Recount

A population of about 500, very few of whom are likely to vote. How long can it take to count?

2 Likes

A majority of three and turnout doubled. So four people voted rather than two.

And where was Peter Snow?

2 Likes

Werl, on a windy evening, the ballots get blown about a lot… wot do you mean we could do it indoors, we never do it indoors.

3 Likes

“A load of windy ballots” about sums it up

2 Likes

I wondered about the need for a recount. It seems pretty crap to me: Can these people not count to fifty, in tens, in less than an hour?

Even if every single person entitled to vote off the 700 or so population of Ambridge did vote, it still doesn’t take more than an hour to count off the papers, in gangs of ten, and reach a result. That they failed to do it first time indiactes a degree if incapaciry I find remarkable.

Only possibility: more villages than just Ambridge got a vote.

3 Likes

“Here’s a bundle of ten. Yes, Emma, it’s the same size as the last bundle of ten. No, Emma, we don’t all hate you, or at least we didn’t when we started this count.”

3 Likes

Endemic innumeracy would account for the habitual reluctance to mention actual amounts when discussing anything involving money.

2 Likes

I would have said that people who can count ought to be selected to count the votes.

And I cannot credit that counting fewer than five hundred bits of paper takes so long that everyone waiting for the result is exhausted before they hear it.

1 Like

See, that’s just the kind of political bias against the Grundy-Horrobin Majority that they’re trying to do something about. It’ll be literacy tests next.

3 Likes