Forum Topic

Front Page

Also about lost votes in Putney.

Barbara Stevens ● 564d13 Comments

It's not as if Putney is Sunderland.This needs a complete independent transparent investigation.Spreadsheet error is an unacceptable explanation.Could this error happen else where?It also puts us in the same boat as the US elections or various other doddy countries. Unfortunately it seems many are happy to set sail in such boats as long as there heading in the direction of their choice.The fact that it doesn't change the result completely misses the point. I'm not sure anyone is disputing the winner. But every single vote should count.At the other end of the result, you have decisions made on deposits being returned and their proportion of the share of the vote being accurately reported.It seems the UK can not do referendums properly do we have to add General elections to the list?

Ed Robinson ● 563d

I meant a form of adding machine, they keep changing where we vote the Library, then the Scout hall. Also so I've heard some other places depending where you live in Putney. Collate then from all the voting stations.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

I seem to recall there was a lot of distrust in electronic voting machines following the last US presidential election? (Plus some lawsuits flying around.) And before that the "hanging chads" during the Bush/Gore election? At least with ballot papers one can just retrieve them and do a complete recount ... just take care with those spreadsheets!Actually, Andy, I was thinking there might soon be a CEO position available with a large US security company - time to come out of retirement? 🙂

Michael Ixer ● 563d

That's what they did with the GLA elections. Think they call it a computer.Wouldnt have been very good if the election had been this week with the global breakdown of systems caused by one persons error.Seems the old adage stands of rubbish in  rubbish out.By the way Michael hows the new job going at Crowdstrike ? 😁😁😁

Andy Pike ● 563d

Why don't they design a machine like when people used to clock on.  When your handed a piece of paper mark in black ink, you go to the machine push your vote into the machine, the machine will recognize who you voted for. This will add up all the votes. With all the electronics out these days, would have thought somebody could have invented something by now.

Barbara Stevens ● 563d

Obviously there is one person in overall charge but for this to happen means the process was flawed.Something as important as an election I would expect at least two people to work independently doing any calculations.If one person can make a mistake with a spreadsheet and it can go unnoticed it also means one person can in theory also misrepresent the results. No allegation of such in this case but people need confidence in the system.I'm not sure the US system is anything to laugh about - neither party comes out clean IMO.

Ed Robinson ● 564d

Have a day off David or a lie down in a darkened room.

Andy Pike ● 564d

"5000+ votes is a big and obvious bundle (s) of paper."Perhaps Trump wanted to borrow some for November and had asked nicely?"'I just want 11,780 votes': Trump pressed Georgia to overturn Biden victory"

David Ainsworth ● 564d

In Wandsworth the only pressure is to get it right. This would never have happened under Gerald Jones or Chris Buss both being stickers for getting it right and double checking, even triple checking the obvious.5000+ votes is a big and obvious bundle (s) of paper.

Andy Pike ● 564d

Andy, the other thing I've noticed as that these days people often have a blind faith in the results of calculators, spreadsheets, etc and when I was doing some OU Astronomy courses out of interest I had to point out several times on course forums that it was useful to do a "sanity check" on ones calculation to check it was in the right "ball park" or magnitude of an expected result- a couple of times I've had to write on an exam paper that I know a result isn't correct as it's not reasonable but I've not time to fix it; I'm told by an OU tutor/exam marker that would be viewed favourably. In physics experimental terms the vote count might be viewed as being in the right magnitude - after all, it didn't affect the ultimate result - but it is interesting that noone did a manual check of the overall totals against the counts in each ballot box. But then, I'm not sure what pressure is put on returning officers to produce a speedy result.

Michael Ixer ● 564d

Andy, these things do inevitably come down to human error, with the possible exception of hardware failure when the real test is how one reacts and what contingency plans one has in place. Having been in the midst of some IT issues in the past (not usually created by me, I'd add!) I know that hindsight is a wonderful thing particularly when one has the benefit of not being under pressure and has had a good night's sleep. Of course that's when good, rehearsed procedures and contingency plans are a major blessing :-)

Michael Ixer ● 564d

I'm sure it is Michael but one would think that the returning officer would have had the wherewithal to realise something wadnt right. Simply looking at the bundles would have given a clue. Or why the numbers declared didnt tally with the numbers initially counted in.Too easy to blame a spreadsheet it was human error, and then not to come publicly clean with it until 2 weeks after the event.

Andy Pike ● 564d

I guess if Crowdstrike can wreak havoc on the world's IT systems by, allegedly, distributing one 'bad' file in a security update then it's easy for a small error to slip through on a spreadsheet?

Michael Ixer ● 564d