Election Quick Count Are They Valid?

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 07-09-2009, 13:26

Originally Posted by CountArach

If a government loses an election, but we don't know they've lost it until a few days after the election, they may take actions without a clear mandate. What if there is a huge International crisis the day after the election... who should be in charge?

I would also rather that my new government start working as soon as possible to achieve what they have promised.

That's merely a failure of your constitution. In any case, a certain population should presupose a certain number of Returning Officers, counting offices etc., so a "quick count" is merely indictive of a lack of infastructure.

Worse, you can end up with the wrong people in power, at which point it might be difficult to get them out of power.

**CountArach** · 07-09-2009, 13:35

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Worse, you can end up with the wrong people in power, at which point it might be difficult to get them out of power.

If it looks like the results are in doubt... then what's the problem? Simply say as much and finish the counting the day after - it isn't that hard. If someone has the intention of getting in office and staying there regardless of the will of the electorate they are going to do it regardless of whether the electoral officers say they can or not.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 07-09-2009, 14:06

Originally Posted by CountArach

If it looks like the results are in doubt... then what's the problem? Simply say as much and finish the counting the day after - it isn't that hard. If someone has the intention of getting in office and staying there regardless of the will of the electorate they are going to do it regardless of whether the electoral officers say they can or not.

Why not just keep counting through the night, then?

**CountArach** · 07-09-2009, 14:09

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Why not just keep counting through the night, then?

Counters have to sleep too. If the electoral commission can afford a second shift to work through the night then that would be fine by me.

**KukriKhan** · 07-09-2009, 14:16

So, in your system, the winner takes over immediately? We have a couple of months between election day and the new guy(s) taking the oath of office.

I can see your need for speed, then. But isn't there increased danger of bad counts, if the tabulations are done too quickly?

**CountArach** · 07-09-2009, 14:30

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

So, in your system, the winner takes over immediately? We have a couple of months between election day and the new guy(s) taking the oath of office.

I can see your need for speed, then. But isn't there increased danger of bad counts, if the tabulations are done too quickly?

The order is this:
1) Government declares when it is entering an election period.
2) Governor General prorogues Parliament
3) Election runs for X weeks with no meetings of Parliament
4) Election day
5) The victorious party is declared and forms provisional government (Assuming there is no need for a coalition of parties, which hasn't happened recently... at state levels it sometimes happens and the coalition is declared within a few days) with the blessings of the Governor General.
6) At the start of the next Parliamentary term all newly elected members get together and confirm the Parliament. All members and ministers are sworn in.

So yes it really does help for us to know who is supposed to be in charge. And there are always cases of close elections but one seat hasn't made a difference in any elections I can think of so the electoral commission can take its time and perform a re-count, as well as allowing all the legal wrangling to go on. It doesn't really take too long.

The biggest advantage IMO is that the government of the day can always claim to have a mandate.

**KukriKhan** · 07-09-2009, 14:41

So at your step 5, "The victorious party is declared and forms provisional government... ", the previous gov't is completely out of power; no decision-making ability at all, the new 'provo gov't' is in charge - pending formal counts and approvals. Yes?

So if, on E-Day plus 1, the US invades you, it would be on the new guys to react/defend/whatever?

**CountArach** · 07-09-2009, 14:45

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

So at your step 5, "The victorious party is declared and forms provisional government... ", the previous gov't is completely out of power; no decision-making ability at all, the new 'provo gov't' is in charge - pending formal counts and approvals. Yes?

So if, on E-Day plus 1, the US invades you, it would be on the new guys to react/defend/whatever?

Spot on. In the case of an invasion it is almost certain we would have an emergency session of parliament where all newly elected members are sworn in and the new government is confirmed. In the case of an individual seat's election being undecided at this point it is likely the seat would not have a member for a period of time until the count could be completed.

In the highly unlikely case of an overall Election result being uncertain our Governor General would probably force the major parties into coalition to deal with the crisis until such a time as one party can govern on their own or the crisis is completed. This is one advantage of the Westminster system - it is very flexible.

**KukriKhan** · 07-09-2009, 15:00

I see.

So the best day to invade the UK or a Commonwealth country - with the purpose of disrupting command-and-control systems - is Election Day (not the day before or the day after).

OTOH, in a pinch, Her Majesty (or Her Guv-General rep) always has the option of donning Her helmet, grabbing her sword and announcing "To Arms!" in an emergency.

Neat.

Over here the best invasion day might be the day after Inauguration Day. The new guys haven't even found their way to their offices yet, and the old guys have returned to their homes.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 07-09-2009, 14:43

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

So, in your system, the winner takes over immediately? We have a couple of months between election day and the new guy(s) taking the oath of office.

I can see your need for speed, then. But isn't there increased danger of bad counts, if the tabulations are done too quickly?

Ah, but you see we don't have "a" winner. In extremis I suppose the Queen could form a unity government from the Lords on an ad hoc basis to deal with a real emergency

**CBR** · 07-09-2009, 15:02

How many hours before it is no longer quick? Slow or fast should make no difference in the "quality" of the counting.

Here in Denmark its done within something like 4-5 hours of the closing of the voting booths so around midnight for the final result. Everything is then being recounted for personal votes over the next one or two days or something like that. Think that is pretty similar in many other nations.

A system that still uses the good old pen* and paper for voting and AFAIK no accusations of fraud nor has the courts ever been involved (not even when an election was decided by few dozen votes on the Faroe Islands a decade ago)

Personally I prefer things to be quick as the Media running round in circles fueled by speculation and debates between "experts" is generally bad for the really important stuff like the weather or sports news...

A country like Iran does not allow outside observers and stuff like that might be something to worry more about than speed of counting.

*actually it's a pencil.

CBR