kronstadt wrote:The way spoiled papers are dealt with is fairly brisk as well. If you're a candidate, you're shown them for about half a second and asked if you think it's a spoilt paper or someone who has made an error casting their vote.
Indeed, but in most cases that's simply because the returning officer has correctly and accurately identified and categorised each paper and there are no grounds for dispute. However, I've still seen candidates argue at length to try to claim even the most dubious and doubtful ballot papers as a vote for them. There's plenty of scope for disputation if someone wants to.
There is no mechanism to deliberate between someone who has drawn a box for "none of the above" and written beside it why they feel they can't vote, and someone who has drawn a giant spurting penis and written "YOUS ARE CUNTS" beside it. They are both just spoiled papers and treated as such.
Correct. And your point is? When you think about it, both the spoilt papers you cite as examples are saying precisely the same thing, so why and how should they be treated differently?