Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Croucher
No, UKIP makes similar mistakes time and time again, not generally the same ones. And let's be honest, it wouldn't matter how the elections were organised, what the selection process was, who the returning officer was or what voting system was used, there'd be a solid core of people voiciferously complaining that it was fixed/rigged/unfair/open to abuse/etc etc.
|
It is my understanding that various individuals offered to fund the cost of having Electoral Reform Services run the candidate selection ballots for UKIP
in at least some of the regions.
Quote:
|
For example, look at those standing on more than 1 list. Their names are publicly available on the website, the same place one would have to look to discover the rules which they have, according to this website, broken. Regardless of the pedantry relating to what constitutes 'informing the members', I was always under the impression that the purpose of voting was to select the best person for the job or, in this case, to rank the contenders in the order in which voters feel they will fulfil the job requirements of UKIP MEP. You either think Andreasen will be the third best, or you don't. Whether she is standing elsewhere is immaterial, because she either will or will not end up in the position on the list to which she is voted. In 2004, ISTR that a number of candidates withdrew after selection and before the close of nominations, with one (David Abbott) withdrawing after nominations had closed. The withdrawl at the close of selection of candidates who have attained a higher position or who feel they are better able to represent another region as a candidate makes no difference to the list, as those placed below the withdrawing candidate are simply promoted one place. The idea that this somehow invalidates the election or is in some way actionable is ludicrous.
|
You are wrong to suggest that the fact that a candidate is standing in more than one region is of no importance to those who are casting ballots. There are lots of reasons why it may be considered relevant. First of all voters may assume rightly or wrongly that the candidate isn't committed to their region if they are also seeking selection elsewhere. Secondly many voters may not want to vote for a candidate who is also standing in another region simply because if the candidate chooses in the end to stand in the other region their vote in the selection process will have been wasted. So to suggest that the fact that someone else is standing
And, the fact is the rules very clearly state that the members of the party are to be informed of candidates who are standing in more than one region. If the rule was so inconsequential then why even have it?
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, there are far more people who deem themselves eminently qualified to point out the holes in the system (or to point out holes that don't, in fact, exist) than there are people capable of fixing them. There are always a whole host of 'solutions' posted here which at a casual glance seem good, but would in reality prove impossible to implement because of a combination of financial/staffing/political reasons which everyone seems to pretend don't exist.
|
As I pointed out above, there have been offers from various individuals to finance the use of Electoral Reform Services. And it isn't about pointing out "holes". In this case it is about a failure to follow the rules as set out in the guidelines.