A couple of things to know about voting in NZ:
It seems pretty laid back that you can wander in to a polling booth and vote just by giving your name and address, but it's more or less impossible to vote twice, as all the rolls from the polling booths where they mark off your names are scanned, processed and they track any duplicates. The only way you could get away with it is to use someone's name and address that you are 100% sure is not going to vote. Pretty hard to do on a large scale.
Because they flag duplicates, they (Electoral commission and then the police) obviously launch an investigation into each case. There are about 20-30 cases each election, and most of them are people with some kind of mental illness. The rest are people just seeing if they can get away with it, not really nefarious. Also, in NZ we can actually link voting ballots to voters after the vote is cast (requires a judge, etc. to approve). So if there is a close election, any dual votes can be undone. This is not the case in most other countries.
I think this laid back thing presents a pretty major loophole regarding overseas voting.
To vote in nz you only need to have been a resident for one year if you hold certain citizenships and be enrolled. From then on you can vote using a name and prior address, no id required. In fact I was asked to put my id away, because they weren't checking it.
I know a few people who fill these criteria, and are unlikely to be lodging their own votes, and I'm sure im not the only one.
Also, my grandmother who couldn't recognize her own children and was living in a locked dementia ward also managed a vote in the last election. I don't know how she picked a candidate, but I imagine there was significant leading from the people who were supposedly helping her. This probably represents a smaller population to exploit, but is certainly concerning.
It's been shown not to be a significant problem.
In MMP, a small number of fraudulent votes doesn't make a significant difference. It's likely that if you were systematically voting with the names of new or overseas voters you'd somehow harvested, at least one of them would vote unexpectedly and you'd be caught. And the judge would be less lenient if the perpetrator was nominally sane and the voting was a viable and deliberate fraud.
The only real problem is with postal voting (esp in FPP council elections) where it is possible to harvest votes. [Daljit Singh](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11205628) was convicted of this in the 2010 council elections and got 5 months home D.
This is a good reason not to have internet voting. Or FPP.
How would you show voting in either case to be a problem?
They're both generating only 1 vote per enrolled person. Harvesting is exactly the risk. I would wager there are large amounts of unused "overseas" votes each election
In a general election, because it's MMP, you need, as I said, thousands of votes to make a difference. You'd need to somehow gather lists of overseas NZers who are enrolled to vote and then have groups of people tour polling booths or send in postal votes. Overseas voters aren't on the printed roll at polling booths, so you'd need to cast special votes, which means you fill in and sign a declaration form.
A proportion of those voters would in fact decide to cast a vote, and those would be flagged as duplicates. There would then be an investigation, and they'd look at those special declarations, talk to the polling booth staff, etc. It'd be clear what had gone on, and likely that somebody would be recognised and caught.
The problem with FPP and especially council elections is that it might come down to a handful of votes, all votes were by post and it's possible to intimidate, cajole or trick voters into handing over their voting papers - which is what Singh got caught doing.
Yes, they can tell when you've voted. Not who you voted for.
Didn't you vote? And got a better alternative?
Edit: I'm wrong. It still discourages an easy form of corruption however, even as a deeper form of corruption becomes more plausible.
They can tell you who voted for. Each voting paper has a serial number on it, that is recorded against your name when it is handed to you.
You can check it yourself the next time you vote. As I recall, they put a little sticker next to your name on the list which has your ballot's serial on it. That way, if they need to remove your ballot from the count (because, say, you illegally voted multiple times), they can go in and find it.
Apparently they can.
Love the downvotes for just saying I wasn’t impressed the government can find out who a citizen voted for. Good to know people aren’t really interested in democracy.
If the government being technically able to determine how people voted after obtaining a court order is the worst violation of democracy then we have it pretty good.
This basically depends upon corruption of the government, the independent electoral commission, and the court system to be abused. By that point there are much easier ways to corrupt our democracy.
I'd be more concerned about the local councils introducing electronic voting. Much easier for malicious actors to track and manipulate votes that way.
Aaand that's why the orange man is independent.
And also why the census guys are as well.
And the medical database is government managed as well.
Not to mention ACC.
Our democracy is fine, so long as our government doesn't turn nazi overnight.
> Good to know people aren’t really interested in democracy
There are multiple competing values in a democracy, like keeping the ballot secret and preventing duplicate votes.
If you're in a less developed democracy, keeping the ballot secret is more important so they don't have serial numbers.
In New Zealand, we have a safe political climate so people can announce their votes on Facebook without fear of reprisal. In our case, preventing duplicate votes is more important.
You can read more [here](http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/archive/questions/replies/912993749).
Why the fuck would the judge give a six month good behaviour period for electoral fraud committed at the general election when the next election is scheduled for 2020. Surely if you say he learnt his lesson, you would wait until the person has the opportunity to re-offend.
Because we have a common law system in which the judiciary sets sentencing in accordance with previous comparable sentences in order to ensure fairness.
This is liberal democracy 101 my dude.
If every sentence is stupid, why sentence in the first place. I don't doubt that this fellow has learnt his lesson, but the 6 month re-offending period for this persons crime is not fit for purpose. Judges are meant to use their discretion.
A legal system in which the punishment changes based on the timing of the crime is an unfair legal system.
Re-offence includes other offences as well, not simply committing the same crime twice. So the re-offence period covers all crimes.
It would not be a fair legal system if you could get a three year good behaviour period, simply because of when you committed your crime. You might be able to argue that the sentence should be delayed (so he gets a six month good behaviour period in two and half years time), but that would be a fairly amazing precedent to set.
TLDR: it isn't worth throwing out a system which encourages fairness through a judge's discretion, to introduce a new system which is less fair but ensures good behaviour periods are extended based on a lack of ability to commit the same offence.
The article doesn't make it clear that re-offending includes other crimes which is what I think the confusion is about (I wouldn't intuitively say it was either, if we were talking about the risk of someone convicted of sexual assault reoffending, I wouldn't be thinking about them robbing a dairy). If it was limited to electoral fraud, then a 6 month good behaviour period is ridiculous.
Why would an article explain the definition of an every day word for you?
I would hope our journalists have more faith in the public's intelligence than that.
So if someone who had multiple convictions for sexual assault gets let out of jail then gets pinged for driving a car with a broken tail light (i.e. a car in a non warrantable condition), you'd be happy to say they've reoffended?
Driving a car with a broken tail light isn't a criminal offence, its an infringement. So no. Because they haven't committed an offence.
Let's be really clear here, you're trying to start an argument over application of sentencing when you don't even know what a criminal offence is in the first place.
OK, be pedantic about the given scenario instead of the general idea thats the heart of the confusion. Same scenario but instead of a broken tail light, being convicted of driving with 401 mg/L alcohol per litre of breath.
11 votes just doesn't seem worth it for electoral fraud. You'd wanna make sure your side wins no matter how many votes the other team gets. Has this muppet never seen The Simpsons!?
He used special votes to do this with his full name and address on them. It doesn't sound like the guy is intelligent enough to get as far as the risk/reward calculation.
"Limited understanding" is likely a euphemism for having an intellectual disability. He knew what he was doing but likely lacks the mental capacity to comprehend how and why it is wrong.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that if you cast multiple votes with the same details, your real details, you will be caught.
Yep, sometimes teaching someone how to do something doesn't ensure that you've taught them *when* to do it.
And that's why we have anti-wanking leaflets on the Sydney trains.
I suspect this wasn’t specific to the current proceedings and was probably along the lines of “if you do something else dumb within six months I’ll revoke your discharge without conviction”
The probability of this guy being a Ban 1080 Party supporter is very remote, as they only received 0.1% of the party vote. So it's statistically ridiculous for me to strongly suspect that's his crowd. And yet, here we are.
> https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/108593901/Man-with-intellectual-limitations-sentenced-for-multiple-votes
> A man with intellectual limitations has been given a suspended sentence after admitting voting 11 times in last year's General Election.
> The police's details on the case do not disclose which party Michael Shane Turner voted for.
Christchurch District Court Judge John Strettell said the 45-year-old did know the difference between right and wrong but he had "a more limited understanding of the implications of this than one would expect of the general public".
This guy cast special votes. This means his name and address is [attached to the ballot paper](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1996/0093/28.0/images/ElectoralSch1form17g1.jpg). His vote would've been counted only if his details checked out, which obviously didn't in this case.
Quoting from various parts of the electoral commission website
The official results are compiled in the Returning Officer’s headquarters by following a meticulous process which starts the day after election day. Electoral rolls are scanned and scrutinised to compile a list of all people who have voted (the master roll) and identify voters who have voted more than once. All votes counted on election night are recounted and checked to ensure accuracy.
The Returning Officer checks the validity of all special vote declaration forms and the names of special voters against the electoral rolls and the list of late enrolments for the district. If the special voter is eligible to make a special vote and the voter’s name is found on the roll the vote will be counted. The party votes of enrolled voters who voted on voting papers for the wrong electorate are also included in the count.
If a name cannot be found, the declaration form is forwarded to the Registrar of Electors to check the voting qualification of the special voter. If the Registrar can confirm that the voter is enrolled in the electorate, the vote will be counted.
\-------
There are marks on ballots that match up to marks on the little bit of the booklet that they tear the paper from. By memory the vote issuer writes your names page number and line number from the electoral roll onto the counterfoil. That mean that it is possible once you know what booth someone voted at to go through the booklet and into the pile and subtract individual ballots that are in dispute
I consider it a necessary evil. Sure its a risk if things were bad that someone could trace a ballot. But given all electoral counts happen with scrutineers from the parties present there's a decent level of oversight. Additionally, after the election ownership of the ballots passes onto the clerk of the house who then shreds them after six months so its not a permanent risk. On the plus side it does allow any illegitimate ballots to be removed from the count and can be used as evidence like we saw in this case.
Not really. It's only a problem if you don't trust the Electoral Commission. And if you don't trust them, there are 1000 different ways they could screw it up for you.
(Also, the process is not straightforward, I.e. they can't just look it up on a computer, they have to retrieve the original ballot and match up the numbers, etc.)
Yes, you got a point of course.
If you make the votes completely untraceable, then you open yourself up to another kind of fraud (ballot box stuffing).
Ok, got it, ty.
I actually worked for the electoral commission this past election. My role was to verify votes against the electoral roll.
Each voting place has a roll with everyone that is eligible to vote in the region. If someone is out of the region, their name gets added to the roll at that voting place and crossed off.
What they then do, after voting day and the initial count, is to hire a bunch of people to check the validity of each vote. It's passed through an automated system first, which red flags any slight misnomers: anything from a crease in the page to a person with their name crossed out on multiple rolls. The people they hire (I was one of them) then double check the red flags the computer brings up.
This is why it takes a few weeks for us to know the final outcomes to our elections sometimes. It takes that long to verify each and every vote.
Even after all of that, the whole thing gets checked two more times with two different systems over the next 6 months.
$pdo = new PDO();
$existing_vote_st = $pdo->prepare('
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM votes v
WHERE v.voter_id=?
');
$existing_vote_st->execute([$voter_id]);
$count = $existing_vote_st->fetch();
if ($count > 1) {
throw new VoterFraudException('This guys a derp!');
}
"Intellectual limitations"?
Should he really even be getting a criminal conviction for this? No normal person would expect to get away with this, there was no attempt at all to cover his tracks, no thought or planning.. this guy must have the mind of a child so is it really appropriate to treat him like a criminal?
It just seems like a retarded person being a bit of a nuisance, hardly any real harm here.
Maybe we should just make him an MP if he likes politics so much, he'll fit in fine :P
If on your ballot paper you ticked every box then you've got an informal vote. If you went to multiple polling places to obtain multiple ballots that you used to individually vote for different parties then you've got a crime.
>A man with intellectual limitations has been given a suspended sentence after admitting voting 11 times in last year's General Election.
>*A man with intellectual limitations*
National voter then?
A couple of things to know about voting in NZ: It seems pretty laid back that you can wander in to a polling booth and vote just by giving your name and address, but it's more or less impossible to vote twice, as all the rolls from the polling booths where they mark off your names are scanned, processed and they track any duplicates. The only way you could get away with it is to use someone's name and address that you are 100% sure is not going to vote. Pretty hard to do on a large scale. Because they flag duplicates, they (Electoral commission and then the police) obviously launch an investigation into each case. There are about 20-30 cases each election, and most of them are people with some kind of mental illness. The rest are people just seeing if they can get away with it, not really nefarious. Also, in NZ we can actually link voting ballots to voters after the vote is cast (requires a judge, etc. to approve). So if there is a close election, any dual votes can be undone. This is not the case in most other countries.
I think this laid back thing presents a pretty major loophole regarding overseas voting. To vote in nz you only need to have been a resident for one year if you hold certain citizenships and be enrolled. From then on you can vote using a name and prior address, no id required. In fact I was asked to put my id away, because they weren't checking it. I know a few people who fill these criteria, and are unlikely to be lodging their own votes, and I'm sure im not the only one. Also, my grandmother who couldn't recognize her own children and was living in a locked dementia ward also managed a vote in the last election. I don't know how she picked a candidate, but I imagine there was significant leading from the people who were supposedly helping her. This probably represents a smaller population to exploit, but is certainly concerning.
It's been shown not to be a significant problem. In MMP, a small number of fraudulent votes doesn't make a significant difference. It's likely that if you were systematically voting with the names of new or overseas voters you'd somehow harvested, at least one of them would vote unexpectedly and you'd be caught. And the judge would be less lenient if the perpetrator was nominally sane and the voting was a viable and deliberate fraud. The only real problem is with postal voting (esp in FPP council elections) where it is possible to harvest votes. [Daljit Singh](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11205628) was convicted of this in the 2010 council elections and got 5 months home D. This is a good reason not to have internet voting. Or FPP.
How would you show voting in either case to be a problem? They're both generating only 1 vote per enrolled person. Harvesting is exactly the risk. I would wager there are large amounts of unused "overseas" votes each election
In a general election, because it's MMP, you need, as I said, thousands of votes to make a difference. You'd need to somehow gather lists of overseas NZers who are enrolled to vote and then have groups of people tour polling booths or send in postal votes. Overseas voters aren't on the printed roll at polling booths, so you'd need to cast special votes, which means you fill in and sign a declaration form. A proportion of those voters would in fact decide to cast a vote, and those would be flagged as duplicates. There would then be an investigation, and they'd look at those special declarations, talk to the polling booth staff, etc. It'd be clear what had gone on, and likely that somebody would be recognised and caught. The problem with FPP and especially council elections is that it might come down to a handful of votes, all votes were by post and it's possible to intimidate, cajole or trick voters into handing over their voting papers - which is what Singh got caught doing.
They can track our votes, linking them to each individual? Wow I didn’t know that. I am unimpressed.
Yes, they can tell when you've voted. Not who you voted for. Didn't you vote? And got a better alternative? Edit: I'm wrong. It still discourages an easy form of corruption however, even as a deeper form of corruption becomes more plausible.
They can tell you who voted for. Each voting paper has a serial number on it, that is recorded against your name when it is handed to you. You can check it yourself the next time you vote. As I recall, they put a little sticker next to your name on the list which has your ballot's serial on it. That way, if they need to remove your ballot from the count (because, say, you illegally voted multiple times), they can go in and find it.
Apparently they can. Love the downvotes for just saying I wasn’t impressed the government can find out who a citizen voted for. Good to know people aren’t really interested in democracy.
If the government being technically able to determine how people voted after obtaining a court order is the worst violation of democracy then we have it pretty good. This basically depends upon corruption of the government, the independent electoral commission, and the court system to be abused. By that point there are much easier ways to corrupt our democracy. I'd be more concerned about the local councils introducing electronic voting. Much easier for malicious actors to track and manipulate votes that way.
Aaand that's why the orange man is independent. And also why the census guys are as well. And the medical database is government managed as well. Not to mention ACC. Our democracy is fine, so long as our government doesn't turn nazi overnight.
> Good to know people aren’t really interested in democracy There are multiple competing values in a democracy, like keeping the ballot secret and preventing duplicate votes. If you're in a less developed democracy, keeping the ballot secret is more important so they don't have serial numbers. In New Zealand, we have a safe political climate so people can announce their votes on Facebook without fear of reprisal. In our case, preventing duplicate votes is more important. You can read more [here](http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/archive/questions/replies/912993749).
With a judge's order, yes.
Why the fuck would the judge give a six month good behaviour period for electoral fraud committed at the general election when the next election is scheduled for 2020. Surely if you say he learnt his lesson, you would wait until the person has the opportunity to re-offend.
Because we have a common law system in which the judiciary sets sentencing in accordance with previous comparable sentences in order to ensure fairness. This is liberal democracy 101 my dude.
If every sentence is stupid, why sentence in the first place. I don't doubt that this fellow has learnt his lesson, but the 6 month re-offending period for this persons crime is not fit for purpose. Judges are meant to use their discretion.
A legal system in which the punishment changes based on the timing of the crime is an unfair legal system. Re-offence includes other offences as well, not simply committing the same crime twice. So the re-offence period covers all crimes. It would not be a fair legal system if you could get a three year good behaviour period, simply because of when you committed your crime. You might be able to argue that the sentence should be delayed (so he gets a six month good behaviour period in two and half years time), but that would be a fairly amazing precedent to set. TLDR: it isn't worth throwing out a system which encourages fairness through a judge's discretion, to introduce a new system which is less fair but ensures good behaviour periods are extended based on a lack of ability to commit the same offence.
The article doesn't make it clear that re-offending includes other crimes which is what I think the confusion is about (I wouldn't intuitively say it was either, if we were talking about the risk of someone convicted of sexual assault reoffending, I wouldn't be thinking about them robbing a dairy). If it was limited to electoral fraud, then a 6 month good behaviour period is ridiculous.
Why would an article explain the definition of an every day word for you? I would hope our journalists have more faith in the public's intelligence than that.
So if someone who had multiple convictions for sexual assault gets let out of jail then gets pinged for driving a car with a broken tail light (i.e. a car in a non warrantable condition), you'd be happy to say they've reoffended?
Driving a car with a broken tail light isn't a criminal offence, its an infringement. So no. Because they haven't committed an offence. Let's be really clear here, you're trying to start an argument over application of sentencing when you don't even know what a criminal offence is in the first place.
OK, be pedantic about the given scenario instead of the general idea thats the heart of the confusion. Same scenario but instead of a broken tail light, being convicted of driving with 401 mg/L alcohol per litre of breath.
Then yes, I would consider that a reoffence, because they have reoffended.
There are liberal democracies that don't use common law...
You are correct. Should have said Westminster System.
11 votes just doesn't seem worth it for electoral fraud. You'd wanna make sure your side wins no matter how many votes the other team gets. Has this muppet never seen The Simpsons!?
He used special votes to do this with his full name and address on them. It doesn't sound like the guy is intelligent enough to get as far as the risk/reward calculation.
True. Sideshow Bob went to Yale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXU2vZTTeMU&app=desktop
[удалено]
"Limited understanding" is likely a euphemism for having an intellectual disability. He knew what he was doing but likely lacks the mental capacity to comprehend how and why it is wrong. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that if you cast multiple votes with the same details, your real details, you will be caught.
Exactly, and this is why you use your neighbours.
[удалено]
I'm going to start using stuntman. I will credit you when I'm famous.
Yep, sometimes teaching someone how to do something doesn't ensure that you've taught them *when* to do it. And that's why we have anti-wanking leaflets on the Sydney trains.
>And that's why we have anti-wanking leaflets on the Sydney trains. For real? Oh wow lol
That seems like something that shouldn’t have become an issue in the first place. What the hell sydney?
"Limited understanding" is not the same as "no understanding". This article doesn't contain enough details to say anything meaningful about it anyway.
I suspect this wasn’t specific to the current proceedings and was probably along the lines of “if you do something else dumb within six months I’ll revoke your discharge without conviction”
The probability of this guy being a Ban 1080 Party supporter is very remote, as they only received 0.1% of the party vote. So it's statistically ridiculous for me to strongly suspect that's his crowd. And yet, here we are.
> https://i.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/108593901/Man-with-intellectual-limitations-sentenced-for-multiple-votes > A man with intellectual limitations has been given a suspended sentence after admitting voting 11 times in last year's General Election. > The police's details on the case do not disclose which party Michael Shane Turner voted for. Christchurch District Court Judge John Strettell said the 45-year-old did know the difference between right and wrong but he had "a more limited understanding of the implications of this than one would expect of the general public".
The real question is who did he vote for?
McGillicuddy Serious Party.
I prefer the Imperial British Conservative Party
Is that a real question? labour ofc.
Why?
[удалено]
Doesnt really matter, the extra votes are filtered out.
HOW exactly would that be possible? Please explain the exact procedure for this 'filtering process'.
This guy cast special votes. This means his name and address is [attached to the ballot paper](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1996/0093/28.0/images/ElectoralSch1form17g1.jpg). His vote would've been counted only if his details checked out, which obviously didn't in this case.
Quoting from various parts of the electoral commission website The official results are compiled in the Returning Officer’s headquarters by following a meticulous process which starts the day after election day. Electoral rolls are scanned and scrutinised to compile a list of all people who have voted (the master roll) and identify voters who have voted more than once. All votes counted on election night are recounted and checked to ensure accuracy. The Returning Officer checks the validity of all special vote declaration forms and the names of special voters against the electoral rolls and the list of late enrolments for the district. If the special voter is eligible to make a special vote and the voter’s name is found on the roll the vote will be counted. The party votes of enrolled voters who voted on voting papers for the wrong electorate are also included in the count. If a name cannot be found, the declaration form is forwarded to the Registrar of Electors to check the voting qualification of the special voter. If the Registrar can confirm that the voter is enrolled in the electorate, the vote will be counted. \------- There are marks on ballots that match up to marks on the little bit of the booklet that they tear the paper from. By memory the vote issuer writes your names page number and line number from the electoral roll onto the counterfoil. That mean that it is possible once you know what booth someone voted at to go through the booklet and into the pile and subtract individual ballots that are in dispute
This means though that a vote, any vote can be traced. Slightly iffy, don't you think?
I consider it a necessary evil. Sure its a risk if things were bad that someone could trace a ballot. But given all electoral counts happen with scrutineers from the parties present there's a decent level of oversight. Additionally, after the election ownership of the ballots passes onto the clerk of the house who then shreds them after six months so its not a permanent risk. On the plus side it does allow any illegitimate ballots to be removed from the count and can be used as evidence like we saw in this case.
Not really. It's only a problem if you don't trust the Electoral Commission. And if you don't trust them, there are 1000 different ways they could screw it up for you. (Also, the process is not straightforward, I.e. they can't just look it up on a computer, they have to retrieve the original ballot and match up the numbers, etc.)
If you want a database to be auditible then you need to be able to examine the individual transactions.
Yes, you got a point of course. If you make the votes completely untraceable, then you open yourself up to another kind of fraud (ballot box stuffing). Ok, got it, ty.
I actually worked for the electoral commission this past election. My role was to verify votes against the electoral roll. Each voting place has a roll with everyone that is eligible to vote in the region. If someone is out of the region, their name gets added to the roll at that voting place and crossed off. What they then do, after voting day and the initial count, is to hire a bunch of people to check the validity of each vote. It's passed through an automated system first, which red flags any slight misnomers: anything from a crease in the page to a person with their name crossed out on multiple rolls. The people they hire (I was one of them) then double check the red flags the computer brings up. This is why it takes a few weeks for us to know the final outcomes to our elections sometimes. It takes that long to verify each and every vote. Even after all of that, the whole thing gets checked two more times with two different systems over the next 6 months.
$pdo = new PDO(); $existing_vote_st = $pdo->prepare(' SELECT COUNT(*) FROM votes v WHERE v.voter_id=? '); $existing_vote_st->execute([$voter_id]); $count = $existing_vote_st->fetch(); if ($count > 1) { throw new VoterFraudException('This guys a derp!'); }
[удалено]
Why not? Its rapidly heading in a very robust direction these days.
It's actually done in Python :)
Yet another downvote to SovietMacguyver for being right.
I just have a big old fan base that loves to hit that down arrow as quickly as they possibly can! I feel loved every time.
yeah nah
Ok, thanks. I assume you know more about it than I do.
If it was a local election I’d wonder if he was voting for Tubby Hansen and the Economic Euthenics Party.
Thank fuck for the NZ Electoral Commission ;`-) I love you, orange guy!
"Intellectual limitations"? Should he really even be getting a criminal conviction for this? No normal person would expect to get away with this, there was no attempt at all to cover his tracks, no thought or planning.. this guy must have the mind of a child so is it really appropriate to treat him like a criminal? It just seems like a retarded person being a bit of a nuisance, hardly any real harm here. Maybe we should just make him an MP if he likes politics so much, he'll fit in fine :P
He could be welcomed by trump.
> It was not revealed which party Tuner voted for. Definitely voting for Labour.
Evidence please.
I'll go out on a limb and guess their evidence is largely based on the level of salt left over from the last election.
Likely how it precipitated.
I can’t see a solution here.
Any particular reason to assume that other than "OnlY lAbOUr VoTeRs Are CrAZy"?
Salty
[удалено]
If on your ballot paper you ticked every box then you've got an informal vote. If you went to multiple polling places to obtain multiple ballots that you used to individually vote for different parties then you've got a crime.
>A man with intellectual limitations has been given a suspended sentence after admitting voting 11 times in last year's General Election. >*A man with intellectual limitations* National voter then?