MARUAH Electoral Boundary Delimitation Position Paper

In brief,

  • The delimitation process in Singapore is opaque and not subject to public scrutiny. Some boundaries appear to be arbitrary or designed to favour one party. This results in weaker community ties and cynicism towards the political process.
  • Maruah urges the government to raise the level of impartiality, equality, representativeness, non-discrimination and transparency of the boundary delimitation process in Singapore

Slides from the press conference are here:

4GRCs-in-5-elections

MARUAH Electoral Boundary Delimitation Powerpoint Presentation

and the position paper itself is at Maruah’s website. Maps of changes in electoral boundaries from 1991-2011 are in Annex 2 (with thanks to the people at http://www.singapore-elections.com).

Advertisements

Guide for Counting Agents (ELD)

Looks like the Elections Department has released its’ Guide for Counting Agents in the Hougang by-election, and the sampling check for “the purpose of checking against the result of count for that counting place” remains in place. Seems fairly pointless to check “against the result of count” given that there’s no way to change what’s on the ballot papers even if the final results don’t agree with the sampling check.

The real question is whether the AROs will disclose the results of the validity check to Counting Agents at the time that it is carried out, and who receives the “sampling check” information after it is compiled by ELD HQ, but before the announcement of the vote counts at the counting centres.

http://www.eld.gov.sg/pdf/Guide%20for%20Counting%20Agents%20(Final).pdf

Background here:

https://stngiam.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/electoral-procedure-sampling-checks/

Electoral Procedure: Sampling checks in the 2011 Presidential Election

As recounted in my earlier posts, I served as a Counting Agent in both the General Election and Presidential Election last year. One of the pleasant surprises of the 2011 elections was the number of Singaporeans who stepped forward as volunteers to assist the different parties and candidates in campaigning and to serve as Polling Agents and Counting Agents in both elections. Polling agents are appointed by candidates to observe the polling process while Counting Agents observe the counting of ballot papers. Unfortunately, I think the smaller parties were overwhelmed by the response so the administration and training of their volunteers was less than ideal. Still, it is a good sign of the health of Singapore’s political development that so many did step forward to serve.

The Elections Department (ELD) also helped by publishing for the first time two guides for Polling Agents and Counting Agents. Unfortunately, these guides were only released three days before polling day so it was too late for the candidates to use them in their training sessions. Hopefully, the Elections Department will update these guides for future elections and release them earlier so that candidates, agents and voters will have a clearer understanding of the procedures and rules regarding the casting and counting of votes.

By and large, I think both elections went off smoothly and by the time of the Presidential Election, both elections officials and Counting Agents were already familiar with the procedures and in some cases, with each other, because they had met previously during the General Election. The Elected President is intended to be above party politics and I was pleased to find that at least in the counting centre that I was assigned to, there was a high level of co-operation between the Counting Agents representing all four of the candidates. Apart from Tony Tan, the other candidates did not manage to recruit enough Counting Agents to cover all the Counting Places. Nonetheless, Counting Agents for the other three candidates informally spread themselves out among the tables and held watching briefs for each other. In any case, there were few disagreements between the Counting Agents and Assistant Returning Officers (AROs) or among the Counting Agents over adjudication of ballots.

Counting Procedures

The counting procedures for both Parliamentary and Presidential Elections are substantially similar and ELD’s Guide for Counting Agents provides a good overview. One of the interesting features of the process is what ELD calls in its guide a “sampling check”

Sampling checks

5.16 During the counting process, the ARO will conduct a sampling check to obtain a sample of the possible electoral outcome for that counting place, for the purpose of checking against the result of count for that counting place.

What I observed was that after the ballot boxes were opened and the contents mixed together on the counting table, one of the counting assistants would randomly select 100 ballot papers and do a quick tally of the votes on that sample and then report the results to the Assistant Returning Officer in charge of that Counting Place. The results of the sampling check were not formally announced to those present but Counting Agents could observe the recording of the results by the AROs. As I mentioned earlier, there was very good co-operation and sharing of data between the Counting Agents representing all four candidates so I managed to collect the sampling check data for all the counting tables at our Counting Centre (Table 1).

Table 1 – Sampling check results for Presidential Election, 27 August 2011
Nanyang Junior College Counting Centre
Counting Place

Polling District

Polling Station

Tan Cheng Bock

Tan Jee Say

Tony Tan Keng Yam

Tan Kin Lian
1

GK01

MA27

Nanyang JC

33%

25%

36%

6%
2

GK02

MA24

Braddell Heights CC (B)

22%

34%

39%

5%
3

GK03

MA23

Braddell Heights CC (A)

30%

28%

38%

4%
4

GK04

MA22

419 Serangoon Central

35%

21%

34%

10%
5

GK05

MA26

305 Serangoon Ave 2

21%

32%

43%

4%
6

GK06

MA25

240 Serangoon Ave 2

26%

30%

35%

9%
Overall for Counting Centre

27.8%

28.3%

37.5%

6.3%
Sampling is conducted by taking a sample of 100 ballots at each Counting Place after mixing of ballot papers but before commencement of counting. The overall share for each candidate was computed by simply averaging the results for each polling district without adjusting for the different number of voters in each polling district.

Tony Tan came out ahead in all the polling districts in the sampling check, just as he did in the final tally (Table 2) though there was some difference between the final result and the sampling check (Table 3).

Table 2 – Actual results for Presidential Election 27 August 2011
Nanyang Junior College Counting Centre
Counting Place

Polling District

Polling Station

Tan Cheng Bock

Tan Jee Say

Tony Tan Keng Yam

Tan Kin Lian

Total number of valid votes

1

GK01

MA27

Nanyang JC

34.1%

26.6%

34.0%

5.3%

3,237
2

GK02

MA24

Braddell Heights CC (B)

32.5%

28.6%

33.0%

5.9%

3,074
3

GK03

MA23

Braddell Heights CC (A)

31.5%

28.7%

34.8%

5.1%

3,198
4

GK04

MA22

419 Serangoon Central

32.5%

26.0%

35.8%

5.7%

3,539
5

GK05

MA26

305 Serangoon Ave 2

33.5%

25.3%

36.4%

4.9%

2,946
6

GK06

MA25

240 Serangoon Ave 2

32.7%

24.8%

36.6%

5.9%

3,434
Overall for Counting Centre

32.8%

26.6%

35.1%

5.5%

19,428
See https://stngiam.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/flash-results-micropolling-results-of-presidential-elections-2011/ for more polling-district level results.
Table 3 – Difference between actual vote share and sampling check
Nanyang Junior College Counting Centre
Counting Place

Polling District

Polling Station

Tan Cheng Bock

Tan Jee Say

Tony Tan Keng Yam

Tan Kin Lian
1

GK01

MA27

Nanyang JC

1.1% pt

1.6% pt

-2.0% pt

-0.7% pt
2

GK02

MA24

Braddell Heights CC (B)

10.5% pt

-5.4% pt

-6.0% pt

0.9% pt
3

GK03

MA23

Braddell Heights CC (A)

1.5% pt

0.7% pt

-3.2% pt

1.1% pt
4

GK04

MA22

419 Serangoon Central

-2.5% pt

5.0% pt

1.8% pt

-4.3% pt
5

GK05

MA26

305 Serangoon Ave 2

12.5% pt

-6.7% pt

-6.6% pt

0.9% pt
6

GK06

MA25

240 Serangoon Ave 2

6.7% pt

-5.2% pt

1.6% pt

-3.1% pt
Overall for Counting Centre

5.0% pt

-1.7% pt

-2.4% pt

-0.8% pt
e.g, in polling district MA27, Tan Cheng Bock actually received 34.1% of the vote compared to 33% in the sampling check, a difference of 1.1 % points.

The sampling check is not specifically called out in the Presidential Elections Act or Parliamentary Elections Act though it does not appear to be prohibited either. I did not observe the counting assistants carrying out a sampling check during last May’s General Elections. However, I did observe the ARO at a different counting centre personally pick up a stack of ballots and scrutinize them very closely. When I asked him what he was doing at that time, he answered that he was checking the validity of the ballot papers. Possibly, he was referring to Section 50(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act under which ballot papers must bear an official authentication mark to be considered valid. Given the thoroughness of ELD’s pre-election preparations and the scrutiny of Presiding Officers and Polling Agents, not to mention voters, during polling, I find it very unlikely that any unauthenticated ballot papers could slip through. In any case, the ARO is required under Section 50 to check the validity of every ballot paper when it is counted so a validity check on a subset of the ballots appears to be superfluous.

Regardless, the validity check or sampling check cannot affect election results because they are only conducted after polls have closed. Conceivably, the sampling check could be construed as being a form of exit polling and while Section 78D of the Parliamentary Election Act prohibits the publication of exit poll results on polling day, this prohibition only applies while polling stations are open. Even if a sampling check were conducted during a Parliamentary Election and the results leaked out, there would not be any violation of the Act because polls would already have closed by the the time the sampling check is conducted.

Sampling check as predictor of election result

The ELD Guide for Counting Agents says that the purpose of the sampling check is to “obtain a sample of the possible electoral outcome for that counting place, for the purpose of checking against the result of count for that counting place.” This sentence is quite awkwardly constructed and doesn’t make a lot of sense since the the final vote tally will be the official result regardless of whether it agrees with the sampling check. Presumably, what they really meant to say was that the sampling check is used to predict the outcome of the election early in the counting process.

As can be seen in Tables 1 to 3, the sampling check predicted correctly that Tony Tan would come out on top at Nanyang Junior College, though his actual vote share was 2.4% lower than that in the sampling check. The sampling check result for Tan Cheng Bock in polling district MA24 stands out as it was 11 percentage points lower than his actual vote share. I estimate a slightly more than 1% chance of this occurring by chance, which is a low probability but not exceptionally low. Of course, it’s also quite possible that the Counting Agent at that table just made a mistake because the ARO did not officially announce the sampling checks results over the table.

For this election, analyzing the sampling check results is quite challenging because there were four candidates so the problem is a multiple comparison problem rather than the usual comparison of two proportions. In a normal two-horse race, we would just have to predict whether the votes for one candidate exceed 50% and that would tell us the outcome of the race. In this case, however, we would have had to predict the vote shares of at least two, perhaps three, candidates, but the vote shares of the candidates are not independently distributed, which makes the problem rather difficult. If any more statistically-inclined reader has a good method for estimating probability distributions for this type of problem, please contact me.

Four-way elections will hopefully remain rare in Singapore, so I present a simplified analysis of the sampling check in a standard two-way election instead. There were 782 polling stations in the last election and if 100 ballots are sampled from each one, there would be a total of 78,200 ballots in the sampling check for a nation-wide election such as the presidential election. We assume that each polling district has the same number of voters, and using the normal approximation to the binomial distribution, the 95% confidence interval for the sampling check is roughly ±0.4% points. If we don’t need to estimate the actual vote share and only need to know whether a candidate has won (i.e., received > 50% of the vote), we can be 95% confident that he has won if he receives over 50.3% of the votes in the sampling check (one-tailed test). For the elections officials, what counts perhaps is not who won but rather whether there would be a recount. To avoid a recount, the winning candidate must receive at least 51% of the final vote (2% winning margin over his opponent) so if the sampling check reveals that one candidate has scored at least 51.4% in the sample, the elections officials can be 99% certain that they would not have to stay overnight. In reality, the number of voters varies from about 2,000 to 3,500 per polling district and since voter turnout will be known by the close of polls, we could make some adjustments for polling district size and voter turnout to improve the accuracy of the forecast. Of course, there is no way to estimate the number of spoilt votes, which could affect the results, but I don’t think those would have a large effect in most circumstances.

Because the sample size is large in a presidential election, the forecast made by the sampling check is quite precise. In parliamentary elections, however, there may be as few as five polling districts in a single-member constituency (SMC) such as Potong Pasir so the sample would be smaller and the uncertainty in the sampling check larger. Assuming a sample of 500 out of a total of 15,870 valid votes in Potong Pasir, a candidate would have to receive at least 53.7% in the sampling check to be 95% certain of winning the election (one-tailed test). Hougang is larger and has nine polling districts with 23,000 voters. For that constituency, a candidate would have to poll at least 52.7% in the sampling check to be 95% certain of winning the election. Again, I’m assuming equal polling district sizes in these analyses but adjusting for polling district size and turnout would be more important in small constituencies.

Purpose of the sampling check

A rather obvious question is what ELD does with the sampling check data. As described above, one possible use of the sampling check is to predict whether recounts would be necessary and to prepare the elections officials accordingly. I do not know whether this was done during the presidential election, but I presume not, because I did not observe the elections officials at my counting centre start to make preparations for the recount until very late in the night. Since the sampling check takes place after the close of polls it cannot affect voter turnout and it cannot have any effect on the ballot papers which have already been poured out and mixed together on the counting table. The only possible effect that I can conceive is that if a candidate learns that the results are close in a particular counting centre, he could redeploy his more persuasive Counting Agents there in the hope of swaying the ARO into interpreting unclear ballots in a more favorable manner. This has less of an impact in Presidential Elections where every vote has the same weight regardless of location, but in a General Election, political parties may be able to use sampling check data to reposition Counting Agents from safer seats to more contested constituencies where they might be able to make a difference. Smaller parties in particular could benefit more from this information in that they could make more effective use of their smaller pool of volunteers whereas larger parties already have an excess of Counting Agents so have lesser need to redeploy them even in the event of a close fight. To ensure the appearance of impartiality, however, ELD should formally announce the results of the sampling check rather than leave it to Counting Agents to look over the shoulders of the AROs. While the AROs at my counting centre did not prevent the Counting Agents from jotting down the results of the sampling check, they did not explicitly announce the results in the same way that they announced the final vote count over the table.

On reflection, however, it is not really clear to me what purpose the sampling check serves. ELD does not appear to use the results to prepare its officials for recounts, and it does not officially share the results with candidates or media. Hopefully ELD would be able to explain the purpose and use of the sampling check when it prepares its Guides for Candidates and Counting Agents for the next election — whether General Election or by-election. While I can appreciate it if ELD has concerns that revealing sampling check results could raise temperatures in close elections, I also don’t think it is tenable for them to conduct a sampling check during the course of counting without being more open and transparent as to the procedure and the use of the data generated by the sampling check.

Why does it take so long to get election results ?

In a posting on his journalism.sg blog, Cherian George reminds readers of MediaCorp’s refusal to air any hints of election results prior to the official announcement by the Returning Officer:

Members also commented that while they understood the need for CNA to ensure that the results were verified before they were announced on air, the delay between announcements on other new media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and the updates on CNA did not reflect well on the latter as a national news channel.

George attributes MediaCorp’s slowness to their reluctance to attribute news breaks to a competing news organisation (George’s former employer, the Straits Times). While that may be one of the reasons, I don’t think it is the primary one. The main problem is that MediaCorp, like much of the civil service, just has an aversion to making estimates or judgement calls for fear that they might have to make a correction later. So they just wait until a “final” result is out, preferably one endorsed by a higher authority.

But that then raises the question of why it takes so long for the Returning Officer (RO) to announce the results. I’ve been involved in 3 elections – GE 2006, GE 2011 and PE 2011 – and each time, counting at the centre I’m at is done by 10:00-10:30, but the official result doesn’t come out till over an hour later. It is true that in this year’s elections, I didn’t necessarily have the whole picture, and there could be some problem in some counting centre which delayed the announcement. But in 2006, I was stationed at a Principal Counting Centre, and results from all the Counting Centres for a constituency would be in for a really long time before the RO would officially announce the results. Why such a long wait ? My recollection is hazy by now, but I think it was over an hour.

Now, it is true that this is one of those things where you really don’t want to make a mistake, and I’m sure part of the delay was that Elections Department (ELD) HQ was double-checking and triple-checking the results that we were sending in. Out in the Principal Counting Centers, we were also checking the results, both manually and in a spreadsheet I had built for the purpose. Realistically, the probability of a clerical error is very very small, especially if appropriate IT systems are used. In principle, the candidates themselves also serve as independent checks because they would also have their own count, relayed through their counting agents. So what really is the point of waiting for ELD clearance to announce the results ? Seems to go against the whole point of having decentralized counting.

And the problem gets even worse with recounts. This time round, rumors of a recount started swirling before midnight, but the official order to recount didn’t go out till almost 1:30 and the final result only came out at 4:20. The bad news is, I think this will likely be a feature of all future presidential elections. With relatively low (though probably irrelevant) eligibility criteria, multiple candidates will end up splitting the vote leading to a high probability of recounts.

And as 27-hour shifts for election officials become routine, there will inevitably be even stronger calls for electronic rather than manual voting. Call me a Luddite, but I have very very grave reservations over electronic voting. This probably warrants another blog post, but the bottom line is given the simplicity of the electoral choices in Singapore, the benefits of electronic voting do not outweigh the risks. The best way of defusing calls for electronic voting is to make the paper ballot process faster. The intial sorting and counting of the ballots may take some time, but there is no reason for it to take so long to simply add up the tally from different counting centres. At least for parliamentary elections, let the Group Assistant Returning Officers (GAROs) announce the results rather than waiting for the RO himself to do it. [I think that’s how it used to be done in the old days – Can anyone confirm ?]. Yes, it makes the job of the media a bit more difficult because they have to have reporters at more places, but so be it. At the end of the day, voters, candidates and election officials would all rather have the results earlier.

Micropolling results of Presidential Elections 2011

Update 24 Sept : One more result in from Fuhua Secondary (Jurong GRC).  TCB did very well at this counting centre with 46.8%, almost an outright majority. Again, entirely consistent with media reports, and this data point brings TCB’s average up to 34.5% in this sample, closer to his actual vote share of 34.8% overall. This data set now has results from 21 counting centres, covering 278,878 voters (13.0% of votes cast).

Update 11 Sept 11:00 pm : Thanks to Donaldson, BK, Betty, Paul, Wei Ming, Justicia, Yingru, Dexter , Jacqui, WF, Randi and others who prefer to remain unnamed 🙂 We now have results from 20 out of 162 counting centres, representing 268,865 voters or 12.5% of the 2,153,037 votes cast in Singapore. Breakdown of votes for each candidate and spoilt votes by polling district are available in 11 out of the 20 counting centres. In the other cases, the Counting Agents who responded were only able to provide totals for the counting centre, or I was not able to match the counting tables to a specific polling district. For polling district boundaries, see this gazette notification on ELD’s website. Not very user-friendly, unfortunately, but I don’t know of an easy way to convert the text descriptions to graphic maps. Ideally, we would map the polling districts to interesting characteristics, e.g. income, age, education etc, but that’s beyond my capabilities at the moment. Are there any readers who could help ? Having four choices instead of a binary choice also complicates the statistical analysis. I would be very happy to receive any suggestions as to how to analyze the data rigorously. Eyeballing the data, this sample confirms media reports that TCB dominated the Western part of Singapore but failed to overcome TT’s smaller but more spread out advantage in other parts of the island. Raw data is in http://bit.ly/ocqvUB (Alternate URL http://db.tt/2WiQ39I ) and for avoidance of doubt, I will state that this post and the compilation of election results is released into the public domain. Attribution would be appreciated but is not required.

Update 31 Aug 11:30pm : We’re up to 15 Counting Centres, representing almost 200,000 votes or 10% of the votes cast. Keep the data coming 🙂 As always, latest data in http://bit.ly/ocqvUB

Update 30 Aug 8:45pm: Several other counting agents have responded and I now have results from a total of 11 counting centres. If you wish to download the data, the spreadsheet at http://bit.ly/ocqvUB will be kept up to date, through there may be a lag before I can update the chart in this post.


Five Eighteen other counting agents responded to my call so I am now able to post results for six twenty-one counting centers, nine eleven of which are broken down by polling district. This is essentially raw data, but I am posting it early so that other people would be able to make use of this data for their own analysis. I am still hoping to get more data. If you volunteered as a Counting Agent and still have the vote tally from your location, I would be extremely grateful if you could forward the results to me so that I can add it to the publicly available information on voting patterns in Singapore.

Micro-polling results from selected Counting Centres - Presidential Election 2011

Tan Cheng Bock did very well in Jurong West, Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang in the Western part of Singapore,  and also edged ahead of Tony Tan in Sengkang and Punggol East. At Fuhua Secondary in Jurong West, TCB received close to an outright majority, with 46.8% of the vote, ahead of TT by almost 18%. Tony Tan’s best performance was in the Orchard-Tanglin-Farrer Road-Sixth Avenue area (SCGS counting centre). In one polling district, in fact, TT almost achieved an outright majority with 49.7% of the vote. TCB still managed to achieve 36.9%, higher than his national average, at the SCGS counting centre, but TJS clearly rattled the voters in this area, with as low as 13.9% of the vote in one of the polling districts. As I mentioned before, if you were a counting agent, know someone who was, or better yet, know someone inside the campaigns who would be willing to share their data, I would really like to hear from you at PE2011@ngiam.net. An example of the results from one counting centre are shown below, and the complete data table can be downloaded at http://bit.ly/ocqvUB. Please note that this is NOT OFFICIAL DATA and was reported by volunteers after a very late night. As the Election Department’s favorite saying goes, “the decision of the Returning Officer is final”. See my earlier post for more background on counting procedures. And of course, a big thank you to the counting assistants, facilities, security and other personnel who worked through the night to ensure an orderly election despite the recount. Kudos especially to the AROs and ELD officers who worked over 24 hours straight, from 5 am on Saturday to 7 am on Sunday.

Constituency Marine Parade GRC
Counting Centre Nanyang Junior College
Counting Place GK01 GK02 GK03 GK04 GK05 GK06
Polling District MA27 MA24 MA23 MA22 MA26 MA25
Polling Station Nanyang JC Braddell Heights CC (B) Braddell Heights CC (A) 419 Serangoon Central 305 Serangoon Ave 2 240 Serangoon Ave 2
Valid votes for
Tan Cheng Bock 1,104 1,000 1,006 1,150 986 1,124
Tan Jee Say 861 880 917 921 745 851
Tony Tan Keng Yam 1,099 1,014 1,113 1,266 1,071 1,257
Tan Kin Lian 172 180 162 202 144 202
Percentage of Valid votes
Tan Cheng Bock 34.1% 32.5% 31.5% 32.5% 33.5% 32.7%
Tan Jee Say 26.6% 28.6% 28.7% 26.0% 25.3% 24.8%
Tony Tan Keng Yam 34.0% 33.0% 34.8% 35.8% 36.4% 36.6%
Tan Kin Lian 5.3% 5.9% 5.1% 5.7% 4.9% 5.9%
Rejected ballots 61 52 77 52 41 59
Total Valid Votes 3,236 3,074 3,198 3,539 2,946 3,434
Total votes cast 3,297 3,126 3,275 3,591 2,987 3,493

See http://bit.ly/ocqvUB for complete data set.

Call for volunteers: Micro-polling results for Presidential Elections 2011

UPDATE: Results by polling district for six counting centers are posted at
https://stngiam.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/flash-results-micropolling-results-of-presidential-elections-2011/

I’m looking for volunteers who are able to help me increase the transparency of the electoral process in Singapore by volunteering as counting agents in the upcoming Presidential Elections and sharing with me detailed election results by polling district. Even though there is no legal prohibition against revealing precint-level elections results, the Elections Department only publishes aggregated results for entire constituencies – which in the case of GRCs can comprise over 100,000 voters. For more details, see my earlier post, GE2011: Micro-polling results from one counting centre.

In the case of the upcoming Presidential Elections, I expect that they will only publish figures for the whole of Singapore. This is unfortunate, because detailed results would be a very valuable resource for political scientists and other researchers trying to understand voting behaviour in Singapore. (OK, yes, it would be very valuable for politicians, too, but right now, only one party has the resources to be able to collate electoral data across Singapore. And if you believe them, they are not endorsing any presidential candidate so would not have any counting agents in the counting centres to report results to them. OK, this also requires me to assume that there is a separation between party and government, but lets’s not get into that for now.)

Please contact me at PE2011@ngiam.net if you are interested in participating in this project. What you will need to do:

  1. Sign up as a Counting Agent for any candidate. Doesn’t matter which one. This is a non-partisan project, so ideally there will be a spread of participants across the candidates.
  2. Print out the Excel template in this link (http://db.tt/90PR8OT) before you go for counting. Things will get rushed when the results start coming out so best to prepare in advance.
  3. There will be 4-6 counting tables at each counting centre. Be sure to record the counting place number, polling district number and the name of polling station for each of the tables.
  4. Record the number of votes for each candidate for each of the counting places when the results are announced. I expect the number of spoilt votes to be higher than in the last GE, so be sure to also record the number of rejected ballots.
  5. Send the results back to me at PE2011@ngiam.net. For the moment, email will do but if response is overwhelming I will think of something else.
Finally, if anyone has any connections to the candidates’ campaigns and is able to help me obtain the list of counting centres and polling districts, I would really appreciate it so that I can perform some error checking.
Please send this link to anyone you know who will be acting as a counting agent and email me at PE2011@ngiam.net if you have any questions.