|
|
Post by warofdreams on Apr 3, 2017 22:31:27 GMT
Sheffield does have unusually large wards. Maybe 0.5% in large areas, but should be enough to demonstrate some genuine support. Give a few weeks to gather them, and candidates could use them as early canvassing opportunities. I certainly wouldn't expect one person to get all the signatures for half a dozen wards under this scheme!
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 4, 2017 0:02:11 GMT
Drop the requirement entirely for all elections.
Candidate and Agent must attend together to prove candidate's identity and qualification with prescribed evidence.
Both sign all necessary papers and swear to abide by all the laws and regs involved.
Deposit of £1000 paid over.
Maintain the 5% rule to stop the frivolous and publicity seekers for causes. This is not the purpose of elections.
Insist on full proper names as per birth certificate or deed poll change only.
No short names, nick names, trade names, pseudonyms, nom de plume, stage names or silly identity (Nick the Flying Brick)etc.
Drop logos and party identification to ensure it is a proper campaign and not a 'paper' campaign.
No reason parties should have an advantage over independents. Votes should be for people not parties.
Candidates listed from top by random draw and not alpha list.
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Apr 4, 2017 7:33:01 GMT
I think it is not required. The fact that you need one for a Westminster election, but not a Scottish Parliamentary or Scottish Local Election shows that it is just an additional obstacle course, rather than serving any real purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Apr 4, 2017 12:07:27 GMT
Somewhat related to this, we have had people in totally different parts of the country being told that there was a £200 deposit for local elections. (Not from anyone at the council, but other local people). I initially thought that it was just mis-information, but the fact that they both were told the same number makes me wonder if there was a local deposit requirement at some point in the distant past or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Apr 4, 2017 12:20:42 GMT
Somewhat related to this, we have had people in totally different parts of the country being told that there was a £200 deposit for local elections. (Not from anyone at the council, but other local people). I initially thought that it was just mis-information, but the fact that they both were told the same number makes me wonder if there was a local deposit requirement at some point in the distant past or something? Nope never. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 4, 2017 13:53:30 GMT
Somewhat related to this, we have had people in totally different parts of the country being told that there was a £200 deposit for local elections. (Not from anyone at the council, but other local people). I initially thought that it was just mis-information, but the fact that they both were told the same number makes me wonder if there was a local deposit requirement at some point in the distant past or something? Nope never. Except for mayoral elections but that's £500 isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 4, 2017 13:57:42 GMT
Drop the requirement entirely for all elections. Candidate and Agent must attend together to prove candidate's identity and qualification with prescribed evidence. I was unable to attend with my candidate because the day scheduled for going in had a family funeral in Cumbria. (We exercised the right of the proposer - in this case an exec member - to take the form in instead.) It is surprisingly easy for the two to not be available at the same time on a working weekday, especially when Easter falls in the formal nomination period. Remember in many constituencies significant parties have limited local resources and volunteer time is especially vulnerable. Many people are best known by shortened forms of their names or by a middle name, and many do not have their birth certificate. There is no concept of a legal name in English Law (and, I think, the same is the case in Scots Law and Northern Irish Law?), so why invent one needlessly? Why can't the ballot paper list the candidate in the way they are best known. Okay can you provide the funds and volunteers in areas to ensure this for all parties? And also provide magic wands to a) open doors for flats and b) magic away concierges who otherwise won't let you get to letterboxes? |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Apr 4, 2017 13:59:45 GMT
Except for mayoral elections but that's £500 isn't it? That is a local election I guess, but not what I was getting at. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 4, 2017 14:07:31 GMT
Drop the requirement entirely for all elections. Candidate and Agent must attend together to prove candidate's identity and qualification with prescribed evidence. I was unable to attend with my candidate because the day scheduled for going in had a family funeral in Cumbria. (We exercised the right of the proposer - in this case an exec member - to take the form in instead.) It is surprisingly easy for the two to not be available at the same time on a working weekday, especially when Easter falls in the formal nomination period. Remember in many constituencies significant parties have limited local resources and volunteer time is especially vulnerable. Many people are best known by shortened forms of their names or by a middle name, and many do not have their birth certificate. There is no concept of a legal name in English Law (and, I think, the same is the case in Scots Law and Northern Irish Law?), so why invent one needlessly? Why can't the ballot paper list the candidate in the way they are best known. Okay can you provide the funds and volunteers in areas to ensure this for all parties? And also provide magic wands to a) open doors for flats and b) magic away concierges who otherwise won't let you get to letterboxes? I hear what you say and am quite unmoved by all of it. I am particularly keen on no logo, no party name and the use of your full unaltered names. If the contest is important you will both turn up for the brief opportunity on part of one day. The difficulties of fighting the contest are the same for all parties and/or candidates. There will be no financial assistance for anything at all (so removal of the free postal delivery service which is unwarranted expense). Should result in very few idiot candidatures, fewer candidates and more unopposed contests thus reducing cots all round. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 4, 2017 16:02:49 GMT
It's long past time for the Parliamentary deposit to be raised significantly. Too many frivolous candidates. What makes you think that? A higher deposit won't deter groups like the Monster Raving Loony Party from standing in a number of high profile seats. What it will do is cause problems for smaller, poorer, but undeniably serious parties like the Greens who wish to stand large numbers of candidates across the country. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 20:28:16 GMT
It's long past time for the Parliamentary deposit to be raised significantly. Too many frivolous candidates. What makes you think that? A higher deposit won't deter groups like the Monster Raving Loony Party from standing in a number of high profile seats. What it will do is cause problems for smaller, poorer, but undeniably serious parties like the Greens who wish to stand large numbers of candidates across the country. What does serious mean? Are the Wessex Regionalists serious for example? |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 4, 2017 21:13:03 GMT
What makes you think that? A higher deposit won't deter groups like the Monster Raving Loony Party from standing in a number of high profile seats. What it will do is cause problems for smaller, poorer, but undeniably serious parties like the Greens who wish to stand large numbers of candidates across the country. What does serious mean? Are the Wessex Regionalists serious for example? They most definitely are not. Read the blog for more fun in their William Morris-papered dreamworld. |
|
