Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, aaid said:

To the extent that it resulted in a 400,000 majority?

Why’s not?

Sure there’s gain in keeping Scotland divided down nationalist / unionist lines. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I am still not sure if you are saying they did or didn't (tilt a 'postal votes excluded overall YES' into a 'postal votes included overall NO'). If you don't know that is fine obviously, it was just the way you expressed it, sounded like you were saying they did.

Be interesting to see those numbers on postal votes and their size and breakdown versus the non postal votes if they are published anywhere. 

if only, on the day votes were counted yes won marginally, i will try to find the stats, I though that was common knowledge? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ParisInAKilt said:

Why’s not?

Sure there’s gain in keeping Scotland divided down nationalist / unionist lines. 

How exactly would that work and how would you keep that quiet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be very hard to get the postal vote:on the day vote break down anywhere. I hope I am not speaking bullshit but if my memory serves me correctly it was openly reported that yes won at the actual ballot box.postal  results from Argyll and Bute were 70/30 in favour of no and that seems to be the trend in any individual constituencies i can find

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

It seems to be very hard to get the postal vote:on the day vote break down anywhere. I hope I am not speaking bullshit but if my memory serves me correctly it was openly reported that yes won at the actual ballot box.postal  results from Argyll and Bute were 70/30 in favour of no and that seems to be the trend in any individual constituencies i can find

I'm pretty sure that they don't count postal votes separately and they are mixed in with all the other votes so there won't be a breakdown.   

As I mentioned before, it would be possible that activists could get a guesstimate based on the verification process for postal votes but that would be inaccurate.

I can double check this with a friend of mine who was at the Edinburgh count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great book on the Florida 2000 results. What actually happened and how.

 

51yGCU-GT1L._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

EDIT: Seriously read it and you'll never trust an election again, and not necessarily for any nefarious reasons

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'm pretty sure that they don't count postal votes separately and they are mixed in with all the other votes so there won't be a breakdown.   

As I mentioned before, it would be possible that activists could get a guesstimate based on the verification process for postal votes but that would be inaccurate.

I can double check this with a friend of mine who was at the Edinburgh count.

The procedure for counting postal votes is in here. 

 

https://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/#more-61970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, phart said:

This is a great book on the Florida 2000 results. What actually happened and how.

 

51yGCU-GT1L._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

EDIT: Seriously read it and you'll never trust an election again, and not necessarily for any nefarious reasons

The US presidential system is one where electoral fraud can - and probably does - have an impact.

Part of that is because the operation of the election is carried out at a state and not federal level and states can - and do - place legislative restrictions on the electorate which has a gerrymandering impact.  

The other aspect is that because of the electoral college system which means that whoever wins the most votes in a state - by a majority of one - gets all the electoral college votes.

Of course Florida in 2000 was particularly notorious because that got George W Bush over the line and the Governor of Florida at the time was his brother, Jeb.

The 1960 election where JFK beat Nixon is similarly "tainted".   There's a lot of allegations over voting in Cook County, Illinois - Chicago - which saw Kennedy win Illinois by less than 9000 votes, which took him over the line.   This is the root of the alleged links between the Kennedys and the Mafia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, aaid said:

The US presidential system is one where electoral fraud can - and probably does - have an impact.

Part of that is because the operation of the election is carried out at a state and not federal level and states can - and do - place legislative restrictions on the electorate which has a gerrymandering impact.  

The other aspect is that because of the electoral college system which means that whoever wins the most votes in a state - by a majority of one - gets all the electoral college votes.

Of course Florida in 2000 was particularly notorious because that got George W Bush over the line and the Governor of Florida at the time was his brother, Jeb.

The 1960 election where JFK beat Nixon is similarly "tainted".   There's a lot of allegations over voting in Cook County, Illinois - Chicago - which saw Kennedy win Illinois by less than 9000 votes, which took him over the line.   This is the root of the alleged links between the Kennedys and the Mafia.

Cheers for the info but i read the book, the above isn't really relevant but cheers for gatekeeping that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phart said:

Cheers for the info but i read the book, the above isn't really relevant but cheers for gatekeeping that as well.

If you're interested in this sort of stuff it's worth reading up on the 1960 US election, often overlooked as history has judged JFK good, Nixon bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

if only, on the day votes were counted yes won marginally, i will try to find the stats, I though that was common knowledge? 

Not to me it wasn't.

I took these numbers from here so assuming they are accurate...

http://www.electionsscotland.info/info/13/referendum/42/scottish_independence_referendum_2014_-_vote_breakdown

1,617,989 - YES
2,001,926 - NO
3,619,915 - Total
3,623,344 - Votes cast
3429 - - Spoiled

I cannot find the actual number but it does not make much difference if I am 100,000 out but if you assume 750,000 postal votes (postal vote turnout was huge apparently 94%+ so it may be higher because as of 11  Sept 2014 789,024 postal voters had registered).

So working back to make a small YES margin without the postal votes...

1,617,989 less 175,000 = 1,442,989 - YES (50.28%)

2,001,926 less 575,000 = 1,426,926 - NO (49.72%)

Which means NO would have to have taken 575,000 postal votes out of 750,000 or about 77%. If the YES lead was closer to 51% v 49% before postal votes then NO would have needed nearly 80% of postal votes to end up as it did.

 

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Yes thats correct, on the day votes yes won however postal votes were massively in favour of no

interesting.   how do we know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, antidote said:

The procedure for counting postal votes is in here. 

 

https://wingsoverscotland.com/our-man-on-the-scene/#more-61970

Thanks - confirms what my mate said.  No tally or breakdown on votes either by postal vote or polling station so any estimates on those are due to sampling by observers at the count - i.e. their best guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, aaid said:

I seriously doubt that there were more Yes votes on the day and that it was postal votes that swung it.   There were something like 700,000 people registered for a postal vote and even assuming they all voted, you are looking at something like 80% of those votes to be No to give you the result on the day.

Even if that was the case, so what?

If you look at the sort of people who regularly have a postal vote - I don't think you can draw any conclusions on people who took one for the referendum only because, for example, they were on holiday - then they are people who either cannot guarantee they will be around to vote or who have difficulty in getting to the polling station.   So that would be people whose jobs take them away at short notice, people who live in rural areas and the elderly.   These are not Yes-friendly demographics, so it wouldn't be a surprise if there were more No postal votes, but I'd be amazed if it were to the level people are suggesting.   Funnily enough, there were rumours circulating on the night of the EU referendum that Leave had done well on the postal votes - similar demographic I'd argue.

This got legs on the night of the referendum when Ruth Davidson said that she knew from the postal votes that No would win, that was interpreted as somehow Better Together were up to something underhand.

That was a stupid thing for her to say as it gave the game away to an extent and got her in some bother - points to her lack of political acumen.

Postal votes are opened prior to the count to check that they are valid but they are counted along with the other votes once the polls close.   This is done in front of party or campaign representatives to ensure that everything is above board.   No official count takes place and the agents aren't allowed to take tallies.  However, especially with only two options on the ballot paper it's impossible not to get a feel for how things are going.   I've no doubt Yes were getting similar feedback.

There is scope for electoral fraud with postal voting - as there is with personation -  but I'd argue that's only the case when its targeted and when a couple of hundred votes will make a difference, for example in a council election, it would be next to impossible for a country wide referendum.

If people are looking for the reasons why Yes lost, there's a much more simpler explanation, the arguments weren't good enough to convince enough people to vote for independence.

However, if you prefer tin hat conspiracy theories then knock yourselves out.

agreed, and just to play the game somewhat, i think its pretty obvious there wasn't a majority in 2014.  if there was we'd be in 60% polling figures by now; or at least certainly over 50% in most polls.

Edited by PapofGlencoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Yes thats correct, on the day votes yes won however postal votes were massively in favour of no

I've asked someone within the SNP who would most likely be in the know about this.

The response confirms you are incorrect.

Yes won neither.

Edited by Cove_Sheep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, aaid said:

If you're interested in this sort of stuff it's worth reading up on the 1960 US election, often overlooked as history has judged JFK good, Nixon bad.

Precinct 13 i believe. I've never read a book specifically about it, it just always gets a mention in any other book around the same time.

RFK was the good guy not JFK, in my opinion. The dad Joe as you probably know was worth the watching even more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, phart said:

Precinct 13 i believe. I've never read a book specifically about it, it just always gets a mention in any other book around the same time.

RFK was the good guy not JFK, in my opinion. The dad Joe as you probably know was worth the watching even more!

True. It would have been interesting to see how things might have turned out had RFK not been assassinated and ran against Nixon in 68 rather than Hubert Humphrey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thplinth said:

Not to me it wasn't.

I took these numbers from here so assuming they are accurate...

http://www.electionsscotland.info/info/13/referendum/42/scottish_independence_referendum_2014_-_vote_breakdown

1,617,989 - YES
2,001,926 - NO
3,619,915 - Total
3,623,344 - Votes cast
3429 - - Spoiled

I cannot find the actual number but it does not make much difference if I am 100,000 out but if you assume 750,000 postal votes (postal vote turnout was huge apparently 94%+ so it may be higher because as of 11  Sept 2014 789,024 postal voters had registered).

So working back to make a small YES margin without the postal votes...

1,617,989 less 175,000 = 1,442,989 - YES (50.28%)

2,001,926 less 575,000 = 1,426,926 - NO (49.72%)

Which means NO would have to have taken 575,000 postal votes out of 750,000 or about 77%. If the YES lead was closer to 51% v 49% before postal votes then NO would have needed nearly 80% of postal votes to end up as it did.

 

So i am speaking rubbish🙈 feck knows why i had that in my head. I was very sure of myself which makes it worse 😳 

Edited by hampden_loon2878

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I am not one for conspiracy theory...
However better together knew they had won just from "pre-sampling" the postal votes.

Since 2014 I have cancelled my postal vote and always vote in person.
This video is an eye opener.

 

Edited by Haggis_trap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Haggis_trap said:

^ I am not one for conspiracy theory...
However better together knew they had won just from "pre-sampling" the postal votes.

Since 2014 I have cancelled my postal vote and always vote in person.
This video is an eye opener.

 

What in your opinion is so eye opening about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Admit-ably I havent watched that yet as I'm in work)

BUT would imagine that as political candidates and there representatives are allowed at the counts.

Therefore unavoidably, by observing, can ascertain some indicative observation of the way things are going.Especially in a binary vote of Yes / No.

There would be much more suspicion and worry if there werent these "partisan" observers from all sides present.

 

....so yeah cant imagine whats eye-opening at that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have been to postal counts as a political representative in the past  

They empty the boxes and tidy the ballots under the eye of observers, it is easy to see the vote tallies especially if its only a binary vote...

 

I dont believe there was jiggery pockery  

Scotland/YES lost because not enough people voted for it. 

Scotland wasnt ready ...

I believe she is now....  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, phart said:

Glenrothes is the one to look at if you're going to look.

I suspect that the marked register that went missing would probably show that a lot of people rose from their graves to vote in that election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

So i am speaking rubbish🙈 feck knows why i had that in my head. I was very sure of myself which makes it worse 😳 

When you mentioned Argyll and Bute, it reminded me of this, perhaps this is where you got it from.   I read this at the time and it's a complete load of nonsense which seems to be predicated on their views - as Yes activists - that their internal polling and canvassing didn't reflect the actual result so went looking for reasons why that was the case.   The missed the obvious explanation that people change their minds and people lie.

 

http://www.thescottishstandard.scot/scottish-politics/the-postal-ballot-at-the-scottish-independence-referendum-fraud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...