C
crugers
Guest
I voted yesterday but I was not happy that the returning officer performed his/her duties appropriately!
The Electoral Act 1992 Section 94 (5) States that the returning officer shall provide...
(a) such number of compartments in which the voters can mark their ballot papers screened from observation, as he considers necessary...and
(c) a sufficient number of ballot boxes.
I would have thought that the words "screened from observation" would mean that any individual could not observe another voter marking their ballot without making a definite effort to do so.
And I would interpret "a sufficient number of ballot boxes" to mean that when a ballot is put into the box, it would, again, take a deliberate effort for the ballot to be retrieved.
In my case I did observe another voter marking their ballot on the referendum by merely adjusting my gaze. I felt very conscious that my secret ballot was not entirely secret despite my best efforts.
When depositing my ballots in the ballot box it was so full that even though I pushed the papers in twice, they still stuck out of the box and could have been removed without effort.
Gone were the old three sided plywood individual polling booths to be replaced by aluminium framed booths where voters were two to a booth using a triangular shelf slightly bigger than the referendum ballot paper.
Gone were the old square steel ballot boxes to be replaced by "stackable" plastic boxes which obviously didn't have the same capacity. With the new format ballot papers and the multiple poll, it should have been obvious that they would not be suitable for the volumes involved.
A consequence of the e-voting debacle?
"Could do better" would be my comment on the returning officers report card!
The Electoral Act 1992 Section 94 (5) States that the returning officer shall provide...
(a) such number of compartments in which the voters can mark their ballot papers screened from observation, as he considers necessary...and
(c) a sufficient number of ballot boxes.
I would have thought that the words "screened from observation" would mean that any individual could not observe another voter marking their ballot without making a definite effort to do so.
And I would interpret "a sufficient number of ballot boxes" to mean that when a ballot is put into the box, it would, again, take a deliberate effort for the ballot to be retrieved.
In my case I did observe another voter marking their ballot on the referendum by merely adjusting my gaze. I felt very conscious that my secret ballot was not entirely secret despite my best efforts.
When depositing my ballots in the ballot box it was so full that even though I pushed the papers in twice, they still stuck out of the box and could have been removed without effort.
Gone were the old three sided plywood individual polling booths to be replaced by aluminium framed booths where voters were two to a booth using a triangular shelf slightly bigger than the referendum ballot paper.
Gone were the old square steel ballot boxes to be replaced by "stackable" plastic boxes which obviously didn't have the same capacity. With the new format ballot papers and the multiple poll, it should have been obvious that they would not be suitable for the volumes involved.
A consequence of the e-voting debacle?
"Could do better" would be my comment on the returning officers report card!