Ambiguities surrounding crossed ballots in an election context
Quick Look
- Researcher Joakim Nergelius explains that the line between what is allowed and what is not allowed in an election context is not clear, especially with regard to pre-crossed ballot papers after suspected election fraud in Borlänge.
- He criticizes the acceptance of such ballots but notes that authorities sometimes accept them, while payment to voters is clearly prohibited and violence to influence the vote is also punishable by up to six months in prison.
AI-generated summary
Why It Matters
The article discusses the uncertainty surrounding what is allowed in an election context, especially after reports of suspected election fraud with crossed ballots in Borlänge. Joakim Nergelius from Örebro University explains that the lack of previous legal cases leads to ambiguities in the application of the electoral law.
What is allowed and what is not in an election context is not as clear as one might think.
- It is easy to say what is forbidden and what is permitted. But there are a number of cases in between that are much more difficult to decide, says Joakim Nergelius, who, among other things, conducts research in constitutional law at Örebro University.
Just that with crossed ballots is such a difficult example. The tours of the last few days surrounding the suspected election fraud with V ballot papers in Borlänge have shown that.
- My starting point was that, no, it is not allowed. But then a relatively large number of people have come forward with examples of accepting crossed ballots, where county administrations and other authorities have accepted it.
In the current cases, a distinction must have been made between ballot papers that were crossed by hand and those that were crossed by machine, explains Nergelius.
He himself is critical of accepting crossed ballots.
- The idea is that it is the voter who must take a stand on whether they prefer a certain candidate or not, and that definitely violates the way the elections are supposed to be conducted. Whether you can qualify what appears to be criminal depends a little on the circumstances.
The reason for the ambiguities is that the laws have not had to be tested that often. There simply aren't that many previous cases, explains Joakim Nergelius.
- By and large, the elections have gone quite fairly and well for a long time, and there is quite a high level of trust in the system.
Paying a voter, on the other hand, is clearly electoral fraud, he explains. However, transporting voters to polling stations is not a problem in the legal sense.
- Then you have other extreme things that are not relevant now. Like forcing someone to vote a certain way by using violence, that too is of course prohibited.
Election fraud of the kind being investigated in Dalarna carries a maximum of six months in prison. But Joakim Nergelius emphasizes that it is a serious type of crime.
- I mean that it is not completely trivial, even if it is a fairly low maximum penalty. Especially not if we are now to protect the democratic process.
Read more: Dadgostar to DN about his silence: People who are involved
Open Questions
- How will the authorities uniformly deal with crossed ballots in the future?
- Will the law be clarified to prevent similar incidents?
- What consequences could this have for trust in the electoral system?
