- Vote Counting Agent and Insider’s Guide
Yawning Bread Counting Agents describe unprecedented never before seen footage illustration of controversial first-hand juicy details on how the Singapore General Election Vote counting Agents tasks are carried out,voters irregularities and eye popping sightings on what voters write on their Voting Ballot Paper Poll Cards in this tiny Totalitarian Republic Island during the SG GE 2011. –
Here’s a summary compilation of their findings and their Vote Counting Agents experience all in one page !!! More voting Ballots cards will be added. Each Voting Picture illustrates what constitutes as spoilt votes
Valid and invalid votes and as it turns out, not all are consistent in their judgement, even i myself find the process an “Alan Greenspan Conudrum”.
I do not envy the Vote Counting Table Chief judge
. Tough calls. The reason why this is important is because the No. of Spoilt votes
and voters who did not vote constituted an average non voting count at approx 700 on average which can Swing votes
in favour of either Party GRC (ie East Coast GRC
) as we have seen in the election results.
Upon instruction by the officer presiding over the entire centre, the ballot boxes were shown to them, so they could verify that the seals which had been affixed at the polling stations
at the close of the voting
day were not broken. The boxes were then opened and the contents poured out onto the centre of the table. Counting agents were free to move around to look over the shoulders of the counting staff.
Counting Agent Rules and Regulation Secrecy and Observance:-
If they wish to dispute the sorting of any ballot, take it up with the table chief.
Generally, the counting process was very efficient, with all tables
following a standardised procedure.
Several rounds of counting, with each block of sorted ballots rechecked and re-counted by another member of the staff.
Most of the time, the voter’s choice was obvious.
The vast majority of voters marked their ballot paper
with a cross
as in No. 1.
A few marked their ballot paper with a tick No.2
, but so long as the rest of the ballot paper was clean, the tick would be accepted as sufficiently indicative of the voter’s intention. Other than such clean markings
, counting staff would pass the ballot paper to the table chief for app adjudication.
Table chiefs routinely rejected ballots where any part of the cross or tick crossed the boundary line, such as No. 3.
Where the voter made more than one marking, as in No. 4
, it was always rejected by the table chiefs at the counting centre where one voter attended. Other section Voter from different counting centre, said ballot paper marked like No. 4
was awarded as a vote for the “triangle and star” party
“The table chief’s reasoning was that “by law, the voter should mark his intention with a cross and since the cross was placed against the “triangle and star” party, the vote was given to it.
” Tricky. But technically correct.
Where the ballot paper had unusual markings
, the counter would pass it to the table chief who would show it to a counting agent from each party and announce his decision as to how to treat that ballot. As counting agents, we could offer our views but his decision would be final. They came across occasionally ballot papers with all sorts of strange markings, but so long as there was only one marking that did not cross the boundary(No.5 ,No.6 No.7 and No.8)
the table chief would treat it as a valid vote.
More strange markings abound, routinely accepted by table chiefs as valid votes.
Some saw what looked like No 9
, with two ticks
. It was accepted as valid.
There was one ballot that looked like No 10 Downing Street.
It too was treated as a valid vote for the ” triangle and star” party despite his protest, “the reasoning being that the voter only marked one half of the ballot paper and left the other half clean”.
While watching another table, they came across another ballot rather similar to No.10
, shown here as No. 11
. It too was accepted as a vote in favour of the “triangle and star party”. However, the counting staff and table chiefs were scrupulously fair. For every “go to hell” ballot there were at least fifty more with the faintest of scratches, as in No.12
“Again, they would use the same rule — so long as the single marking stayed within one box, they accepted it as a valid vote. “
The layman might think however that the marking was accidental, the result of a pen falling onto the paper or slipping out of the voter’s hand. Then again, there might well be some people who, liking neither candidate, deliberately let a dropping pen from a height of 40 cm make the choice for them. Who is to say that is not a valid decision matrix?
Sylvia Tan from Worker’s Party
was also a counting agent. She submitted a set of drawings to show what marks were considered valid or invalid
at the centre where she was. Like several comments to the earlier post Counting agent me
by readers who were also counting agents, her observations reinforce the picture we have of considerable inconsistency in the way ballots are adjudicated.
At Sylvia Tan’s counting centre, ballots like No 13
, containing a tiny cross, was ruled as valid for the umbrella party — this should not be controversial. No 14
was also ruled valid (for the bunny ears party) even when there were two markings on the ballot paper. The table chief at Sylvia Tan’s centre judged that the voter’s intention was clear. Such a ballot would have been ruled invalid at the centre where I was on the ground that there were two markings on the ballot paper.
No.15, with two ends of the cross invading the other box was also ruled as valid for the umbrella party. In the counting centre where I was, such a ballot would have been ruled invalid. No.16 had the centre of the cross not clearly in one box or the other and was treated as a rejected ballot at Sylvia Tan’s centre — this too should not be a controversial decision.
Both No.17 and 18 were considered valid (for the umbrella party) at her centre too,
whereas No. 19 and 20 were considered valid for the bunny ears party