Starmer’s chronicles

Originally Posted by Taf

More on Family Voting....

https://youtu.be/rkQCSTKjcEM?t=405

Strange how none of these observers reported the alleged acts to the Polling Officers or the Police as they happened, as the practice was made illegal by the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 to prevent people from watching family members while they were voting, seeing how they cast their ballot and sometimes telling them how to vote.

In fact, their website says they should...

https://democracyvolunteers.org/about-us/

We maintain strict impartiality and require our observers to abide by UK and international standards, as well as the relevant local legal framework, when acting as our observers.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Strange how none of these observers reported the alleged acts to the Polling Officers or the Police as they happened, as the practice was made illegal by the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 to prevent people from watching family members while they were voting, seeing how they cast their ballot and sometimes telling them how to vote.

In fact, their website says they should...

https://democracyvolunteers.org/about-us/

They're not the ones breaking any laws.
If they did report it there and then, it wouldn't be a true picture of what might be going on at the other polling stations. They were there to observe, not interfere and police any goings on.

[Itshim]

Another minster resigns . What's the betting , Starmer knew nothing

Who ?

Originally Posted by nomadking

They're not the ones breaking any laws.
If they did report it there and then, it wouldn't be a true picture of what might be going on at the other polling stations. They were there to observe, not interfere and police any goings on.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ction-33499275

In response, the acting returning officer running the by-election has hit back at the claims, asking why the group issued their statement after polls closed at 10pm and not sooner. They also said staff were not told of family voting issues on-the-ground.

A spokesperson for the acting returning officer said: "Polling station staff are trained to look out for any evidence of undue influence on voters. No such issues have been reported today.

"If Democracy Volunteers were so concerned about alleged issues they could and should have raised them with us during polling hours so that immediate action could be taken. We have operated a central by-election hub which has been rapidly responding to reported issues during the day, in liaison with the police - who had a presence at every polling station - where necessary.

"It is extremely disappointing that Democracy Volunteers have waited until after polls have closed to make such claims."

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ction-33499275

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.

[Sephiroth]

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.

I only understood about 12% of that!

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I only understood about 12% of that!

It's damn statistics again eh

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Carth

It's damn statistics again eh

What about the other 88%?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I only understood about 12% of that!

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.

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.

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…

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

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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…

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...eform-watchdog

Usual nonsense. It's about MEASURING the level of incidents if no inventions are made. Interventions would reduce the level of incidents, but the level of incidents where there was no intervention would obviously be higher. How much higher would be completely unknown because nobody is monitoring it.
If you have no interventions for shoplifting as in parts of the US, there ends up being a free-for-all. Not everybody has the desire to shoplift, but with no interventions you get an idea of how many would shoplift.

However, John Ault, director of Democracy Volunteers, said it was “a normal international standard not to issue a comment until after voting has finished”.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Usual nonsense. It's about MEASURING the level of incidents if no inventions are made. Interventions would reduce the level of incidents, but the level of incidents where there was no intervention would obviously be higher. How much higher would be completely unknown because nobody is monitoring it.
If you have no interventions for shoplifting as in parts of the US, there ends up being a free-for-all. Not everybody has the desire to shoplift, but with no interventions you get an idea of how many would shoplift.

Quite.

Anyway, now I understand your point. Thanks.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Usual nonsense. It's about MEASURING the level of incidents if no inventions are made. Interventions would reduce the level of incidents, but the level of incidents where there was no intervention would obviously be higher. How much higher would be completely unknown because nobody is monitoring it.
If you have no interventions for shoplifting as in parts of the US, there ends up being a free-for-all. Not everybody has the desire to shoplift, but with no interventions you get an idea of how many would shoplift.

John Ault disagrees with you (and himself, on what he said previously…)

https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/20...661?ct=rw-null

Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky

NEW: Democracy Voluteers hit back at Manchester Council

John Ault, the report author, tells @joncraig "We did raise the issue of family voting with individual presiding officers during the day before we left or when they were not busy."