Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
But then there wouldn't be a true reflection of what was going on in polling stations they weren't at. Instead of a figure of 12% of votes, it would've been a lot less at the stations they were at and intervened, but still 12% at the ones they weren't. That 12% would've been unknown because nobody was there to observe it. Just as with polling OBSERVERS around the World, their job is to observe, not interfere.
The controlling aspect over voting would still take place, just not necessarily in the voting booths.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
If instead of only simply observing, they intervened, then from that point on any other attempts would also have been intervened. As a result the number observed would've been less than 12%.
Now consider a polling station that they weren't observing, then the figure might've been 12%. The only way of knowing that the possible figure for unobserved stations was 12%, was by not intervening and seeing what happened naturally.
General principle of you can't properly measure natural behaviour by intervening.
|
So, in summary, your proposition is by not doing something at somewhere where they were observing, they could have potentially affected something at somewhere else where they weren’t observing, thus potentially changing something that they couldn’t see or confirm was being changed, whilst having no idea if the possible figure of 12% was happening?
The general principle of you can’t properly measure natural behaviour by not being there to measure it…
btw, the Electoral Commission disagrees with your position on reporting any potential issues…
Quote:
|
The Electoral Commission said observers were expected to raise irregularities or incidents of potential fraud at the polls “on the spot”.
|
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...eform-watchdog