It would appear my former MP has thrown a hissy fit and is contemplating a legal challenge.

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8153 ... y_Dismore/

Quite right, it's in the UNCHR. However what we're discussing here isn't people being not allowed to vote, it's people being allowed to vote but due to circumstances not doing so. Circumstances which they themselves contributed to by leaving the act of voting until the last minute. If my car breaks down and I can't get to the polling station, my right to vote has not been infringed but I don't get to cast my vote. The two circumstances are very different.

Fair enough. But if, like me, you didn't know there was legislation about this, surely you think, "The polling station is open til 2200, so as long as I get there before then, it'll be alright."? Clearly for next time, lessons are to be learnt. However, to my mind if you've made the effort to get there before 2200, but due to queuing which you probably weren't expecting late into the evening, you were denied your vote - that's not right. Surely?

If one's vote is deemed so inconsequential that one doesn't cancel all but emergencies and go at the earliest opportunity, one deserves to get locked out.

It is up to each individual voter to make sure that he votes.

Don't forget that in many countries around the world, people would be waiting in droves outside the polling station before it opened for precisely this reason.

I went back to the polling station with Wife016 as she voted in the evening. The person behind us in the queue though about coming back later. We said to stick it out as there are probably hundreds of people taking that view and there would be a large rush right at the end as they all turned up to vote.

I don't think it's either 'right' or 'wrong', really. If I had to, I'd classify it as 'an unfortunate accident'. Hopefully the electoral commission report will see some procedural changes that will ensure it doesn't happen again but that doesn't mean anybody has been 'sinned against' as such.

And I'm sorry but you're using the wrong phrase again - nobody has been 'denied their vote'. Everybody has had an opportunity to vote because the polling stations were open for a whole day and postal voting was available. People's circumstances not allowing them to get to vote is not the same them being 'denied their vote', which would be illegal.

Semantics perhaps? If you leave anything to the last minute, there's a chance it doesn't get done. As adults we are all aware of that and all fall prey to it every now and again. But why not rush them inside and crack on, in the interests of democracy?

As for the other countries vibe, I disagree. This isn't Iraq or some 2nd world country. We're allegedly a beacon of democracy for the rest of the world to aspire to. So I don't expect this situation here.

And Jim, it's hardly life or death for a lot of people. We're all sharing opinions here. All I'm saying is, were I one of the staff on the night, I'd be like "get in here and we'll have a lock in" or words to that affect. Tesco might close at 2200 in some places, but they ask people to leave politely, they don't kick them all out immediately. Pubs closing is a similar concept. And neither of these things is as important (per se) as voting.

Bit of common sense, that's all I'm saying.

It definitely is semantics yes but you're dealing with a strictly defined legal process with significant consequences, so the details matter. If you get the details wrong people can launch legal actions, votes get invalidated etc. Look at the trouble in Florida during the next to last US election. It could very quickly turn into a real mess. If it's a landlord serving a few pints after last orders nobody is really losing out but if people get to vote after 10PM, especially in a very marginal constituency, who knows what the effect might be.


Add a +1 to that. Whether the officers acted correctly or not, we should be better at doing things like this than we apparently are.