British Elections--here's what I want to know. . .

[Shopaholic]

I heard this morning that their voting begins at 7am and ends at 10pm. They also are allowed to vote by mail (new this year). Since WWII, their average voter turnout has been in the 70's (although the last election was only around 59%). Also, according to what I just heard on CBS News--their exit polls are usually reliable. So if the UK can allow extended voting hours, and voting by mail, and they have RELIABLE exit polls----why can't we?

[maxsolomon]

1. because we hate democracy?

10 pm!

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. The idea is that 15 hours of voting

allows everyone to vote, whatever your working hours. If you vote on a working day (and even if you don't - plenty of people work at the weekends, after all), it only seems reasonable.

[Febble]

3. As I'm here...

Yes, the election system works pretty well here, except I am FURIOUS that the government have jeopardized it with corruptible postal votes.

But the count is a model of how things can be done. All paper ballots (and therefore no queues to vote - all they need provide is a pencil and a ballot paper) and the count is done under full scrutiny - scrutineers and members of the public wander round the bank tellers doing the counting, and TV cameras are there too. It all takes place in school gyms and town halls.

No result is announced until all the candidates are happy with the count. Then the returning officer announces the result.

And we will have enough results by tomorrow morning to declare the winner. If, God forbid, Michael Howard's party wins, he will be in Downing Street by tomorrow night.

Exit polls are predicting a reduction in Labour's majority, which increases the chances Blair will resign sooner rather than later. I give him 14 months.

[rumpel]

4. Question. Is it all write-in? Same throughout the country? I saw a lady

interviewed on CNN holding up a paper ballot, and I missed Schneider's question, but heard her response: "Yes, I guess, if I lose this paper, I guess someone else could vote instead."
Could you explain that some more?

[Febble]

Try my handy guide to the UK constitution here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/20/6453/39287

But to answer your question: each constituency (see link) has a series of candidates, normally one for each of the three major parties, plus a few extras. No write ins.

Normally you go to the polling station (like your precincts, placed in local schools and church halls), you are checked off on a list, and are given a ballot paper with the candidates names and parties on it. You go to a plywood booth with a pencil tied to it. You mark your chose candidate with a cross, fold it, and put it in the ballot box.

That's it. If someone else votes in your place, tough, but there's a fuss. There is some fraud, but not a lot, although this year for the first time there is "postal voting on demand" and people are worried about fraud. There has been some. I think there will be a huge fuss, and the postal voting will be rescinded in future.

But the counts are fine. Virtually no opportunity for fraud there, and it simply isn't an issue.

[Rex_Goodheart]

9. You make a good point about no queues with paper ballots...

Here in my South Carolina precinct there were never any significant lines as long as we had paper ballots, not even in Gore vs. Bush.

But in this past election I had to wait an hour in line, while voters queued up to 6 electronic machines.

These e-voting machines simply intimidate and confound a number of people, no matter how simple the onscreen instructions. I thought the woman in front of me would NEVER get off the damn machine.

[Chomp]

5. Ok, this is very complicated...

...but here is the mind-boggling electoral system we have in many European countries, like Britain and Ireland.

You register as a voter. Election day comes, you go to the polling station, tell the desk worker your name and show your ID. He draws a line through your name on his list.

He then gives you a piece of paper with the names of the candidates on it. You walk over to a little wooden booth - you usually have an excellent selection of booths - and close the curtain behind you. In the booth is a little black pencil on a piece of string, and a little desk made of plywood. You take the pencil, put the paper on the plywood and put a pencil-mark on the piece of paper next to your preferred candidate. In some countries the pencil mark is an X. In others you write in a series of number.

Stay with me, here's the good bit...

You then go back out to the desk worker, who has a big black box in front of him. You put the piece of paper into the box and then you leave and go about your daily business.

At the end of the day, all the black boxes are taken to enormous rooms (school gyms, town halls etc), the contents are poured out onto long tables and counted. This count is entirely open and public: election workers count the pieces of paper full view of the candidates, public, tv cameras, pollsters, tallyers, seconders...in fact, whoever the hell wants to be there!

The person with the most X's wins.

Within under 24 hours, the national vote has been mostly counted and the shape of the new government is definitively, verifiably, transparantly known.

Et voila, the wonder that is functioning democracy! Mind-boggling!

[rumpel]

6. I would be much more comfortable with that. Any assistance allowed for

handicapped voters, which seems to be one of the big arguments here.

[Febble]

8. Yes. You can have a friend help.

It is absurdly simple

[CottonBear]

7. Damn. Remind me again...

exactly why did we want independence from Britain? :shrug:

[rumpel]

10. yes...

:hurts:

:)

[Peace Patriot]

11. If the Bush Cartel had wanted an honest, verifiable, recountable, ...

...secure, auditable, fair, and transparent election, why didn't we have one?

It's not all that difficult.