Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't know. But if it is, I suspect it's expensive and not something to be done casually without impressive financial backing.

My (unresearched) understanding is that the returning officer's word is final. Candidates can demand a recount if the result is very close - and sometimes do - but a court challenge is unlikely.

I don't remember such a thing happening in the UK.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri May 4th, 2007 at 05:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that to get a re-vote, you would have to show some form of active electoral fraud. If the spoilt ballots were shown to be otherwise almost entirely votes from one party, or all to be from one particular area which would tend to vote in a particular way.  If you just showed that a percentage of voters were confused by the ballot papers, then the courts aren't likely to go for it.  After all what party would want to go to court and claim that their supporters are unfairly disadvantaged because they are stupid?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri May 4th, 2007 at 08:22:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If the same rules apply as for Westminster elections, mistakes by the Returning Officer which might have affected the result can lead to a new election. There was a famous election in Winchester where the LibDem victory, with a majority of two, was set aside and a new vote held.

However there is no provision for re-voting because electors misunderstood the instructions.

This will of course be used as an excuse to attack the principle of proportional representation. Perhaps the lesson should be that we should adopt one system of PR and use it for all elections instead of having a different one for each type of election (especially if more than one is used on the same day).

by Gary J on Fri May 4th, 2007 at 12:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps the lesson should be that we should adopt one system of PR and use it for all elections instead of having a different one for each type of election...

When first read I expanded "PR" to "Public Relations."

The sentence works either way, I suppose, depending on one's basic snark level.  

;-)


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri May 4th, 2007 at 12:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What is this public relations of which you speak? For electoral reformers PR means only proportional representation.
by Gary J on Fri May 4th, 2007 at 01:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Only that my brain has been destroyed by too many marketing meetings.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri May 4th, 2007 at 01:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series