Friday, March 16, 2007
SDLP criticise Sinn Fein of ‘over canvassing’…
On our last Slugger Radio outing Sammy noted that Sinn Fein’s electioneering techniques were miles ahead of the field. Unfairly so, say several senior SDLP MLAs.
Dolores Kelly:
“We were getting reports of Sinn Fein going twice to the same doors on the day of the election asking if people had voted,” she said. “People were complaining to us that there were up to 10 men standing outside the voting station and that they found it quite intimidating.” She said there were also cases of republican ballads being blasted at SDLP candidates when they arrived at polling stations.
SDLP MLA for Newry and Armagh Dominic Bradley had a similar story: “Some people I know of were canvassed up to four times during the course of the campaign,” he said. “I think they were selected. In other words, anyone that was not convinced, they would revisit.” One nationalist source said she saw Sinn Fein members holding an elderly man’s hand and putting the voting card into it to show him who he should vote for. She said party members had a colour-coded register defining whether voters were definite Sinn Fein, possible Sinn Fein, SDLP and those who didn’t vote last time.
But there is hardly any secret about this method. Slugger was told during a Sinn Fein campaign in Oldpark in North Belfast in the last Assembly elections in November 2003, that they categorise voters in core areas as either green (definite SF) or yellow (possible converts). It’s methodical, and in the heartland areas it seems to deliver. It may be one reason Sinn Fein are the only party with five seats in a single constituency. And, most importantly, it’s entirely legal.
In fairness, the real problem may simply be that other parties are under canvassing.
Mick Fealty @ 05:44 PM
From the linked article:
“A republican source in Newry and Armagh said Sinn Fein election day operations are run from caravans outside voting stations, with cars being sent to people’s doors if they have not voted.
He disagreed with parties getting the marked register, showing whether each individual had voted or not in the previous election.
“For the supposed Sinn Fein voters who didn’t vote there will be a follow-up visit asking the question: ‘What was the problem, why did you not vote?’” he said.
“Personally, I think it is intimidatory. It sends out a subliminal message – we are ‘big brother’ and we are watching you.”Is this common practice in your elections? I’ve never heard of this happening in the US. Whether I vote or do not vote should be known to me alone and not political parties, in my opinion. It seems to be that this would be open to abuse.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 06:12 AM“Whether I vote or do not vote should be known to me alone and not political parties, in my opinion.”
in other countries, it is a legal requirement to vote. Fines are levied on non voters.Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 08:28 AMHello,
I am not from NI and I was surprised (to say the least) that the Sinn Fein canvasseur who knocked on my door in South Belfast KNEW MY NAME. He was reading it from a list and that freaked me out.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 08:38 AMI think we need to look at this from a slightly different angle.
Given our recent history and on going problems relating to various forms of local justice the interests of the electorate and not the political parties should be uppermost. For that reason we should perhaps have higher standards than the norm.
It is my right to vote or not to vote, that is my business just as it is my business who I vote for if I do vote. Why should political parties be given marked copies of the registers? Why should I have to run the risk of a visit to ask why exactly I didn’t get out and vote? In the NI context political parties should not be given a marked register.
Observers at polling stations are there to observe, in a general way, that the activity is being conducted in a manner that is appropriate. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that information as to who has voted is being passed out of the polling stations. In that context if people arrive at your door and tell you to get out and vote is both intimidating and frankly illegal. We need to set a maximum number of people from each party at any given polling station. Or we need neutral observers and ban political hacks. If the political hacks can’t be trusted with the privileges they are given, and plainly some can’t, then they should lose those privileges.
Am I correct in saying that in the polling station it is illegal to have material that gives an indication as to the way you vote? If that is the case then sample ballot papers advising how people should vote given outside and carried in are in breach of that requirement.
We need to tighten up and first and foremost should be the rights and interests of those voting.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 08:42 AMIt’s pity that the SDLP made this an issue. SF is well organised and the SDLP is not. Notwithstanding that- it is intimidating getting pressed on your voting intentions. My own sister was visited twice after saying she would not vote SF - they asked to come in and talk about it- entirely legal response- but it may be regarded as being too heavy. Especially if you live alone. My father -a pensioner -reported exactly the same experience - though he seems to have been less intimated by the experience. Instead of writing off the SDLP voter as a non nationalist -SF are actively pursuing them. Again entirely legitimate but in the world we live and the history of some of those doing the asking - it may make some people uncomfortable. Nonetheless - I would not have made much of an issue out of it. Perhaps the Electoral Office could publish an Ad in the local papers asking anyone who felt unduly pressurised by any political party to come forward and report the experience. They have a duty to protect the privacy of the voter.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 09:29 AMOn recent thread here on the Slug, an attempt was made to label me as a SDLP supporter. My personal voting preferences were an irrelevancy to that particular thread but it did not stop a torrent of abuse being directed at me. Clearly such unjustified, ad hominem styled SDLP bashing is allowed to pass for debate.
That said, I would like to add that I concur with all that El Mat has said, only adding that I feel this would be helped by closer vetting and training of officers working in the polling stations. Standards vary between areas and this is clearly undemocratic. The Shinners adopted a much lower profile for this election in South Down. There were noticeably fewer canvassers on the roads. Estates weren’t targeted in larger numbers as have been in the past and posters were mainly “generic Gerry”, with only a moderate number of candidate picture posters by SF standards. Now before the Shinner sycophants jump in with their size twelve’s, I would add that this is neither a complaint nor a criticism; it is merely an observation.
The Shinners and the SDLP have a lot to learn from each other. Electioneering is something the Shinners do very well and I wonder if their uncustomary, low profile in South Down during this election was due in no small part to the rumour that the EO were investigating party spending in several key Nationalist and Unionist constituencies?
I think the SDLP are right to raise the issue, as all parties need to be seen to abide by the rules and clearly all parties don’t. When I voted very early in the morning, there was only one canvasser present, handing out sample ballot papers for the Shinners, but IN the polling station. This particular Shinner was not at the gate, not at the door; but inside the building.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 10:46 AMI am not from NI and I was surprised (to say the least) that the Sinn Fein canvasseur who knocked on my door in South Belfast KNEW MY NAME. He was reading it from a list and that freaked me out.
Of course he knew your name. He has the electoral register (kind of essential information for organising a political campaign). You should always check the name on the register matches the person in the house, especially in an area like South Belfast where the population turns over very rapidly. This is not unusual. I have done this in England and in the US and I’ve seen other people do it in Turkey.
Secret ballot - in theory, yes you could match a vote to a serial number to a counterfoil but it’s very hard to do and what’s the point? Say you identify all the RSF voters, who do you find? A few bitter old pensioners, a few young people who’ll grow out of it and maybe even a few genuine ter-ror-rists who you’ll already have records on anyway. As I say, I’m open to suggestions about how we could change this without leaving ourselves open to ballot-box stuffing, etc.
Collecting the total number of papers issued at each box - yes, absolutely agree that this should be available, a vital safeguard against box-stuffing after the poll closes.
Electoral staff untrained - yes, of course they’re people doing it for a few quid. That’s why I do my job, too. The real enthusiasts are already members of political parties! That’s no excuse for them not being properly trained: one of our members was told in Ballymena that ‘you can vote up to number 6’, for example. There were repeated examples of presiding officers refusing to reveal the number of papers issued. There is no excuse for having staff who don’t know basic election procedure.
‘Potential nationalist voters’ - this means people with Catholic sounding names. Always gives our activists in places like East Antrim and North Down a bit of a laugh to see who gets a letter from the Shinners and who doesn’t (e.g. Patrick O’Neill does but Jeffrey Simpson doesn’t!). The Shinners are far better trained in Belfast!
Which brings me on to point two - heavy Shinner canvassing. I genuinely have no complaints here. I always tell SF “Alliance” and other members in strongly Nationalist areas of Belfast have no problem telling them either that or just a straight out “no”. I’ve never had any complaints of an unpleasant follow up, and doing so would be counter-productive. As well as pissing off the person involved, it might well piss off their hitherto SF-voting friends and relations. If you feel SF are misbehaving, you can always take revenge courtesy of the secret ballot.
Therefore I see absolutely no reason to restrict political activity in the way Crataegus suggests, although I’m willing to discuss issues in the precincts of a polling station. The idea that voters can’t bring in sample ballot papers is frankly ludicrous. So is any restriction of get-out-the-vote activity (in the Central London ward I ran for the LibDems in May, we knocked our supporters five times on polling day!!!) . All this sounds like a super whinge by the SDLP and other anti-Republicans.
Well, I’m fairly anti-Republican too but I’m not going to restrict the legitimate activities of political parties when they are legitimate. When I see Sinn Féín’s operations in elections I think, “how, with my vastly more limited resources, can I emulate some of this”. The SDLP attribute almost magical powers of electoral fraud to SF. While some minor fraud might still occur around postal vote fraud and polling station information, most of what SF does is just what the rest of us do writ large.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 10:58 AMit is intimidating getting pressed on your voting intentions. My own sister was visited twice after saying she would not vote SF - they asked to come in and talk about it- entirely legal response- but it may be regarded as being too heavy. Especially if you live alone. My father -a pensioner -reported exactly the same experience - though he seems to have been less intimated by the experience. Instead of writing off the SDLP voter as a non nationalist -SF are actively pursuing them. Again entirely legitimate but in the world we live and the history of some of those doing the asking - it may make some people uncomfortable.
Tom Kelly
The examples you cite are perfect examples of good canvassing techniques that the party you support also use from time to time.
Let’s not forget: if the voter is really ‘frightened,’ intimidated’ or feeling ‘bullied’ then they are much less likely to vote for the ‘offending’ party.
This entire discussion is premised on an SDLP whinge. That said, I’ll not be surprised if the brothers Attwood are at Douglas Bain’s door Tuesday morning demanding action.
As to the Electoral Office, they would do much better spending their time ensuring that they process applications for people to get on the electoral register with much greater speed and fewer obstacles- if the SDLP spent more time actually canvassing than whingeing about those that do, they would know that very many people were left off the register in spite of having returned forms well before the deadline.
Craetegus
How absurd! So you don’t think people should be allowed to carry sample ballot papers in with them? Is this the SDLP’s latest cunning plan to prevent Sinn Fein taking multiple seats in constituencies- perhaps this one emanates from West Belfast…What will they think of next?
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 11:01 AMNo matter what Gaskin says, I can categorically say that the Shinner’s did pass info out of the station I was in. They did it this year, last time and the time before that…
They follow a simple method, How’s old Mrs Grady feeling? I was speaking to the Feely’s the other night. The Keown’s bought a new car... Pathetically lame, yet it worked for very shortly the Keown’s, Grady’s and Feely’s would come strolling in.
This is illegal, I got eye contact with a poll clerk and all they did was shrug their shoulders. As has rightly been noted, all polling agents are issued with letters off entry (and should be) issued with letters of secrecy. Sinn Fein showed no regard for this, with often a second Shinner in speaking with the polling agent, no form of entry and just blatant disregard to the whole system.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 11:22 AMAs an outsider I am amazed about complaints about methods that I used when canvassing for the Progressive Conservative party in the 1950’s in Toronto. Why complain?
About ballot numbers-better to have them than to have the situation in parts of Montreal in the ‘50’s-70’s where gangs of thugs would enter the polling area and place large numbers of pre-marked votes, usually for the Liberal party and nothing could be done to prevent them from being counted.
Northern Ireland sounds again better than when I had to sit in a polling subdivision wit a voters list on which was marked the eye colour/hair colour of voters, so that i could check to make sure they were the real thing.
These type of problems have never arisen in Australia with our compulsory voting.Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 11:26 AMSammy
This is NI and with recent history we need to be extra careful. In my opinion the electorate are the prime consideration not the political parties.
in the Central London ward I ran for the LibDems in May, we knocked our supporters five times on polling day!!!)
Do you not think this is harassment or obsessive behavour and the idea that you can be firstly force someone to get out and vote by constant pestering and that they can take revenge by voting against misses the point. You may not have felt particularly like voting in the first place. Indeed you may not want to vote, why should you be subjected to harassment? Imagine for one moment this was someone selling double glazing, there would be hell to pay.
On the matter of conduct at polling stations information is getting transmitted out. It is illegal and it must stop. If political types don’t behave then the rules have to be tightened to ensure they cannot abuse the privileges given to them.
Also on the right to not vote and the right for that to be a matter for you and you alone. Why give political parties a marked register? It is an infringement of peoples right to privacy.
The rights of electorate should be of prime consideration not enabling the sport of political fanatics.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 12:35 PMDo you not think this is harassment or obsessive behavour and the idea that you can be firstly force someone to get out and vote by constant pestering and that they can take revenge by voting against misses the point.
This happens in just about every elective democracy in the world. In the days when parliamentary democracy and party membership was healthier in most Western countries it was a lot more persistent than it is these days. I really see no problem in it. If someone tells you to f*** off and leave them alone, you just cross them off the list. End of story. If someone tells you they have had a family bereavement and politics are the last thing from their mind, you cross them off the list. End of story.
And if they get really pissed off, they can vote against you. End of story.
In any case, given the way most people live, you have to knock many doors four times for one contact.
The rights of electorate should be of prime consideration not enabling the sport of political fanatics.
The duty of people to vote is also a consideration. A duty is not the opposite of a right. People have the right not to vote but it remains the duty of people to vote, even if they choose not to fulfil that duty.
People always whinge about falling turnout but apparently here are whingeing about things that boost the turnout. It has nothing to do with the sport of political fanatics and everything to do with the health of democracy.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 12:57 PMSpot-on, Crataegus: the issue isn’t whether slaves are whipped with greater brutality in other countries; it is whether it is right that slaves should be whipped at all.
Given the shinners’ history of what we might euphemistically refer to as ‘unethical techniques of persuasion’ there is a case for a strong a code of practice to ensure that their traditional contempt for democratic procedures isn’t brought upon the voters in a way that is unchecked by unsympathetic scrutiny.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 01:10 PMSammy
This happens in just about every elective democracy in the world.
That does not make it right and in NI we have spent decades murdering each other and have all sorts of local forms of justice. We need to be mindful of this and do things better.
In any case, given the way most people live, you have to knock many doors four times for one contact.
Tough who invited you?
The duty of people to vote is also a consideration.
It is their duty? Sorry it is their right to vote or not and it is not your responsibility to pester them until they get out to vote.
everything to do with the health of democracy.
No a healthy democracy is one where people feel involved and are sufficiently motivated to get out and vote of their own free will. Pestering degrades the democratic concept. The old Greek whip?
Wake up and take your eyes of the transfer tables, marked registers and statistics and see there are very real problems and very real abuse and given the NI context we need to be extra careful.
Dubliner
Thanks
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 01:24 PMSammy,
“Of course he knew your name… He has the electoral register (kind of essential information for organising a political campaign).”
I am afraid, I have an issue with that. I don’t see the legitimacy or the point that political parties should get my personal details. You don’t need to know my name to give me a leaflet and have a chat with me over the values of voting for X or Z. You don’t need personal details to organise a political campaign.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 02:22 PMThe Pink Lobster
I believe you are making a very valid point, but I think it raises a bigger questions regarding “access to” and “right to ‘freedom of information’ and what this should or shouldn’t contain.
Is it now time to review census information, what
it contains and how it is collated? The information is out there and I tend to lean on the side of less red tape rather than more. Though we know the information is available to political parties, may be they should be discouraged from making an ouvert use of it (like on the doorstep)and I would go further and restrict the unsightly use of posters, widen the radious of an exlusion zone around polling stations and trust the elctorateto vote in a responsible way without any fear of them using ‘unethical techniques of persuasion’Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 02:48 PMThe Pink Lobster,
Who else canvassed your door? If anyone else bothered did they use a name? Are you afraid by knowing your name the shinners will be waiting to shoot you in your sleep?
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 03:10 PMYou don’t need to know my name to give me a leaflet and have a chat with me
I do need to know your name to:
* know whether or not anyone is registered at your address (in parts of South Belfast a majority are vacant or have no-one registered)
* know I am chatting to the right person at all (over 20% of voters move in a given year in parts of Belfast)
* make sure I can at least try to speak to everyone in a house (different people vote different ways in the same household)
* look for evidence of bogus registration
* find supporters who have moved house so they I can sign them up for postal votes at their old address
* etc., etc., etc.There are pretty strict rules about what the information in the electoral register can be used for and who is allowed access. If you have any issues I suggest you take them up with the Information Commissioner.
Wake up and take your eyes of the transfer tables, marked registers and statistics and see there are very real problems and very real abuse and given the NI context we need to be extra careful.
Don’t patronise me. Do you have any evidence of any ‘real abuse’, as you put it? Any at all? Or are you just supporting the SDLP in yet another champion whinge? Are you just assuming that because Sinn Féin are doing something they must be up to no good?
If you remove the ability of people to contact and motivate their voters, then you will be handing a massive bonus to SF, whose voters are generally well motivated anyway.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 03:31 PMDougal,
I agree on the substance with but I still don’t get the point of why political parties should have an access at all to those listings.
Petey,
Nobody else canvassed my door. I don’t fear the shinners as some of them are even my friends but the situation made me uncomfortable: somebody knocked on my door and asked “isn’t the Pink Lobster living here?” Sorry, but why did this guy needed to know that I live in that house to hand me a leaflet for Maskey? What is happening to those listing after the campaign? I make a point of destroying any piece of paper which has my address and my name on it: I know some people who had their personal datas abused and it’s not fun. Hence, I feel that it is quite irresponsible that all this information is available to any political party.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 03:45 PMSammy,
Why do you need to know that anyone is registered in any houses? Isn’t it all the charm of canvassing to wait 5 minutes outside an unhabited house, to get bitten by the doggy and to be make cool and unespected surprises?
Why do you need to know that you are talking to the right person? You are trying to convince me, here, do you need to know who am I to convince me? Nope, so that’s the same during a campaign: we can have a chat over the manifestos outside my door (and I welcome anybody) but again that does not require that the canvassers know my name.
Find your supporters in your own listings, I don’t want to appear anywhere in any computers of any political party.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 04:00 PMI have not read above one good defense of why any political party should know if I voted or did not vote on election day. Pink Lobster makes good points as to why such information should be totally secure and private. Sammy thinks he has the right to interrogate people for the sake of greater voter turnout. I believe people should have the freedom to both vote and not vote. It is possible that you might think in a particular election that none of the candidates deserves your vote. And, there are other good reasons not to vote. The Australian model may make the politicians feel good about themselves but I do not think it is truly democratic.
The issue of political parties linked to paramilitaries is even more reason that such information should be kept from political parties. The suggestion, however oblique, of harm to voters spoils the entire process.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 04:29 PMThe Pink Lobster
As Sammy is right to point out, it is perfectly legitimate for parties to ask people for their vote. To do this in the most efficient way, they surely need to know who they are asking? Where that person lives and, furthermore, if they do this, that the person they are speaking to is in deed the person they claim to be. I think it is fair to assume that the easiest way to do this is by using the information on the register. The information is out-there and freely available. If we are going to review how this information is used (and by whom) then I think there are bigger issues at stake?
Sammy,
You’re not really whiter than white yourself are you Sammy? You advise people not to patronise you yet you are happy to insult the SDLP (and implicitly all it’s voters) by referring to ”.. yet another champion whinge..” Tut, tut, tut.
The bigger questions raised here concern the right of political parties to use this information overtly and whether or not the electorate is justified in being fearful of who has access to this information. I think you are right to ask the question about evidence relating to ‘real abuse’, which needs to be reported to all the appropriate authorities. The truth is out there but it is naive to think that anyone complicit in such activity will not attempt to cover his or her tracks. Consequently, because the instigator of a wrong deed con not be proven, it is no reason for us to shrug our shoulders as if no wrong deed occurred.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 04:30 PMyou are happy to insult the SDLP (and implicitly all it’s voters) by referring to ”.. yet another champion whinge..” Tut, tut, tut.
Dougal - where did I insult SDLP voters? Catch a grip.
The truth is out there but it is naive to think that anyone complicit in such activity will not attempt to cover his or her tracks.
Dougal, I haven’t even heard any circumstantial evidence of abuse here. Produce the goods or be damned as a whinger!
Isn’t it all the charm of canvassing to wait 5 minutes outside an unhabited house, to get bitten by the doggy and to be make cool and unespected surprises?
Er… no. There has to be a register of electors available to someone. If the only people who have access to it are the electoral authorities, who aren’t always the most efficient, who is going to stop abusive multiple registrations, etc? Who is going to make sure people who drop off the register (mostly people who just forgot to return the form because they were busy with other things) get registered? How can you spot personation without having a list of people to verify people’s identity against? Worst of all, a register only open to the authorities is one that allows the authorities to rig the election. And it really is as simple as that.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 05:24 PMSammy, I am agreeing with much of what you have posted but I do think it is too simplistic and insulting to dismiss the bigger questions being raised here as simply one party on “… yet another champion whinge..” . As I have said, if there is evidence, people should produce it. However it is naive to assume and approach the matter of wrong doing as a matter worthy of investigation or debate only if we can apportion blame. This is what you appear to be doing. Please do correct me if I am mistaken. We are all entitled to our opinion and this is mine.
I see nothing wrong in asking whether any political party has the right to profile people? And if there are problems with the Electoral Commission, then they should be addressed but why should this pre-suppose a need for the information to be made available to political parties?
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 06:09 PMwhy should this pre-suppose a need for the information to be made available to political parties?
Read my 5.24 pm post. Having a non-inspectable electoral register gives the electoral authorities the ability to, er, steal the election.
Posted by on Mar 17, 2007 @ 06:14 PM
