View Full Version : Polling Station Fiasco
Phil D. Rolls
07-05-2010, 09:35 PM
I love conspiracy theories, but in this case I think it's just a good old fashioned English * up.
steakbake
07-05-2010, 10:36 PM
When the first few seats were being announced showing swings to the Tories up to 12%, Mandelson was bitterly complaining that many Labour votes vote late.
Loved the comment on 'Have I got news for you'. The problem was caused by students [true] who had just got out their beds!
.
They'd have just voted Green anyway so it would have wasted vote!!!
They had 15 hours to vote, I don't know how anyone can really complain.
"We" invade countries forcing democracy on them...
...and we can't even manage the process properly ourselves.
Who are we to tell anyone else what to do?
I don't think anyone expected such a huge turnout for thr election with upto 75% voting in some areas, also heard the councils have been saving money for years by having less paper etc and this time due to high turn out they were caught out.
heretoday
08-05-2010, 10:05 AM
It was a right old carry on for sure. A British classic really - nervous sweating local officials trying to blame it on students without polling cards, several shrill females bleating about their democratic rights being stepped on and some people even comparing the fiasco to elections in corrupt African countries.
Just employ a few more staff late on. And tell the dozy punters to get there early in future to avoid disappointment.
lyonhibs
08-05-2010, 10:29 AM
I loved some of the quotes from the "enraged" political activists who - by their own admission - hadn't joined the queues at 6pm or 7pm because "it was raining"
"You know, we're standing in the rain, so it's very serious, very undemocratic"
"Those elections in Afghanistan went off without a hitch, why can't we do it over here"
The only people who have a cause for complaint are those whose polling station ran out of ballot papers - someone's head needs to roll for that, because that is a farce - but I imagine polling stations are staffed and setup to accomodate all the people in its "area" presuming they come in a relatively regular flow throughout the FIFTEEN hours people had to vote.
If thousands of students rock up after their evening nap, at the same time as hordes of moaning Myrtle housewives - who didn't come earlier cos it was raining or the tea couldn't wait half an hour - then I guess this overloads them - most of them will have been set up in school or church halls, not vast warehouses, so their physical capacity is likely to have accordingly restricted.
Dinkydoo
08-05-2010, 10:30 AM
They had 15 hours to vote, I don't know how anyone can really complain.
What about people working shifts from 6am to 6pm?
They go home, shower, get some dinner and then to out to vote at around 8. They wait for two hours and are then turned away simply because the polling station couldn't handle the tunrout - I certainly wouldn't be chuffed.
Surely even turning up at half 9 is sufficient time to make a two minute vote.......
Westie1875
08-05-2010, 12:26 PM
What about people working shifts from 6am to 6pm?
They go home, shower, get some dinner and then to out to vote at around 8. They wait for two hours and are then turned away simply because the polling station couldn't handle the tunrout - I certainly wouldn't be chuffed.
Surely even turning up at half 9 is sufficient time to make a two minute vote.......
Postal votes are available :cool2:
hibsdaft
08-05-2010, 01:35 PM
people work anti-social hours and have alsorts of commitments. thats why the polling stations are open from 7am til 10pm.
if you turn up at 9.45pm you should be able to vote, simple as that.
s.a.m
08-05-2010, 02:14 PM
people work anti-social hours and have alsorts of commitments. thats why the polling stations are open from 7am til 10pm.
if you turn up at 9.45pm you should be able to vote, simple as that.
I agree. If there was history of this kind of thing happening, and people had been advised to vote as early as possible just in case, then there might be a case for saying folk only had themselves to blame. But that's not the case, and what we've learned is that there is no contingency arrangement for a larger than expected turnout, or a late surge. Not a heinous error, but something to think about in future, perhaps.
I would also say that, living close to my polling station, if I turned up and it was mobbed, I would probably go away and come back later. I don't think that that is lazy or stupid - in fact you might say that you were being helpful :dunno: Normally it's quieter later on, and that would seem to make sense.
If they had this bloody election on a saturday instead of a thursday because it's the day it's always been done on , then we wouldn't have had this problem.
s.a.m
09-05-2010, 10:41 AM
If they had this bloody election on a saturday instead of a thursday because it's the day it's always been done on , then we wouldn't have had this problem.
That's a good point. It would also mean that schools could be used, without having to close them for the day.
Dinkydoo
09-05-2010, 11:06 AM
If they had this bloody election on a saturday instead of a thursday because it's the day it's always been done on , then we wouldn't have had this problem.
Here here :agree:
probably a bit too much like common sense for some people :greengrin :rolleyes:
speedy_gonzales
09-05-2010, 02:41 PM
people work anti-social hours and have alsorts of commitments. thats why the polling stations are open from 7am til 10pm.
if you turn up at 9.45pm you should be able to vote, simple as that.
Far too simple. Do you really expect the system to work smoothly if there's a sudden rise in numbers wishing to vote in such a short time?
Fact is, the electorate, that's US, over the years have turned out less and less for votes/referendums/elections. The powers that be then do their best to ensure that there are enough resources to ensure there is an efficient ballot process.
What happened down south was an unfortunate set of circumstance. Yes, ballot papers did apparently run out in a couple of polling stations, but in the main, a large percentage of those that were turned away decided, for whatever reason, to turn up at the same time. Like driving on the motorway when you suddenly come up against a huge queue of traffic, you slow for a few miles then are on your way again, this is not incident caused, this is volume caused. These queues didn't gradually build up over the day indicating a problem in the process, the suddenly built up an hour or so after tea-time, indicating the polling stations couldn't handle the volume of people in such a short space of time.
So, it may be everyones right to vote, but we can't seriously expect the system to be idle all day then successfully cope with a late influx!?!
Phil D. Rolls
10-05-2010, 08:33 AM
So, it may be everyones right to vote, but we can't seriously expect the system to be idle all day then successfully cope with a late influx!?!
But is that not the sort of thing restaurants and hospitals, to name but two, have to deal with on a regular basis? If this is the first election that this late "spike" has happened, fair enough, it's just one of those things.
On the other hand, if previous polls have shown a similar patter, albeit with a smaller amount of people, then there's less excuse.
Dinkydoo
10-05-2010, 11:14 AM
Far too simple. Do you really expect the system to work smoothly if there's a sudden rise in numbers wishing to vote in such a short time?
Fact is, the electorate, that's US, over the years have turned out less and less for votes/referendums/elections. The powers that be then do their best to ensure that there are enough resources to ensure there is an efficient ballot process.
What happened down south was an unfortunate set of circumstance. Yes, ballot papers did apparently run out in a couple of polling stations, but in the main, a large percentage of those that were turned away decided, for whatever reason, to turn up at the same time. Like driving on the motorway when you suddenly come up against a huge queue of traffic, you slow for a few miles then are on your way again, this is not incident caused, this is volume caused. These queues didn't gradually build up over the day indicating a problem in the process, the suddenly built up an hour or so after tea-time, indicating the polling stations couldn't handle the volume of people in such a short space of time.
So, it may be everyones right to vote, but we can't seriously expect the system to be idle all day then successfully cope with a late influx!?!
No but measures should have been put in place to ensure that everyone in the queue before 10 would get an opportunity to vote - no matter how long it took.
Andy74
10-05-2010, 01:09 PM
But is that not the sort of thing restaurants and hospitals, to name but two, have to deal with on a regular basis? If this is the first election that this late "spike" has happened, fair enough, it's just one of those things.
On the other hand, if previous polls have shown a similar patter, albeit with a smaller amount of people, then there's less excuse.
Not really the same is it?
A restaurant will expect you to book and they stagger people over certain times to esnure they can cope.
If you turn up and they are full or you turn up just before closing you won't get a meal.
If you turn up at A&E you will have to wait a number of hours to get seen and treated. There's no real closing time though is there so the example is not the same.
Both places you quote could not cope with the type of late demand that happened.
Closing time is closing time. The one woman that seemed to appear in every interview first turned up at 6 then left, then at 7, then left, then returned shortly before 10 and calimed that it was undemocratice to not be able to vote. If she'd stayed at any of the earlier times she could have voted no problem.
Phil D. Rolls
10-05-2010, 02:07 PM
Not really the same is it?
A restaurant will expect you to book and they stagger people over certain times to esnure they can cope.
If you turn up and they are full or you turn up just before closing you won't get a meal.
If you turn up at A&E you will have to wait a number of hours to get seen and treated. There's no real closing time though is there so the example is not the same.
Both places you quote could not cope with the type of late demand that happened.
Closing time is closing time. The one woman that seemed to appear in every interview first turned up at 6 then left, then at 7, then left, then returned shortly before 10 and calimed that it was undemocratice to not be able to vote. If she'd stayed at any of the earlier times she could have voted no problem.
Well put. :agree:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.