Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,826
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 13, 2023 12:56:55 GMT
I would like to create a thread where we can criticise the processes in place for the PCC elections and would like to start by taking this rule to task:
"For your nomination to be valid, the sum of £5,000 must be with the PARO by the deadline for nominations, i.e. by 4pm on the nineteenth working day before the poll"
In the 2021 elections, a total of 11.2 million votes were cast, an average of 287,000 votes cast per PCC region. In order to get the deposit you need to poll at least 5% of the vote which on average would work out at 14,350 votes (about what it takes to win a constituency). I believe that this figure is miles too high for independents, therefore would propose that the deposit be abolished and replaced with a signature based system where a candidate is nominated with 1% of the electorate of a PCC area, thus demonstrating support for that candidate.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 13, 2023 13:04:53 GMT
An old chestnut recycled again - the flaw in the argument is that collecting signatures does not mean "demonstrating support for the candidate".
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 13, 2023 13:05:27 GMT
I would like to create a thread where we can criticise the processes in place for the PCC elections and would like to start by taking this rule to task: "For your nomination to be valid, the sum of £5,000 must be with the PARO by the deadline for nominations, i.e. by 4pm on the nineteenth working day before the poll" In the 2021 elections, a total of 11.2 million votes were cast, an average of 287,000 votes cast per PCC region. In order to get the deposit you need to poll at least 5% of the vote which on average would work out at 14,350 votes (about what it takes to win a constituency). I believe that this figure is miles too high for independents, therefore would propose that the deposit be abolished and replaced with a signature based system where a candidate is nominated with 1% of the electorate of a PCC area, thus demonstrating support for that candidate. Or just abolishing PCCs would be simpler.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Aug 13, 2023 13:11:09 GMT
There have been many independent PCC candidates, some won, nearly all of them saved their deposit. So there doesn't really seem to be a problem in practice.
It would be a lot harder for independents if they had to get 1% of signatures, in a large county like Kent that would be over 10000 signatures.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 13, 2023 13:16:26 GMT
An old chestnut recycled again - the flaw in the argument is that collecting signatures does not mean "demonstrating support for the candidate". Well it does, though.Even if it's argued that most people sign just to get the canvasser to go away, at the base it demonstrates the candidate has a level of serious organisation sufficient to demonstrate electoral viability. I remain astonished by the large number of people who do not seem to recognise why, especially with non-transferrable voting systems, it is essential to restrict the number of candidates who appear on ballots. Too many frivolous candidates have been appearing on ballot papers. The Electoral Commission's ignoramus approach to this issue is appalling.
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 13, 2023 13:21:54 GMT
If you can't afford a deposit of £5,000 you have no business seeking election to high public office. I would substantially increase the deposit in an attempt to both reduce the number of candidates and increase the overall quality.
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 13, 2023 13:40:39 GMT
An old chestnut recycled again - the flaw in the argument is that collecting signatures does not mean "demonstrating support for the candidate". Well it does, though.Even if it's argued that most people sign just to get the canvasser to go away, at the base it demonstrates the candidate has a level of serious organisation sufficient to demonstrate electoral viability. I remain astonished by the large number of people who do not seem to recognise why, especially with non-transferrable voting systems, it is essential to restrict the number of candidates who appear on ballots. Too many frivolous candidates have been appearing on ballot papers. The Electoral Commission's ignoramus approach to this issue is appalling. Of course, "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder. Many "frivolous" candidates are actually bringing into attention issues which they consider serious. For me, the main priorities of the EC should be that candidates are accountable for their words and their funding is transparent. I would actually welcome more people who campaign on issues (hello Just Stop Oil) to put that issue to the electoral test. In the words of the old football hooligan chant "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!"
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 13, 2023 14:23:20 GMT
I've never agreed with David's ballot paper restriction policy.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,826
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 13, 2023 15:10:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 13, 2023 15:29:01 GMT
£5,000 isn't the difference between a good quality candidate and a poor quality candidate.
PCCs arent perfect but straight up abolishing them is not something I'm in favour of. I'd perhaps have more than one per seat maybe use STV or something. Make deposit 500 per candidate. That way if you want more candidates it does cost more but if you just wanted one candidate it isn't unaffordable
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 13, 2023 15:34:43 GMT
I thought I was quite clear but me try this again. Anybody who cannot afford £5,000 for a deposit is not a good candidate and should not be elected to high public office.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,666
|
Post by European Lefty on Aug 13, 2023 15:35:35 GMT
There is absolutely no correlation between someone's personal finance and their quality as a candidate or a public official
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 13, 2023 15:46:12 GMT
There is absolutely no correlation between someone's personal finance and their quality as a candidate or a public official Of course there is. Anybody who hasn't got £5,000 spare is barely capable of looking after themselves and their family. They certainly shouldn't have any power over other people's lives.
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Aug 13, 2023 15:47:24 GMT
There is absolutely no correlation between someone's personal finance and their quality as a candidate or a public official Maybe, although I think we'd all be very wary of someone with multiple bankruptcies who had a propensity to spaff cash on rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Aug 13, 2023 19:40:49 GMT
There is absolutely no correlation between someone's personal finance and their quality as a candidate or a public official Of course there is. Anybody who hasn't got £5,000 spare is barely capable of looking after themselves and their family. They certainly shouldn't have any power over other people's lives. that's a silly thing to say. As someone who does have 5,000 spare it's certainly not a reflection on how well I can look after myself or family but I was unfortunate enough to lose my father at an early age but fortunate that unison (his employer) paid out his pension to me throughout my time in full time education
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 13, 2023 19:47:46 GMT
Of course there is. Anybody who hasn't got £5,000 spare is barely capable of looking after themselves and their family. They certainly shouldn't have any power over other people's lives. that's a silly thing to say. As someone who does have 5,000 spare it's certainly not a reflection on how well I can look after myself or family but I was unfortunate enough to lose my father at an early age but fortunate that unison (his employer) paid out his pension to me throughout my time in full time education Having a certain level of wealth is merely one of the requirements that people should meet in order to hold high public office.
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Aug 13, 2023 20:15:16 GMT
I've never agreed with David's ballot paper restriction policy. its an election, Its not an opportunity to "raise issues". That's called an online forum. Its an opportunity to get elected Would it not be helpful if people who really, really, really , really would be better off not getting elected for the sake of everyone concerned had some form of hurdle to overcome?
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,371
|
Post by Tony Otim on Aug 13, 2023 20:37:54 GMT
I've never agreed with David's ballot paper restriction policy. its an election, Its not an opportunity to "raise issues". That's called an online forum. Its an opportunity to get elected Would it not be helpful if people who really, really, really , really would be better off not getting elected for the sake of everyone concerned had some form of hurdle to overcome? Perhaps, but the current hurdles seem to be blocking the wrong people and we still get a government full of people who really, really, really shouldn't be elected...
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Aug 13, 2023 20:57:10 GMT
My answer would be 'Yes'. If a team for a position like that cannot find even £5000, they have no business contending and are just time wasting and ballot cluttering. There are far too many candidates at all electoral levels in most contests. I would cut out the nomination rituals but require a bond somewhere between £1000 and £50,000 depending on importance; plus a examination of candidates (oral and written) to ensure competence, comprehension and basic knowledge and proof of sanity.
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Aug 13, 2023 21:14:15 GMT
The return of the deposit is overgenerous.
I would set it at 10%, or 5% across all of the UK. I would raise it however in line with inflation from a baseline of plenty long ago. I would introduce a deposit for council candidates. I would retain and increase the signatures back to their previous higher level
But then I would also remove the vote from anyone who has not voted in three consecutive elections and require voters to register to vote by paying a nominal fee. Maybe £10. No votes at any level for foreigners, nor criminals, no postal votes without a Doctors line, no proxies at all, early voting after closing of nominations, ID to be shown.
This all comes at a cost, which I would pay for by abolishing PCCs.
|
|