Register of Elections - doorstep callers

[Guest127]

to clarify a point. the guy who called to my door knew me by name and sight. not a personal friend just someone who knows me. so I definitely objected to the dob question. also when he entered the two junion cu's dobs on the red preliminary voting register I notice that a) he had correctly marked a neighbour as deceased b) ticked a number of neighbours as 'ok' but had no other dates of birth entered opposite them thats why it rankled when he asked. when I informed him that we were obviously over 21 he just ticked the names but he did enter the two juniors dates of birth, which I had no real objection to as one is 18 (he was already on this prelim voters list )and never voted before and the other while older, also never voted previously.

 

[RainyDay]

There is an implied mandatory nature of the exercise.
Look at the yellow sheet that was delivered:
"the form MUST be returned within 5 working days....
Please note that you are required to complete and return this form whether or not you are already on the Electoral Register."
Then in big red lettering:
Failure to complete and return this form could result in your name being omitted from the Electoral Register"
Also, on the form to fill out:
"Declaration: ...It is an offence to fail to give the registration authority any information required for the purposes of its duties..."

Actually, our names were already on the register and have been for many elections now. We have always used that vote when possible. That is not the point at issue here. We know many people worldwide have struggled for that right. But the right to choose not to vote, or not be on the Register is just as valid. Going around and harvesting information like this is, in our opinion, wrong. And possibly the most obvious result of it will be to show a smaller percentage poll in future elections.
We were not told at the time about the "Edited Register".
We did participate in the Census, which is compulsory, although having seen that particular form, I wonder what real value it has, or previous ones have had, since for instance, our roads and schools are not adequate for today's needs.

Seems a bit melodramatic. If you don't want to participate, just give a polite 'no thanks' to the guy at the door. What's the problem?

The register is hugely out of date. It is in the interest of a democratic society to have a valid register.

I don't like this campaign either. It just seems stupid to me. I don't understand why they can't just have a big advertising campaign (in different languages if necessary) encouraging people to vote. And if it really was necessary to collect this information door-to-door, then they should have done it at the SAME TIME as the census.

Giving the government information rarely works in favour of the information-giver, in my experience. It's not like they actually use it to plan! If anything at all is done with it, and I have my doubts, it seems to be an exercise in keeping the civil service and political party number crunchers busy.

Many Govt agencies do indeed use the Census data for planning. I'm not suggesting that Govt planning is perfect, but planning does indeed happen in some cases. The CSO people (who have a fair bit of expertise in data collection) were of the view that this would compromise the accuracy of their data collection.

 

[potnoodler]

Got the knock on the door myself, and while I just excused myself as being just on the way out because I didn't want to be questioned on doorstep , I feel its a good reminder for folks and while it may not work as a quantity enroller it does give an impression to people that their vote is important.
All good imho , as tis important to keep momentum and involvement in the come up to next elections.
P.S only reason aint on book is coz just moved in

 

[Ash]

"The full register lists everyone who is entitled to vote and can only be used for electoral or other statutory purpose."

What constitutes "other statutory purpose"? Apart from being the source for a list for jury service?

 

[babydays]

I think everyone has an 'obligation' or 'responsibility to vote.

But, I also think there should also be an option on the voting sheet 'none of the above' or something for those who don't want to vote as protest or whatever - not just the 'spoiling' of a voting paper (as can't be 100% sure whether accident or not).

In some countries people are fined for not voting!

 

[redstar]

We just got a leaflet saying "no registered electors at this address... if you want to vote you must register ...."

Funny, i thought. We send back the completed register form two weeks ago. I also sent one about 3 weeks before that (just being pro-active, new to the area etc ...). At least if they are on a big campaign about this, they should at least do it right !!

 

[dontaskme]

I'd say it takes longer than two or three weeks to update the register.

I think it's fine that they're updating the register, when I was at college any rented accommodation I was living at would have a flurry of polling cards coming through the door for any election.

People would register at an address and not notify that they were leaving. The question arises, how to verify that the people registered were living there? Is there any other way than going around house to house? I'd suggest that this is the best way.

 

[MissRibena]

But at best, it's only point in time information anyway. They would need to do it every couple of years to make sure that it is still correct because people are more and more mobile. If that's what they intend to do, it is such a waste of resources, not to mention my earlier point of why are they sending the people back out twice in one year to the same addresses instead of once. It's this cavalier poorly thought-out kind of thing that is seeing this government poor the money we are awash with straight down the drain.

Why not simply have people verify their address when they turn up to vote? Or if you really want to know, ask the local directors of elections/canvassers - they know who EVERYONE is and know exactly where to find them. In my local town, during the local authority elections, there was a frenzy of local politicians calling to every apartment and rented house to make sure that all non-nationals were registered to vote and urging them to exercise the right. Why pay someone to do it, if the political parties will do it just as well, if not better, and for free?

Rebecca

 

[dontaskme]

But at best, it's only point in time information anyway. They would need to do it every couple of years to make sure that it is still correct because people are more and more mobile. If that's what they intend to do, it is such a waste of resources, not to mention my earlier point of why are they sending the people back out twice in one year to the same addresses instead of once. It's this cavalier poorly thought-out kind of thing that is seeing this government poor the money we are awash with straight down the drain.

well, they should possibly link it to pps numbers or somehow check that the same person is not registered at multiple addresses, which is a possibility at the moment. But I have no problem with people calling door to door if it's in order to ensure proper democratic representation.

Why not simply have people verify their address when they turn up to vote? Or if you really want to know, ask the local directors of elections/canvassers - they know who EVERYONE is and know exactly where to find them. In my local town, during the local authority elections, there was a frenzy of local politicians calling to every apartment and rented house to make sure that all non-nationals were registered to vote and urging them to exercise the right. Why pay someone to do it, if the political parties will do it just as well, if not better, and for free?

Rebecca

Political parties are probably not the best people to be identifying voters on voting day.

 

[MissRibena]

But the point is that calling door-to-door is pointless unless they are going to do it every time there's an election. It's just completely inefficient.

I was being slightly facetious but in any event, I didn't suggest political parties should do the job. On the other hand, political candidates (i.e. including independents) truly are the people who know who is who and who do most to encourage people to vote one way or other and it is a political party that has initiated the review in the first place. Maybe there is room for some kind of concensus review of the list, like jury selection but I can't see it being any less pointless than this.

Getting a better list of potential voters is not going to do much for the democractic system here in any case. If they really cared, they could do something a lot more effective like reform the Seanad, or encourage the 40% (approx) who don't vote to do so, or make local authorities more directly accountable to their communities etc. etc. On the list of stuff to sort when it comes to improving our democracy, checking the list wouldn't be a top priority for me and this is not how I would go about it.

Rebecca

 

[Calina]

Why not simply have people verify their address when they turn up to vote? Or if you really want to know, ask the local directors of elections/canvassers - they know who EVERYONE is and know exactly where to find them. In my local town, during the local authority elections, there was a frenzy of local politicians calling to every apartment and rented house to make sure that all non-nationals were registered to vote and urging them to exercise the right. Why pay someone to do it, if the political parties will do it just as well, if not better, and for free?

Rebecca

1) I would prefer a nonbiased agency to do it. For that reason, the political parties are excluded.
2) I live in north County Dublin. I would be extremely astonished if the canvassers knew who I, or any of my flatmates, were. What works in a town in the country may not/almost certainly does not translate well to a heavily urbanised area.

 

[Calina]

As it happens, I got the knock on the door and was happy to register as a voter. I had been looking into how to do it. Historically, where I originally come from, the rates collectors used to do it. They don't exist any more. As such, I'm quite pleased that someone is doing something about it because frankly, the impression I have in this country is that unless people are reminded to do something for the common good once in a while, all they will do is sit in front of their flat screen televisions whinging about the government on occasion.

We live in a democratic society where you have the right to vote. Rights bring with them responsibilities, namely using that vote, or serving a jury of peers. If you are unwilling to fulfil your responsibilities in this way, then why should you enjoy a fair trial? Or have the right to whinge about the government of the day? Many people do not have those rights. Many people regarding voting as a privilege, not a right, or a nuisance.

I am sorry that the OP feels heavily put upon by the State carrying out a campaign to ensure that her voice is heard in an election.

It may not be perfect, but at least it is there. Otherwise, you could perhaps link it in with tax/social insurance records courtesy of the PPS number. I'm not, however, convinced that that is desirable for data protection reasons.

 

[ubiquitous]

political candidates (i.e. including independents) truly are the people who know who is who and who do most to encourage people to vote one way or other and it is a political party that has initiated the review in the first place.

In certain situations, a low poll can suit particular candidates.

Getting a better list of potential voters is not going to do much for the democractic system here in any case... On the list of stuff to sort when it comes to improving our democracy, checking the list wouldn't be a top priority for me

The average Republican Party activist in Florida would probably agree!

 

[MissRibena]

Flippit - I posted a lovely long smart-allecky post and lost it.

Getting couch potatoes registered to vote is no more likely to get them to actually exercise their right to use the vote. Indeed, it is their right not to use the vote and we shouldn't be getting all high-and-mighty about it either. You can take a horse to water etc. People are entitled to be not bothered about voting anway; in fairness, even those of us with an interest in politics find it hard to point out the differences between the major parties and many of us who want a change have the heeby jeebies about Enda Kenny. So if you weren't all that bothered in voting, I can see how it isn't exactly a hot turn-on at the moment.

Many of the problems in the States re the last election (e.g. the timing of overseas votes etc) would still not be solved by this endeavour. And lets face it, the known world is probably fairly safe in the hands of either Bertie or Enda (although I know it could be interesting if Sinn Fein had the balance - I bet you voter turn out would be better after that!). Anyway, if you have a crooked politician who wants to abuse the system, they will find a way.

Anyway I digress, my points are that a) there are more important things that should have been tackled first, b) this isn't an effective method of ensuring one citizen, one vote, and c) even if it was effective, it's a waste of money as it should have been done with the census.

Rebecca