THE BALLOT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2484, 1 February 1871, Page 2

THE BALLOT.

To the Editor of the Evening Star. Sin, —On perusing the so-called Ballot Act, I have coma across something I do not understand, and in consequence I shall be glad if some of your numerous readers can explain the little difficulty, which is’ as follows ;—The electoral roll for the election of Superintendent is made up by binding the rolls of the various electoral districts in one volume. Well, sir, my number on one of those district rolls is No. 7 ; there are al-o twenty-seven or more electors whose numbers are also No. 7. Wo all vote ; but one of the lot is not satisfied by recording his legitimate vote, and chooses to go to some other polling place and vote again. On the deputy returning officers sending in their returns to the returning officer, ho finds that one vote has been recorded more than the roll shews is legal —he consequently opens the various parcels, and extracts from each every ballot paper numbered 7, and disallows every one; therefore on account of the wrongdoings of one elector, the returning officer disfranchises twenty-six electois who have conscientiously voted according to the Ba lot Act. This is the grievance, and I would like to know if there is any means of preventing such a slaughter of the innocents. Yours, &c., Anti-Ballot. January 31. [Our correspondent errs in his conclusion through not reflecting or not knowing that the number only refers to the name of the voter, and that the same numbers may and do indicate different voters in each polling district. The duty of the returning officer is to ascertain, by comparison of rolls, that: no numbers referring to the same voter have been admitted into the ballot boxes, in which case onlg are the papers rejected. The fact is very easily ascertained without impertinent scrutiny by poll clerks who know their duty. The objection is merely imaginary.— Ed. E.S.]