[SGE 2011] Rejected votes: A basic analysis.

Sun, 8 May 2011
2 min read
Add Comment

Your vote is your voice: Be heard.

Thought I’d just take a basic/preliminary look at the rejected votes in this year’s General Elections because it’s something I’m curious about.

Based on data provided by ChannelNewsAsia:

  • Total percentage of rejected votes as a proportion of votes cast: 2%
  • Constituencies with lowest percentage of rejected votes:
    • Hougang: 1.13%
    • Aljunied: 1.34%
  • Constituency with highest percentage of rejected votes: Ang Mo Kio (3.01%)
  • Proportion of constituencies with rejected votes > national average of rejected votes: 16/26

What are some possible conclusions we can draw from this?

  • Perhaps voters in Hougang and Aljunied took voting the most seriously because:
    • These constituencies were the most hotly contested,
    • These constituencies were contested by the Workers’ Party (reinforced by the fact that all except one of the constituencies contested by the Workers’ Party had <2% of votes rejected).
  • Rejected votes in Ang Mo Kio: small proportion of voters who feel they don’t really have a choice, or perhaps are really clueless about how to vote.
  • If it’s the latter, then we can tackle this problem in relation to the fourth statistic I found:
    • Perhaps we need to be teaching our fellow citizens how to vote over the course of five years, instead of only doing so during the elections.
    • There also needs to be instructions at polling booths, because the rejected votes make a mockery of the voting process.

This is a basic analysis of the data, so I welcome more scrutiny/thoughts on the subject.

Spoiling your vote? Think again.

Sat, 7 May 2011
2 min read
1 Comment

Do not be afraid. They cannot stop us all.

TL;DR: Your spoilt vote can be counted if the Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) deems it possible that there was intent to vote for a certain party.

I don’t know if this post will have any relevance, since I’m posting it so late on Polling Day.

But I thought I’d put it up for now and for posterity, to clear any misconceptions that people might have about spoiling their votes.

In sum, don’t spoil your vote because a spoilt vote is not always a spoilt vote.

With reference to Section 7.5 of the Handbook for Parliamentary Election Candidates 2011:

…a ballot paper on which the vote is marked elsewhere than in the proper place, otherwise than by means of a cross or by more than one marking will not be treated as void if an intention that the vote should be for one candidate or group of candidate clearly appears, and the way the paper is marked does not of itself identify the voter.

How does the ARO do this? These images will make my explanation clearer (borrowed from 何思慧’s Facebook note):

Any mark you make in the box next to the insignia of a certain party = intent to vote for them.
Any mark you make in the box next to the insignia of a certain party = intent to vote for them.

If you draw a big cross over the whole piece of paper, the vote is counted at the point where the centre of the X falls.
If you draw a big cross over the whole piece of paper, the vote is counted at the point where the centre of the X falls.

The only way to make sure your vote counts is to place a nice 'X' in the centre of the empty box next to the insignia of the party you are voting for.
The only way to make sure your vote counts is to place a nice ‘X’ in the centre of the empty box next to the insignia of the party you are voting for.

How are you looking at information today?

Fri, 6 May 2011
2 min read
Add Comment

How language and the media works in shaping our thoughts.

Today, before you open the newspaper, turn on the radio or switch on the television, I’d like you to take the time to plough through these two articles:

  1. Critical Discourse Analysis
  2. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis

If you are of the TL;DR ilk, here is a quick primer:

  • What is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)?
    From the first article, CDA is a way of looking at things to “stud[y] the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context”.
  • Why is a knowledge of CDA necessary?
    Unbeknownst to many, language IS power. He or she who controls the words, controls the minds of they who read what is written, watch what is shown or hear what is said.

    CDA is thus necessary “to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality”.

  • What are some examples of an application of CDA?
    • Looking at how pictures are used in, say, a newspaper. Are some pictures of certain people unflattering to them? Why is this so? Was there a larger intention in portraying them as such?
    • Comparing how words are used to describe people e.g. when comparing three people of the same standing, Person X is called “fresh-faced”, Person Y is called “innocent”, while Person Z is called “naive”. All three words are synonyms. However, has Person X been given a more positive image? Why?
    • Assessing coverage, or the quantity of information reporting done on a particular topic or subject. Is one topic or subject given more ‘air-time’ than another? Why?

For those of you who have the time, you may want to, say, practice analysing and evaluating information from articles, reports, etc. that have been published – in print or otherwise – over the last one week or so.

With this knowledge, I hope you are more equipped to deal with any new information that might come your way, today or in the future.