Re: [Counting agent me]
One way out of this conundrum is perhaps for a pile of 'uncertain votes' (2 way contest) to be separated into a fourth pile: the first 3 being: one pile each for each party, 1 pile for obviously spoilt votes (blank sheets, major illegible scribblings across page, has the word 'SPOILT-VOTE' written by voter on it). The former 3 categories should be easily determined by the vote counters themselves- the counting agents (from each party) having the right perhaps to single out votes sorted that they don't agree with into the 4th pile- 'ambiguous' (via the table chief of course).
The status of 'ambiguous votes' should then be determined by consensus amongst the parties- table chief and the counting agts- and maybe marked on reverse with a stamp documenting the final status of the 'ambiguous vote' having been re-decided by consensus amongst the parties presiding (only registered rubber stamps may be used- and marked on the reverse of the vote chit of course)- and then added to each pile according to decision- either party or decidedly spoilt votes.
Only after this process of almost all ambiguous vote determination (by consensus) has been done should the real counting commence.
This would be a good process to follow for its transparency, unambiguity and consensus.
Only with great exception (in the event of a persistent tie) should the remaining 'ambiguous despite reconsideration' pile be opened.
Counting agents may halt the process at any point of time should they see discrepancies in the counting process and request clarification.
This way, the need/ request for a recount would be much removed- provided of course that counting processes are followed to the T.
The need to run through 'ambiguous votes' in the sparse event of a recount request would also be lessened with this process by consensus too.
========
At/ related posts:
YawnB:
12May2011: Counting agent me
No comments:
Post a Comment