johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,532
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 22, 2023 10:55:59 GMT
Assentors prove that at least a representative of your candidature has actually been out and connected with some voters in the locality and that you're not just turning up at the Electoral Services office (which may not even be in the constituency) to lodge some paperwork and money. The effort threshold is clear and in very high profile contests it does seem to make a difference. Do you honestly think we'd have had all those mayoral candidates in 2021 with the normal requirements? Getting the signatures is the hardest part of the process. In a dead ward, almost impossible. Not at all. In all of the elections I stood in, I simply went from door to door, ringing doorbells, asking random people to nominate me. The amount of time it took to get ten people to agree was minimum 47 minutes, average about 2.5 hours, maximum 5 hours 10 minutes. It's just a bit of time-wasting hassle which is worth doing if you want to be a candidate. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,878 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 22, 2023 11:13:47 GMT
But turned out and made an effort for what possible actual purpose? To satisfy some daft arcane imposed rule that signifies nothing at all other than knocking on doors? To show that more effort has been made than simply signing off some forms and, where relevant, going to the cash machine. This, rather than the platform and even the fee, is the test of seriousness vs frivolity. A party made up of a millionaire and/or an airwave operation has to do some work on the ground to get a wide spread of candidates and not just be a pot of money and/or a windbag (or an arse). This is a good filter. (On another point could we get a better and consistent overall arrangement for handling deposits? It's not very safe to expect agents to have to withdraw £500 from a cash machine - more for some other elections - then store it up as they accumulate the total over days due to withdrawal limits and then physically carry it to the Electoral Services office. Getting some kind of bank order, which requires not only a fee but also a local branch that's open at accessible times and has staff who know what they're doing, is not a simple easy alternative. It's also a total pain to get back, particularly when councils start insisting on only doing it by cheque and having one of the signatories away. Can we get requirements for all Electoral Services to accept electronic transfer and an automatic system of reimbursement.) I accept and I understand your reasoning whilst disagreeing with the the implied importance you place upon it. It is a form of preferencing process and function over commonsense reality. We see matters here differently. Having the fitness, good health, time and energy to knock on doors is not achieving anything. These people are being 'cold called' merely to aid the candidate by the pretence that the 'assentors' are person 'wishing' the candidate to stand and assenting to his candidature. That had a bit of validity when I was a fit young man in the politics of the 50s, and I was sent out to call on our paid up members to evidence their known support by being documented assentors. I was gathering actual known genuine assent. And many of them were old ladies who wanted to be printed on the formal notices as the assentors. Now, those cold-called are often told that this is just a formality, a hurdle put up by bureaucracy as part of the process of being a candidate; that it does not imply knowing anything at all about the candidate, knowing and approving the candidate, supporting the candidate nor agreeing to vote for the candidate; one is merely assenting to him being a candidate! So what on earth is being served by this rigmarole? If it was like the process surrounding a shotgun application or a passport application, it would make more sense. If one had to find 10 actual supporters who have known one for 3-years and considered them to be suitable and where one had to formally attest to those facts and to sign a document attesting to that knowledge and that support and to promise to vote for them before a witness in an office of the local authority, it would have precision and meaning. As it stands now , it is just your filter and a hurdle. For an elderly person or an unsighted, disabled or crocked person it is a major imposition. For a crofter in Rossshire (yes I have been one such) where calling on 5-neighbours involves probably 6-miles of walking it is a major problem. Now to the matter of the deposit. Use a cheque, plastic card, mobile phone 'touch', BACS or a postal draft/order : It does not have to be physical cash. This is not rocket science is it? This poses no difficulty at all. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,532
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 22, 2023 11:32:10 GMT
..., though I'd randomise the order of candidates. For multiple-vacancy local elections, the three candidates of each party should be listed in a block together. The order of the three candidates of the same party within the block should be decided by the party itself. The order of the parties/blocks should be randomised. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,878
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 22, 2023 11:37:49 GMT
FWIW I very much enjoy what I consider a great British tradition of "eccentric" candidates standing in our election process. How much duller would elections have been without the David Sutch's, Count Binface's and Miss Whiplash's of this world?  I do not enjoy any of that and I contend that it demeans the process, clutters the ballot paper and turns an important formal process into an event and a quasi entertainment. I like very short ballots consisting of high quality candidates with a an actual real chance of winning. Not people making a point, holding a flag in a dark place or grandstanding out of vanity. My perfect ballot is Labour-Conservative. I like the meaningful straight fight. I like proper full given names and nothing else at all on the ballot. But I like the suggestion af random order instead of alpha order. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,878
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 22, 2023 11:44:37 GMT
I think that to be a good post. Of course I understand the reasons for limits but wonder if it would pose much of a problem most of the time? I don't think people are much 'bought' by material through the letterbox or hoardings. Heavy TV and internet might achieve American-style shift I suppose? I will compromise on a significant uplift and annual automatic revision upwards, coupled with index-linked significantly higher deposits with claw-back on achieving 10% of the vote. And may I add how much I enjoyed our all too brief chat and meeting you. The danger there is more in candidate selection (i.e. parties choosing candidates that will self-fund instead of using party money). That is not a major problem as I see it, but I accept your underlying point which was once important enough to the Conservatives to have a major rule change to stop both offer of self-funding and the more pernicious refusal to nominate unless they were fully self-funding on all costs as well as the deposit moneys. Perhaps just make it illegal for any candidate to fund any part of the process of election unless he swears an oath of it being a personal and fully independent candidature? |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,878
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 22, 2023 12:42:52 GMT
..., though I'd randomise the order of candidates. For multiple-vacancy local elections, the three candidates of each party should be listed in a block together. The order of the three candidates of the same party within the block should be decided by the party itself. The order of the parties/blocks should be randomised. I disagree John. The parties should have no impact on the process. The candidates should not be alpha order but randomized. There should be nothing on the ballot at all other than the names of each candidate and that name should be the given name at birth in full or any such alteration by documented marriage or formal deed poll dated more than a full year before the election and a name 'acceptable' to the official taking the application as being a 'sensible acceptable' name for the purpose of an election process. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 22, 2023 12:43:38 GMT
Put the deposit up yes, but 5% is about right. Very few "frivolous" candidates ever reach it, and a 10% threshold would only deter legitimate serious parties from giving us more choice. How do you define a 'legitimate serious party'? Also sounds like an advert for PR lol Well yes, your question is a very good one. And non-ironically, that *is* one of the better arguments for a PR-based system. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 22, 2023 14:02:22 GMT
Now to the matter of the deposit. Use a cheque, plastic card, mobile phone 'touch', BACS or a postal draft/order : It does not have to be physical cash. This is not rocket science is it? This poses no difficulty at all. Currently most of those options are not permitted. Presumably because of the possibility of cheques bouncing, cards being declined etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 22, 2023 14:46:43 GMT
I accept and I understand your reasoning whilst disagreeing with the the implied importance you place upon it. It is a form of preferencing process and function over commonsense reality. No it is a form of ensuring some local effort has been made and anchoring the candidacy to the area. That is not process for process's sake, that is providing a test of serious intent beyond simply being able to produce money. And it places the burden on the campaign to sort it out, not on people who know the candidate. It is often carried out by agents or other campaigners on the ground so it can be done. How do they campaign in Ross-shire then? Is there next to no candidate-voter contact? Highland crofters have been prominent in politics, although the two that spring most readily to mind are from Inverness-shire (and one is not quite the humble one he claims to be) - how have they coped up until now? At all relevant elections I've done my local Electoral Services has only accepted cash or fee-incurring bankers' drafts. Even during covid when I had to sit at a distance and count out the notes myself to demonstrate it was £1000 in total (fortunately I had a lot of £20 and even some £50 notes) then clip up the envelope. They show no signs of changing without either guidance or direction from above. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,878
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 22, 2023 15:34:33 GMT
Now to the matter of the deposit. Use a cheque, plastic card, mobile phone 'touch', BACS or a postal draft/order : It does not have to be physical cash. This is not rocket science is it? This poses no difficulty at all. Currently most of those options are not permitted. Presumably because of the possibility of cheques bouncing, cards being declined etc. etc. Then parliament should direct that they accept all such modes and perhaps make it serious criminal offence to utter a cheque without the credit to cover it for this particular purpose. All easily done. No need to suffer when the rules can be altered at will. Cheques are dying but I always thought it should have been a serious offence to utter one without full credit cover. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 22, 2023 16:29:49 GMT
At all relevant elections I've done my local Electoral Services has only accepted cash or fee-incurring bankers' drafts. Even during covid when I had to sit at a distance and count out the notes myself to demonstrate it was £1000 in total (fortunately I had a lot of £20 and even some £50 notes) then clip up the envelope. They show no signs of changing without either guidance or direction from above. Rule 9 says that cash and banker's drafts are the only form of payment the RO has to accept. ROs have the power to accept other forms of payment (debit cards, credit cards, electronic transfer, bitcoin) but there's no obligation to do so. When I ran student union elections many years ago we got all the candidates to write out a cheque. We only cashed the cheque if the deposit was lost. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 22, 2023 16:45:53 GMT
At all relevant elections I've done my local Electoral Services has only accepted cash or fee-incurring bankers' drafts. Even during covid when I had to sit at a distance and count out the notes myself to demonstrate it was £1000 in total (fortunately I had a lot of £20 and even some £50 notes) then clip up the envelope. They show no signs of changing without either guidance or direction from above. Rule 9 says that cash and banker's drafts are the only form of payment the RO has to accept. ROs have the power to accept other forms of payment (debit cards, credit cards, electronic transfer, bitcoin) but there's no obligation to do so. This is the classic problem of some ROs exercising these powers to be more accessible and others operating as though only what's in guidance or rules can be accepted. And it creates inconsistency of expectations. You had deposits for SU elections?! |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 22, 2023 17:06:17 GMT
Rule 9 says that cash and banker's drafts are the only form of payment the RO has to accept. ROs have the power to accept other forms of payment (debit cards, credit cards, electronic transfer, bitcoin) but there's no obligation to do so. This is the classic problem of some ROs exercising these powers to be more accessible and others operating as though only what's in guidance or rules can be accepted. And it creates inconsistency of expectations. You had deposits for SU elections?! Yes. But there was no vote you had to get to save your deposit - the main purpose of it was as a bond to ensure the candidates behaved themselves. Break the rules badly enough and we might discipline you by actually cashing the cheque, that sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 22, 2023 17:48:38 GMT
Rule 9 says that cash and banker's drafts are the only form of payment the RO has to accept. ROs have the power to accept other forms of payment (debit cards, credit cards, electronic transfer, bitcoin) but there's no obligation to do so. This is the classic problem of some ROs exercising these powers to be more accessible and others operating as though only what's in guidance or rules can be accepted. And it creates inconsistency of expectations. It may just be round here, but an attitude of "we are here to assist the electoral process by helping candidates and electors to participate to one of officious interpretation of the regulations in such a manner as to make life more difficult". |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299
|
Post by maxque on Nov 23, 2023 0:29:05 GMT
Who defines "frivolous"? Who gets to decide who defines "frivolous"? Who gets to decide who gets to decide who gets to define "frivolous"? Who gets to decide who gets to decide who gets to decide who gets to define "frivolous"? Exactly the sort of questions pointed out when the High Court of Canada abolished the requirement for candidates in Canadian ridings to pay deposits. However, there was no threshold for reimbursement, you were automatically reimbursed unless you were late filing your accounts, they were rejected or failed to file them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2023 12:17:03 GMT
Interesting everyone's different ideas on this, personally I'm against any deposits, if it means just 1 person chooses not to stand. Candidate and nominator signatures should be all that's needed also. Make standing as easy as possible. Longer ballot papers, voters can cope with, though I'd randomise the order of candidates. I think a lot of this comes down to how you view the purpose of an election. Your view appears to be that they are an opportunity for everyone to have their say, in as much detail as they like, and on any and every issue that they like. Personally, I view elections as a way of choosing who is going to run the government/council/police service etc. and, where applicable, who represents your community's interests on those bodies. Both are entirely legitimate positions, but do require fundamentally different answers to the question. Taking the first view, then you do need to make it as easy as possible to stand to broaden the range of views that voters can express their support or opposition to. More candidates becomes a positive, and therefore deposits need to be lower or abolished altogether. Taking the second view, there need to be some limitations to ensure that you have (semi) sensible candidates who actually have a plan for how to govern the body they are being elected to. Deposits do this by helping make sure that candidates come from parties (or other organisations) that are likely to have plans for governing (as they are in a position where they might need one). Personally, I couldn't care less about the deposit issue and am unlikely to unless a change is seriously suggested that I find completely outrageous |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Nov 23, 2023 12:57:53 GMT
Interesting everyone's different ideas on this, personally I'm against any deposits, if it means just 1 person chooses not to stand. Candidate and nominator signatures should be all that's needed also. Make standing as easy as possible. Longer ballot papers, voters can cope with, though I'd randomise the order of candidates. I think a lot of this comes down to how you view the purpose of an election. Your view appears to be that they are an opportunity for everyone to have their say, in as much detail as they like, and on any and every issue that they like. Personally, I view elections as a way of choosing who is going to run the government/council/police service etc. and, where applicable, who represents your community's interests on those bodies. Both are entirely legitimate positions, but do require fundamentally different answers to the question. Taking the first view, then you do need to make it as easy as possible to stand to broaden the range of views that voters can express their support or opposition to. More candidates becomes a positive, and therefore deposits need to be lower or abolished altogether. Taking the second view, there need to be some limitations to ensure that you have (semi) sensible candidates who actually have a plan for how to govern the body they are being elected to. Deposits do this by helping make sure that candidates come from parties (or other organisations) that are likely to have plans for governing (as they are in a position where they might need one). Personally, I couldn't care less about the deposit issue and am unlikely to unless a change is seriously suggested that I find completely outrageous
Fair enough.
I generally trust the electorate to know how to choose, in the UK they tend to prefer parties to Independent candidates, because they like to see plans.
I don't think parties with plans necessarily always govern better, just look at recent years, it's been awful, honestly we could have done with more thought from people who use common sense when making plans and governing (or opposing) rather than just having reactive plans (and opposition) made for political reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 23, 2023 21:40:21 GMT
Getting the signatures is the hardest part of the process. In a dead ward, almost impossible. What's a dead ward? Presumably it means a noticeably deprived ward with a highly transient and apathetic population e.g. Harpurhey in Manchester, who are overall disinclined to even vote let alone sign nomination papers; these are the wards where turnout is regularly below 20%. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Nov 23, 2023 22:28:01 GMT
Time to wheel out (again) my case for a sliding scale deposit. Poll 5% you get the whole deposit back. Get 0.1% you forfeit 99.2% of it. Never seems right to me that a Green candidate who gets 4.9% and an "Elvis Party" candidate who gets 0.1% each forfeit £500. [The percentage and the deposit figure can, of course, be varied.] - since there's no longer a reason for a party on 4.9% to call for one. Surely it will lead to more recounts? If there's a sliding scale and I think I've polled 3.5% and not 3.3% that could make the difference of 80 quid if it's a 2 grand deposit or 40 quid if it's a grand deposit. I'd want my money back and would demand the recount. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 23, 2023 22:42:42 GMT
It's also worth noting that a sliding scale of deposits will substantially reduce the number of recounts at Westminster elections - since there's no longer a reason for a party on 4.9% to call for one. Surely it will lead to more recounts? If there's a sliding scale and I think I've polled 3.5% and not 3.3% that could make the difference of 80 quid if it's a 2 grand deposit or 40 quid if it's a grand deposit. I'd want my money back and would demand the recount. Your vote share can go down in a recount as easily as it can go up. So you'd need to be extremely confident that your vote will go up rather than down in order to risk asking for a recount. With an all or nothing deposit it's always in your interest to ask for a recount if you're just below the threshold, since the worst that can happen is that you stay below the threshold. With a sliding scale you need clear evidence that the provisional result is underestimating your actual vote before you're more likely to gain money from a recount than to lose it. Deposit-losing candidates generally don't have enough counting agents to get a good quality sample from all over the constituency, and so would almost never have good enough data to be highly confident that their actual vote share was actually 0.2% higher than the provisional result. |
|
