|
|
Post by November_Rain on Apr 9, 2021 20:18:09 GMT
I'd laugh if one of those many OMRLP candidates got in  |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Apr 9, 2021 20:34:40 GMT
I'd laugh if one of those many OMRLP candidates got in It should make an ideal case study for the effect of alphabetical positioning. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,746
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Apr 9, 2021 21:01:46 GMT
Kingston: Chessington South www.kingston.gov.uk/downloads/file/695/statement-of-persons-nominatedNineteen (19!) candidates: ACHENBACH BARON VON The Official Monster Raving Loony Party AKINTOYE MICHELLE Chessington Matters - Kingston Independent Residents Group BAMFORD CHARLES ST JOHN Labour Party BRUNSKILL UNDERTAKING DIRECTOR The Official Monster Raving Loony Party CHINNERS A.GENT The Official Monster Raving Loony Party COILY CAPTAIN The Official Monster Raving Loony Party CORINTHIAN CASUAL COUNT OF The Official Monster Raving Loony Party CRAMPS COLONEL The Official Monster Raving Loony Party DODD DUKE DIDDY The Official Monster Raving Loony Party LUCKY LANDLADY The Official Monster Raving Loony Party LULHAM ADRIAN THOMAS The Green Party MACKINLAY ANDREW STUART Liberal Democrats NEWT KINGSTONIAN The Official Monster Raving Loony Party PITHER LADY DAVE The Official Monster Raving Loony Party ROVER LANDLORD The Official Monster Raving Loony Party SAVASTIO ITALO MARCO Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition SQUATCH SAM JOSHUA The Official Monster Raving Loony Party THE RADICAL RECYCLIST REV. ROBBIE The Official Monster Raving Loony Party TOWNER SUE Local Conservatives I really hope the declaration ends up on YouTube. Can they book Michael Palin to read out the declaration? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 9, 2021 21:16:38 GMT
Somebody must have been reading this forum. At long last... Enfield All three on the same PDF: new.enfield.gov.uk/services/councillors-and-democracy/statement-of-persons-nominated-and-notice-of-poll-councillors-and-democracy.pdfChase DAVIES Lynne Catherine Green Party GLAVARDANOV Mira Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition JAMES Chris Labour Party Candidate RUSSO Guy Liberal Democrat THORP Andrew James The Conservative Party Candidate Jubilee ANYANWU Chinelo Labour Party Candidate LINTON Bill Green Party MORRISON Clive Taking The Initiative Party of Britain NEZA Benny Conservative Party Candidate PEACOCK Lewis John Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition SAADOUNE Iman Liberal Democrat Southbury BALNAVE Luke Ashley Green Party CUMMINGS Luke Anthony Liberal Democrat DOLAN John Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition DRYSDALE Patrick Hewytt The Conservative Party Candidate GUZEL Ayten Labour Party Candidate MORRISON Jheni Taking The Initiative Party of Britain ROSE Hughie We Matter Party |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 10, 2021 8:47:57 GMT
I'd laugh if one of those many OMRLP candidates got in It should make an ideal case study for the effect of alphabetical positioning. When there were 9 OMRLP candidates in one ward in Elmbridge in 2012, the number of votes for those candidates (in ballot paper order) was: 1, 13, 21, 4, 2, 4, 5, 3, 5. That makes a Spearman's rank correlation of +0.06. The 21 was for Chinners, who masterminded the whole operation, and the 13 was for Bone, who got a lot of publicity due to pretending to be a dog. So preferential aardvarkism doesn't seem to have operated in that case. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 10, 2021 10:38:47 GMT
No, the Returning Officer has no discretion to allow an extension to the deadline for submitting nomination papers. If they're not submitted in valid form by 4pm on the set day, the nomination is not valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Apr 10, 2021 10:43:44 GMT
No, the Returning Officer has no discretion to allow an extension to the deadline for submitting nomination papers. If they're not submitted in valid form by 4pm on the set day, the nomination is not valid. Only they have now accepted the nomination as it was their error, not his. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 10, 2021 11:15:43 GMT
No, the Returning Officer has no discretion to allow an extension to the deadline for submitting nomination papers. If they're not submitted in valid form by 4pm on the set day, the nomination is not valid. He tweeted that at 13:23 on deadline day (and is on the SOPN). Some Electoral Services seem to be incredibly slow at confirming that nominations have been accepted as valid or that there are problems with them and don't seem to appreciate that it leaves candidates & agents on edge as they start panicking they won't be on the ballot paper and have to be on almost permanent standby to redo them, disrupting their schedule. Does the law go into detail about what "submitted in valid form by 16:00" actually means? In particular if the form is handed in before then (and all is in order) but the (A)RO is too busy looking for snails to lose races to? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 10, 2021 11:44:20 GMT
I have spoken to the Great Leader of the Loony Party, Alan Hope, and he has confirmed that the candidate who was disqualified on grounds of age will be 18 before polling day, but was not 18 yet at the time of nomination. He also confirmed explicitly that it is indeed the intention of the Loony candidates in Chessington to try to get zero votes.
Meanwhile, this is the first time I have ever written a message on this forum on my new mobile phone, instead of using my iPad.
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473 
|
Post by peterl on Apr 10, 2021 15:55:50 GMT
I have spoken to the Great Leader of the Loony Party, Alan Hope, and he has confirmed that the candidate who was disqualified on grounds of age will be 18 before polling day, but was not 18 yet at the time of nomination. He also confirmed explicitly that it is indeed the intention of the Loony candidates in Chessington to try to get zero votes. Meanwhile, this is the first time I have ever written a message on this forum on my new mobile phone, instead of using my iPad. Presumably the various Loonies will not be voting for themselves then. Maybe they will all vote for someone else in order to reduce their own chances of success. That would really live up to the name!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2021 16:16:26 GMT
I have spoken to the Great Leader of the Loony Party, Alan Hope, and he has confirmed that the candidate who was disqualified on grounds of age will be 18 before polling day, but was not 18 yet at the time of nomination. He also confirmed explicitly that it is indeed the intention of the Loony candidates in Chessington to try to get zero votes. Meanwhile, this is the first time I have ever written a message on this forum on my new mobile phone, instead of using my iPad. Presumably the various Loonies will not be voting for themselves then. Maybe they will all vote for someone else in order to reduce their own chances of success. That would really live up to the name! Or they'll all vote for all the OMRLP candidates |
|
Adam
Non-Aligned
Posts: 84
|
Post by Adam on Apr 11, 2021 14:15:07 GMT
I suppose this must be permitted under electoral lsw and will have been made easier by the Covid emergeny requirement that only 2 signatories to the nomination were required. Nothing wrong with them standing one candidate to make their point that elections are a joke or don't make a diference or whatever it is, but surely this is going too far as it amounts to, whether intended or not, sabotaging the election (and much useless work for the counters).
One consequence may be that requiring only two to nominate is unlikely to become permanent.
|
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,672
|
Post by pl on Apr 11, 2021 14:22:37 GMT
I suppose this must be permitted under electoral lsw and will have been made easier by the Covid emergeny requirement that only 2 signatories to the nomination were required. Nothing wrong with them standing one candidate to make their point that elections are a joke or don't make a diference or whatever it is, but surely this is going too far as it amounts to, whether intended or not, sabotaging the election (and much useless work for the counters). One consequence may be that requiring only two to nominate is unlikely to become permanent. If they pulled such a stunt for a general election, I'd expect the law to change. But not before. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Apr 11, 2021 16:32:51 GMT
I suppose this must be permitted under electoral lsw and will have been made easier by the Covid emergeny requirement that only 2 signatories to the nomination were required. Nothing wrong with them standing one candidate to make their point that elections are a joke or don't make a diference or whatever it is, but surely this is going too far as it amounts to, whether intended or not, sabotaging the election (and much useless work for the counters). One consequence may be that requiring only two to nominate is unlikely to become permanent. If they pulled such a stunt for a general election, I'd expect the law to change. But not before. But what harm does it really do? Far greater evils are present in the electoral process, like SOPNs posted in seperate PDFs. |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,672
|
Post by pl on Apr 11, 2021 17:03:53 GMT
If they pulled such a stunt for a general election, I'd expect the law to change. But not before. But what harm does it really do? Far greater evils are present in the electoral process, like SOPNs posted in seperate PDFs. At local council level it would make sense if each party could only nominate one person. It would prevent overnominations. If electors can only nominate as many candidates as there are vacancies, why can parties nominate unlimited numbers. It is another example of the lack of logic in the process. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Apr 11, 2021 17:12:04 GMT
But what harm does it really do? Far greater evils are present in the electoral process, like SOPNs posted in seperate PDFs. At local council level it would make sense if each party could only nominate one person. It would prevent overnominations. If electors can only nominate as many candidates as there are vacancies, why can parties nominate unlimited numbers. It is another example of the lack of logic in the process. Because electors nominate, parties do not, parties merely authorise a person to stand under their description. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 11, 2021 17:56:13 GMT
At local council level it would make sense if each party could only nominate one person. It would prevent overnominations. If electors can only nominate as many candidates as there are vacancies, why can parties nominate unlimited numbers. It is another example of the lack of logic in the process. Because electors nominate, parties do not, parties merely authorise a person to stand under their description. So introduce a law that only allows party nominations up to the number of vacancies. Though, presumably, the Loonies could simply register more parties. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Apr 11, 2021 17:57:08 GMT
Because electors nominate, parties do not, parties merely authorise a person to stand under their description. So introduce a law that only allows party nominations up to the number of vacancies. Though, presumably, the Loonies could simply register more parties. What party nominations? I say again, parties do not nominate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 17:57:53 GMT
Because electors nominate, parties do not, parties merely authorise a person to stand under their description. So introduce a law that only allows party nominations up to the number of vacancies. Though, presumably, the Loonies could simply register more parties. What do you do when parties overnominate then? |
|
pl
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,672
|
Post by pl on Apr 11, 2021 19:57:08 GMT
At local council level it would make sense if each party could only nominate one person. It would prevent overnominations. If electors can only nominate as many candidates as there are vacancies, why can parties nominate unlimited numbers. It is another example of the lack of logic in the process. Because electors nominate, parties do not, parties merely authorise a person to stand under their description. Really... so a certificate of authorisation from the party’s nominating officer doesn’t count? |
|
