Spoiling your ballot paper - can anyone confirm this?

[TheListingAttic]

To keep this in the 'spirit' of AIBU: I've always been unashamedly judgmental about people who don't vote. If you can't be arsed to go tick a box (especially as a women, when it's only relatively recently that the men deigned to allow you to do it) then you can't complain about pretty much anything about the society you live in. I fully understand people's disillusionment with the political system in general, and the whole shower of politicians in specific. So like a lot of people, I was of the opinion that if you can't bring yourself to tick a box endorsing any one of them (even as the least worst option) then you should at least go to the bother of spoiling of your ballot paper, to register your engagement with the process but protest against the actual choices it offers you. That's my two cents.

Talking to a friend of mine the other day, who used to do some sort of admin work within the electoral process, and she expressed absolute rage and frustration at people who spoil their ballots. Her point was that these papers don't register with anybody. They're never counted. She implied most papers are counted by machine, and anything that's not readable as a clear vote for a particular party just gets swept into a rubbish pile, and no one actually counts the discrepancy between numbers turning up at the polling station and numbers of valid votes. Your protest doesn't register with anyone at all.

So is it worth it? Is there any point in doing this, if no one actually notices? It seems a bit like holding a protest rally inside a sound-proofed disused warehouse. Is it even correct? Is there really genuinely no record or acknowledgement of the numbers of people turning up to vote but effectively not casting their vote? I probably wasn't going to spoil my ballot paper, but I always thought this was a worthwhile action. Now it seems like it's not recognised as any different to simply not turning up! Am I wrong?

Spoiling is completely pointless, you get lumped in with the incompetent, not voting lumps you in with the apathetic of course, but that's probably better than the incompetent and at least saves you time (or the system the cost of a postal vote)

Your friend is right, I don't vote either.

You could put rules in place around a 'none of the above' though Hamiltoes. I agree we couldn't just leave it with no government - Belgium was without an official government for ages and some of the regulations various state functions came up with were frankly bonkers (can't say as is a work thing - and obviously my view in no way representative of my company's position and they would never describe something as bonkers).

I suppose putting in a none of the above option also begs the question of whether we have compulsory voting - and what rules are put in place if NOTA wins. From a v quick google, it looks like various countries deal with it differently.

I wonder if the move away from 2 party dominance will encourage another look at various forms of PR. I know quite a lot of people that didn't want AV (and I still find it bizarre that Clegg settled for that as the option) but would be keen on other forms of PR. Even the Tories have admitted that FPTP damages them in Scotland, where their vote is very spread out.

We should focus on encouraging more people to vote. If that means encouraging people to go out and spoil their papers (by writing None clearly for example so a trend is noticed) then I'm all for it.

I'm still disappointed that PR was rejected.

Its not pointless to spoil your vote.

It brightens up a few moments of the tedious hours and hours at a count if when does have a rant on the ballot paper.

I will always cast a vote - people died to give me and other women the opportunity and for that I am grateful.

I thought a tick was a spoiled ballot! You have to put in an X, don't you?

Spoiled ballots don't get counted, even if the X is front and centre.

Maybe they need to put up big posters at polling stations that say:-
X not tick
and
Spoiled ballots don't get counted
So, don't waste your time putting anything else on your ballot even if you are a world famous artist and you are drawing a masterpiece, unless you hope to go on the reject pile.

The very fact people don't know that spoilt votes are counted is shocking.

If this was wildly known more people might bother to turn up and make their vote. Even if it to say - I don't want to vote for any of these twats.

You mean they count the number of spoiled papers and report them at the count, rather than they get counted towards who wins the election? that's true. However, they don't count (as in matter).

Kvetch what do you propose I do instead then?

My choices at my last local election were Tory, UKIP, LibDem and some far right bonkers party with "England" in its title

I am a member of the Labour Party. I want to vote Labour. But there was no Labour candidate. Or even Green which I might have voted at a push.

Do you propose I don't vote? Thus disenfranchising myself completely?

And I'll say again - spoiled papers are counted

I do the count every year and we collect spoiled ballot papers or unclear markings into a seperate basket that get voted on, and then spoiled ballots are counted as spoiled. I love spoiled ballots especially the ranty ones and the diagrams they really lighten up a boring count.

At my university student union elections there used to be a 'RON' (re-open nominations) option, I remember because they used to reference it with a picture of Ron Atkinson in the newspaper! I suppose that s the same as 'none of the above' option and doesn't really solve the problem?

I seriously might vote for Batman at this election!

I've never spoiled my ballot, but I don't think it's pointless.

When large numbers of people don't turn up, politicians claim it's voter apathy and people aren't bothered, so they have political legitimacy for their tiny mandate.

If those same people turn up and spoil their ballots, it's clear they do care and are rejecting the arseholes on the paper.

Imagine an election where there were more spoiled papers than actual votes for any given party.

Everyone who says spoiled papers are counted: please could you clarify. Are you saying that they help decide who wins the election? They don't.

The returning officers just add up the numbers of voters who turned up but effectively wasted their vote by writing on the paper and make a one line statement about how many there were after announcing how many people voted for each candidate and naming the winner.

If people don't understand this, what's the chances that they really understand what they are voting for?

You are supposed to put an X, but every count I've been at a clear tick for a candidate is vote for that candidate. Anything other than a clear tick (but ideally cross) for one candidate was put into the doubtful pile for review (disclaimer, I have never counted a council election with candidates ranked in order of preference - if you tick several candidates there with no indication of your order of preference I imagine your vote goes no further).

Reading comments here, I'm wondering if different areas have different rules? How much discretion do Chief Counting Officers have, does anyone know? All the attention on voter registration just now should also be covering stuff like spoiled papers, people should know how votes are counted.

The biggest problem with spoiling your ballot paper is that all the spoilt ones are lumped together for counting. So there is no way of knowing if the spoilt papers are a protest or filled in by people who don't understand how to vote.

In our area they aren't counted, definitely.

Var I have quite clearly said that spoiled papers are counted (as in the number of spoiled papers is tallied up and recorded in the results) but they obviously don't figure in the results - how could they? I don't think there's any confusion over that here.

And as for "wasting my vote" I dont consider it to be a waste. Do you think it would be less of a waste to vote fore a candidate I positvely DON'T want or to not vote at all?

PausingFlatly But as noted above, there's nothing to say why none of the above are appropriate, and none of the above will not win outside of a tiny minority of situations even with compulsory voting. So the claims of voter apathy would just be different claims.

I'm still not convinced why having more people vote is a good thing - having more people involved in the electoral process perhaps, but voting is much more than crossing a box, and why is someone picking at random, or on prejudices, or on a knee jerk reaction a good thing?

If you wanted to create a "non of the above party" what would you need?

In the UK votes are counted by hand, not by machine.

I remember a council by-election where a voter had put a bottle instead of an X by a candidate's name and the question was whether it was a vote for him or a comment on his private life (which would have been accurate). The Returning Officer decided to treat it as the latter and therefore spoilt and to revisit the question if it might affect the result; which it did not although it was a damned close-run thing.

var123 when I counted, papers that were not immediately obvious votes for a particular candidate were initially put into the doubtful/spoiled pile, then looked through because a lot could be counted. Some were clearly protest votes (with comments about particular candidates), or expressions of 'dissatisfaction' with all candidates/the system/life in general - these were all looked at, but not counted towards a particular candidate. When the results are read out, the spoiled/rejected ballots count will be read out (can't remember if they break it down further, at the referendum they did, eg numbers for those who voted for both options, people who had identified themselves on their paper). They won't read out sweary rants, but someone will have seen them.

I still think it's pointless. You haven't really voted for a candidate so why even get out of bed or leave the house. It's even more pointless than not bothering to vote at all.