I think you’re more worried about the “enjoyment of the caffeine-fuelled election nights” than electoral fraud ;0)

In any case, if you read my final paragraph carefully, you should be able to deduce that I have no objection in principal to counts taking place the following day, or even days later as with the European counts.

What I’m getting at is that if you don’t think immediate counts should be made compulsory then your point about electoral integrity looks more like something used merely to justify the entertainment value of a late-night count rather than anything of real substance vis-a-vis the possibility of fraud.

If there is a real possibility of fraud due to a delayed count then surely the timing shouldn’t be left to the personal convenience of officials?

I agree that there are clear advantages to counting the ballots as soon as possible. It just interests me that the campaign to “save election night” is normally accompanied by a cheery picture of Robin Day and the BBC’s comedy graphics. A lot of the debate has been about the great drama of the night, television ratings and so on. That’s not the big issue, which was the point I was getting at.

Parties are allowed to have polling agents, who can if they so wish be present at the opening of the polling station at 7am. They can then count the voters as they go in throughout the day, and check this against the number of ballot papers issued as the day progresses. At close of poll, they can get the final tally of ballots issued and observe the sealing of the ballot boxes.

At the initial verification stage of the count, the number of ballots counted (valid or otherwise) for each box should equal the number of papers issued in respect of that box. Any discrepancy can then immediately be drawn to the attention of the returning officer and if necessary, the police.

Electoral fraud in the UK is a minority sport, largely thanks to having simple, open procedures like this. While it’s extremely unlikely that anyone would tamper with ballot boxes overnight, taking the boxes from polling place to the count and having the ballots verified as quickly as possible further reduces the (admittedly small) risk of foul play.

I admit to enjoying caffeine-fuelled election nights as much as anyone else. However, no matter what the attractions of getting home for a shower and a good sleep instead might be, the fact is that current practice didn’t evolve either for the gratification of or through a sense of masochistic insomnia amongst the political classes.

Of course, an STV election count on the scale of a general election would be impractical to begin at 10pm, unless electronic counting were to be used. However, for so long as we have the current system, the argument for leaving things as they are remains, to my mind at least, a strong one.

I secretly suspect that the excuse to stay up late may have been one of the reasons I became interested in politics. I think it was the same for F1 too!

But while it might be fun, it’s the integrity of the result that really matters.

The debate brings to mind how many – particularly younger – people seem to treat late-night drinking as an end in itself; the later the better. In my younger days I would have subscribed so such an argument, but this thinking has lost its appeal as I’ve gotten older.

By the same token, there’s something exciting about staying up all night to get the election results, but there really isn’t much in the way of rationality involved.