,115 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    hdowney wrote: »
    the people in all the polling stations should have informed each voter which column and remember there are two sides.

    That's true, and it was pretty obvious what went where. But I don't remember being told where each thing went, and you can't assume everyone was told. Obviously, people should have been able to tell rather easily where to put the numbers, but at the same time if the ballot is readable even with the silly but somewhat understandable mistake, then I'd personally feel it should be counted.

    Is there a precedent for such things out of curiosity, or indeed any specific documentation defining a spoiled vote?


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    fenris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,075 ✭✭✭fenris


    Hayden Gentle Ruffian wrote: »
    What about just giving him a good kickin' :D
    We did that when we voted :)


  • #403
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    d'Oracle wrote: »
    I looked at the candidates who were in parties and from this rather easily deduced that the box beside the picture was the one to fill in.
    The instructions printed at the top backed this up.

    I figured this out on my own whilst tired, excited and about to drive to Galway.

    This really isn't an issue.

    Plenty of people who were unfamiliar with ballot papers, or were looking for the names of their independents to give first preference to, or with poor eyesight, have made it an issue. There will be many spoiled ballots caused by this poor design (or peoples stupidity, if you prefer).

    I'd far prefer it wasn't an issue, but the large number of these votes that will be contested because people were presented with a choice of two identical boxes either side of most candidates name, means it is an issue.


  • #404
    hdowney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭hdowney


    i am sure there is some sort of documentation as to what is classified a spoiled vote.

    mind you i think we as an irish people are not informed as much as we should be on the voting procedures. for example i have voted on a number of occasions and had next to no idea what the whole perforation thingy was about. so when they mentioned that some were not perforated properly i asked my mother why does that matter, only to be informed that you are meant to show the perforation to the people in the polling station as you place your voting paper in the ballot box??? really??? i didn't and would have had a hard job this election as i had to fold said paper up about five times to get it in the box.

    and aparantly we all have different franking machines with different perforation alignment so you know which papers came from which areas and stuff.

    i knew none of this. nobody told me anything. i turned 18 back when and was deemed old enough to have a vote, but nobody taught me anything about the voting processes in ireland.

    the only thing i have heard about this election compared to others is a bit more on our system of preportional representation. but nothing on the complete dynamic of voting as a whole.

    i can see though the more questions raised about wicklows ballot the more likely that any vote not pristine will be dumped as spoiled to make life easier. which may in turn alter the outcome drastically we do not know


  • #405
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,803 ✭✭✭edanto


    hdowney wrote: »
    what i mean by that is numbers in the party box instead of in the correct box for numbers. i can however see if it is obvious how the person intended their 1,2,3 etc to go (with some numbers in the correct boxes and some in the wrong) why the count centre staff would decide to keep them as ok votes. however now with all this hooha and recount business i can see that any vote that is not 'perfect' will be deemed a spoiled vote. so i think we can assume wicklow will have considerably more spoiled votes by the time we elect our five tds

    I humbly suggest that you are mistaken.

    My understanding of the rules of spoilt votes are that any ballot where the voting intentions are clear is to be counted.

    So in the case where someone has voted 1 to X and each number is only written down once, even if the number is not in the correct square, it will count.

    More opinions here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056185653


  • #406
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    Opinions count for nothing, any marking/writing other that the right numbers in the right boxes on the ballot paper will make it invalid or a spoilt vote.


  • #407
    hdowney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭hdowney


    edanto wrote: »
    I humbly suggest that you are mistaken.

    My understanding of the rules of spoilt votes are that any ballot where the voting intentions are clear is to be counted.

    So in the case where someone has voted 1 to X and each number is only written down once, even if the number is not in the correct square, it will count.

    More opinions here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056185653

    i take your point well. you would certainly hope this to be the case, as as long as each number is used only once, and clearly it would seem like a valid vote from perhaps a confused voter. it is rather unfair to penalise them for their confusion if the constituancy they are voting in didn't do all to help them understand the paper.

    however as i said above, with the continuing questioning left right and centre i can now see all papers of this kind being deemed invalid in order to simplify the process and settle complainants.

    unfair to the people who made the unfortunate mistakes - deffo


  • #408
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    This is probably what the RO had to adjudicate on.

    Billy Timmons, the defacto King of West Wicklow, has come out and confirmed this now.

    Along with a number of un-franked ballots. He also admitted that Dick was right to seek a recheck.


  • #409
    edanto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,803 ✭✭✭edanto


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    Opinions count for nothing, any marking/writing other that the right numbers in the right boxes on the ballot paper will make it invalid or a spoilt vote.

    At least I had the courtesy to refer to the opinions of about 10 other people!!

    What's the basis of your opinion?! I mean, if you can clear this up with a link to a returning officers manual, or have direct experience of the issue, then that would add weight to your opinion.


  • #410
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    Opinions count for nothing, any marking/writing other that the right numbers in the right boxes on the ballot paper will make it invalid or a spoilt vote.

    Not necessarily, during tallying in Dun Laoghaire there was a vote #1 for Richard Boyd Barrett and the person had written a letter in every box below it so that it spelled F, U, C, K, , O, F, F

    They counted the #1 as a valid first preference AFAIK :D


  • #411
    d'Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,024 ✭✭✭d'Oracle


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    Opinions count for nothing, any marking/writing other that the right numbers in the right boxes on the ballot paper will make it invalid or a spoilt vote.

    Actually the Opinion of the counter or Returning Officer count for a lot.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    joeybloggs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭joeybloggs


    Twitter reports saying the gap between Fitzgerald and Roche has increased to 11


  • #413
    bath handle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 370 ✭✭bath handle


    The usual approach is to allow the vote if the order of preference is clear. This occurs in every general election. There are always constituencies where a seat is decided by a small number of votes. Barrister turn up With books on electoral law.


  • #414
    hdowney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭hdowney


    joeybloggs wrote: »
    Twitter reports saying the gap between Fitzgerald and Roche has increased to 11

    which makes me :D:D:D


  • #415
    SB-08
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 566 ✭✭✭SB-08


    Joe Behan has said his tally man informed him that his transfers are generally not going to FF but rather Stephen Donnelly and considering he has over 4,000 votes it's looking good for Donnelly!


  • #416
    Sala
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Sala


    Just on the news, the recheck/recount made no difference and unless he can challenge it again roche is eliminated!!


  • #417
    hdowney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭hdowney


    Sala wrote: »
    Just on the news, the recheck/recount made no difference and unless he can challenge it again roche is eliminated!!

    if it was just a recheck - which at the moment it seems like it was, then roche is entitled to go to the returning officer and complain. he asked for a full recount which would b starting from scratch and counting through again, where as the recheck will continue at the 13th count where he got kicked out. so he is well within his rights to push the issue and wouldn't surprise me if he did :mad:


  • #418
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Can someone explain to me very clearly and distinctly, how is it POSSIBLE that after three days of counting there is still a constituency with NO confirmed TDs? O_o


  • #419
    Sala
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,494 ✭✭✭Sala


    hdowney wrote: »
    if it was just a recheck - which at the moment it seems like it was, then roche is entitled to go to the returning officer and complain. he asked for a full recount which would b starting from scratch and counting through again, where as the recheck will continue at the 13th count where he got kicked out. so he is well within his rights to push the issue and wouldn't surprise me if he did :mad:

    I thought they said they weren't sure if it was a recheck or full recount? Either way I hope the legal advice he gets is to concede defeat and go home


  • #420
    hdowney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭hdowney


    Sala wrote: »
    I thought they said they weren't sure if it was a recheck or full recount? Either way I hope the legal advice he gets is to concede defeat and go home

    what i have been hearing was it was JUST a recheck, which makes him entitled to still seek the full recount he was after.

    i wonder if his legal advisers said to him to just pack up and go home would he listen to them, or has he gotten so used to being in power and whatnot that he will cling on, making life difficult for everyone else in the process, till the last possible second?


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    Mushy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,440 ✭✭✭✭Mushy


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Can someone explain to me very clearly and distinctly, how is it POSSIBLE that after three days of counting there is still a constituency with NO confirmed TDs? O_o

    24 people running and first was nowhere near the quota. Transfers were minimal!


Advertisement