Party names on ballot papers

[FredPuli43]

The PCC voting papers gave the name of the candidate's political party. For something supposedly apolitical this made no sense, but when did the party's name first appear on ballot papers in General Elections? I'm almost certain the paper only had the names of the candidates, with no indication of their party, when I first voted.

[humbersloop]

Hi Fred, same memory here

can't answer directly about when it was first actually done, but the Representation of the People Act 1983, Schedule 1, S19, covers the ballot paper's legal content, and refers to party emblems appearing.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2

The '83 legislation was a consolidation Act though, so that makes me think it may have been practice before then. There's usually a boffin at the House of Commons library who can rattle that sort of thing off in their sleep if you give them a ring.

Hope that helps

[brionon]

I don't get it. I thought that the Police were a Non political force.

[humbersloop]

They're supposed to be brionon, but the new office of Police and Crime Commissioner - who will run police forces - is an elected role, which raises that sort of concern.

[THECORBYLOON]

It was the Representation of The People Act 1969 that introduced party names on ballot papers

[humbersloop]

doffs sou'wester to corby ;-)

[baza]

nice to see that party politics stopped Pressa getting a nice little earner.

[Baldric]

Prezza ousted by a Tory,

makes you glad to be alive!

[humbersloop]

they really picked the wrong candidate baz there, although we weren't exactly presented with a stellar array of candidates.

At least it wasn't the ukip wingnut

[humbersloop]

^ there baz, even...

[THECORBYLOON]

Prescott would have won had it been first past the post.

[Gromit]

It would make no sense NOT to have the names of the political party on the Police Commissioner ballot paper. Many voters did not vote for a politician and the Independent candidates did very well.

[humbersloop]

I can't follow the numbers with this one actually. First and second placed candidates gathered about twelve and six thousand extra votes respectively in the second round, but there were about seventy thousand votes for potential redistribution from eliminated candidates in the pot. So how does that work?

[Gromit]

Humbersloop, I too do not know the mechanism, but these are the numbers for the Humberside vote.

Party - Candidate - First vote - % - Transferred votes - Result

Conservative Matthew Grove 29,440 22.01% 12,724 42,164
​ ​
Labour John Prescott 33,282 24.88% 6,651 39,933
​ ​

[DTCwordfan]

which meant that the majority of those who voted did not want Prescott.....

[humbersloop]

Yes, I have the figures gromit, but they puzzle me. The third placed candidate in the first round polled 28,807 for example, so where have they gone?

[DTCwordfan]

You had the option of just voting for one candidate, sloopy, so many would have gone on that.

[humbersloop]

^ dt, I'm not making a point about prezzer, I'm asking about the system. If you put the third and fourth placed first rounders together (respectively independent and ukip) forty thousand people didn't want Grove either.

[DTCwordfan]

my point, sloopy, a lot of those other folk did not cast a second vote either as they did not want to or were ignorant of how the system worked.

[DTCwordfan]

and of those who did, it was probably the UKips who saw home Grove would be my conclusion......

[humbersloop]

As an aside dt, grove was bloody lucky to get into the second round actually, and I'd agree with you on the final result' s reasons.

So (and sorry to get so far from your op Fred) we seem to have -locally at least- an electoral system that either voters don't understand or chose not to operate and, even as one of the better ones, an abysmally low turn out rate.

I'm not filled with confidence really.