Comments on: More Votes Counted Than People Who Turned Out in Cambridge

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:41:54 +0000

I have now been told that the original turnout figures quoted were wrong. These have now been corrected on the council’s website.

There were in fact ten spoilt papers in West Chesterton, not minus two hundred and thirty.

By: Andrew Bower

Andrew Bower — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:19:42 +0000

Richard, I’m not surprised - the electoral administration was shambolic this year.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:30:20 +0000

John, in Trumpington the published results show :
Turnout : 2317
Total Votes: 2272
Turnout minus votes (spoilt etc.): 45

That is potentially compatible with what you, as a candidate, observed.

By: John Ionides

John Ionides — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:21:55 +0000

There were not that many spolit papers. In Trumpington there were 25 papers not included in the main count, of which ~3 came back after the agent checks, so we are looking at ~20 spolit papers from ~2200 votes.

By: Brian Johnson

Brian Johnson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:18:34 +0000

Do postal votes count as ‘turnout’?

By: Richard Davies

Richard Davies — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:27:44 +0000

Hmmm, I also thought they were going to issue the number of spoiled ballot papers. This is a bit scary.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:21:44 +0000

It appears the “Turnout” figures published for Cambridgeshire’s 2005 elections were as far as I can see, always, equal to the total number of votes cast for candidates. ie. not showing anyone spoiling their papers etc.

By: Tina Louise

Tina Louise — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:14:45 +0000

Thanks for highlighting this Richard - such an important story and you have to wonder where else it is replicated in the country.