Yet again, N.I. elections fail to
meet international standards
(July 2005)
Polling station No 10/OP was in Holy Cross Primary School,
Ardoyne. Three Sinn Féin party agents were sitting,
one per desk, as catered for by the rules. And the three were
diligently recording the electoral register's numbers of all
those who voted. For reasons historical related to impersonation
and so forth, this is allowed in ni electoral law; {in most
democracies observed by the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (osce), it is not}. But then something
else happened, which was not allowed; every so often, one
of the three wrote down something on a piece of paper hidden
under her list of numbers. A little later, she put this note
into her handbag.
Taking electoral information gleaned from inside the polling
station to others outside is against the law. At this point,
therefore, I went over to the Chief Presiding Officer (cpo)
to say that an electoral offence was just about to be committed.
Sure enough, another party agent came in to take over, so
the one in question picked up her handbag and proceeded to
walk out. The cpo looked the other way. So I rushed over and
intervened, whereupon he reluctantly asked about this piece
of paper. She took it out - it looked like an envelope with
writing on one side and numbers on the back - said it was
personal and quickly put it back inside her bag. The cpo shrugged
his shoulders and off she went. Maybe he was afraid. Two minutes
later, I followed her outside and there she was, discussing
this 'personal note' with the Sinn Féin candidate and
others. Thus equipped, the Sinn Féin party workers
could then round up any stragglers. No wonder the turn-out
in nationalist areas was so high: 68% in Upper Falls was the
highest in Belfast, 56% in Pottinger the lowest.
Sinn Féin party workers were outside every polling
centre which was in a large nationalist area, and given that
here, in Ardoyne, the two polling stations were directly opposite
each other, it had rather more workers than usual. They were
there, like thought police, issuing dummy ballot papers to
the voters entering the polling station. This sort of intimidatory
pressure would not be allowed in any osce-adminstered election,
where no campaigning at all takes place within 100 metres
of the main entrance; indeed, not even a poster is allowed
to remain within that circle. Furthermore, in many democracies,
active campaigning on election day is also illegal.
For some voters, the dummy ballot paper was fairly comprehensible.
For others, however, especially the old, it was a source of
utter confusion: there was the double-sided dummy ballot paper,
the single-sided council ballot paper and the single-sided
Westminster ballot, and while two of them said 'X', the other
two were 1-2-3-4. What do I do now? cried one old man as he
entered the polling station, obviously not wanting to vote
at all. Cannon fodder. To then hear the Sinn Féin workers
say they were only there to explain the intricacies of pr-stv
was just balderdash!
Later on, I went across to the second polling station, Ardoyne
Community Centre. And the same party agent from Holy Cross
was in a polling booth, 'assisting' some hapless voter, whom
her colleagues had so successfully confused. This illegal
activity was not even questioned.
In such ways, the 2005 election failed to come up to international
standards and, yet again, NI electoral law failed to prevent
many electoral abuses. Now in Azerbaijan in 2003 and Kazakhstan
one year later, offences were committed by the ruling party,
i.e., the state. In NI, in contrast, offences were committed
by one of the competing parties, Sinn Féin, yet in
the full knowledge of the authorities. The dup and others
on the loyalist side, meanwhile, were much better this time,
at least in Oldpark, and there were few of those horrible
gauntlets, so common when the unionist vote was more fractured.
Elsewhere, however, they were still up to their old ways.
So what is wrong? It is not so much what Sinn Féin
does; it is more that the system allows them to do so much,
so that they then only have to break one hopelessly unenforceable
law in order to get away with massive electoral malpractice!
It goes back a long while.
Many years ago, a planner drew a line on a map of the Oldpark,
so to determine which area would be re-developed, and which,
pro-tem, would be left to decay. That line is now a peace-line
and part of the Oldpark boundary. It is all very sectarian.
In theory, democracy, inter alia, is the means by which folks
come together to decide, collectively, how and by whom they
shall be governed. The voters used to go to a polling station
on the Crumlin Road, so Protestants and Catholics et al would
mingle together, if but for a little while. Now the polling
station has been split into Holy Cross Boys for the Catholics
and the Ballysillan Presbyterian Church for the Protestants.
The whole thing is, again, very sectarian.
Nothing could have pleased Sinn Féin more. Like, as
I say, thought police, they can now produce these dummy ballot
papers telling the voters not only for whom they are to vote,
but stipulating also their order of preference: 3-2-1-4, or
whatever. It did not take long, in the count, to see that
many voters had done exactly as instructed. Voter management,
some call it. I'd prefer terms like cannon fodder, automatons,
robots, democracy à la banana republic.
A second consequence was that these dummy papers then littered
the polling station, like so much illegal propaganda.
So how could the procedures be improved? Firstly, allow the
osce to observe the entire electoral process, and not just
the count. They came to the province for their second election
- the first was in Nov. 2003 - but they were again not allowed
inside a polling station. For the first time, however, the
Electoral Commission set up a team of observers who did get
into the polling stations. So, a precedent has been set; maybe,
soon, impartial observation, both domestic and international,
will become part of our NI/UK procedures, just as it is catered
for in most modern democracies.
Secondly, the ballot paper should be in random, rather than
alphabetical order. Such a simple reform would greatly hinder
if not prevent the production of those ghastly dummy ballot
papers, which drove many an electoral official to distraction!
Furthermore, it would actually make the system fairer for
those candidates who have surnames starting at the bottom
end of the alphabet.
Thirdly, party agents should be observers only, as happens
abroad. They should not be allowed access to any particular
information about an individual voter; for whether you or
I vote is none of their business! Instead, they should be
entitled to observe the process only in general. While on
this topic, subsequent information on whether or not individual
voters have voted, the marked register, should not be for
sale; political parties should not be allowed to become a
thought police.
Fourthly, there should be only one party agent/observer per
polling place, (and not one per desk). What's more, all should
be clearly identified as such, with badges saying 'Party Observer',
similar to those worn by the election officials. If nothing
else, these two changes would reduce the huge amount of chitter-chatter
which takes place in some polling stations, as voters approach
these party agents, asking for directions (if not instructions),
or sometimes just to say hallo.
Fifthly, the vote should be secret. At the moment, it is not,
and via a serial number on its reverse side, each vote is
traceable to the counterfoil, where all the voter's details
are recorded.
Sixthly, polling centres should not be in the same immediate
location and, where possible, they should be situated on thorough-fares.
Lastly, some electoral officials - in particular, cpos - should
preferably not be local folk. If there were some impartial
observers present, then maybe the cpos would feel they could
lay down the electoral law without fear of any repercussions.
At the moment, then, the law is inadequate and, especially
when the cpo is frightened, unenforceable.
Except for the last two recommendations, all of the above
suggestions have been made on many occasions, not least in
these columns of Fortnight. So far, the Electoral Office has
not responded to any of them.
But at least we live in a democracy.
Peter Emerson
The de Borda Institute and Green Party candidate, Oldpark
OurKingdom, the new economics foundation and the de Borda Institute recently gave interested parties from think tanks, research groups and campaigning organisations, and members of the general public, the opportunity to participate in an online trial of consensus decision making.
The de Borda Institute and nef (the new economics foundation) have received a grant from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust to test the potential of consensus voting More...
Site information now available in a number
of langugages
