Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Croucher
Letter to all voters explaining the delay: 15,000 members x 30p = £ 4500
Printing of new voting papers = c£ 500
Mailing of new voting papers: 15,000 members x 30p = £ 4500
And yes, you'd need new voting papers, or you wouldn't know who voted before finding out this earth-shattering information, which would mean you'd have an unquantifiable amount of votes which the delay failed to solve.
So, for a mere ten grand (wouldn't cost the party more money) you can correct a minor breach of procedure. You may think its worth it, but most will take the view that the cost far far outweighs any benefit, and that's assuming there is any benefit whatsoever. I'd rather see the money spent on the campaign, as, I suspect, would Tim, even though people like him don't know enough about party matters to maintain an air of studied though ill-informed pomposity.
M
|
Mark
You clearly haven't thought through the possible ramifications of the party's failure to follow the procedures that have been set out.
It is entirely reasonable that some, and perhaps many people may change their vote based on the knowledge that some of the candidates are standing in more than one region. Some members may feel that such a candidate is not committed to their region. Others might feel that they are wasting their vote should that candidate choose to stand on the list in the other region.
Secondly, there is a widespread feeling amongst party activists that Marta Andreasen is the anointed of the party leadership. This is reinforced when people known to be close to Nigel lavish praise on her, and even more so when the Chairman of one of the hustings does likewise
at the husting, an honour accorded no other candidate.
Like Ray, I have heard that it was known last week, before the ballots went out that the pertinant information had not been included, but that it was decided not to bother in correcting the error
Unfortunately, many members and activists will feel that the rules are being bent in favour of a particular candidate, whatever the truth of the matter. Even if it is simply a **** up it will still leave a cloud over the process, and it will engender bad will. And it is unfair to those involved, including Marta. She is a capable woman and rumours that rules were bent to get her to the top of the list (I happen to think that she is entirely capable of getting to the top on her own merits) will tarnish that achievement.
Now imagine a scenario where Marta comes second on the list, but very close behind her are three other candidates, (lets call them candidates A, B, and C) all separated by a few points. It isn't a stretch to imagine that they will all feel cheated. And because voters may have voted very differently if they knew that Marta was standing elsewhere and because each voter's thought process is unique, we cannot know where these other candidates would have placed on the list if the information had been made available to the members. To some members it might have made no difference and their ballots would have remained unchanged. However to some members it might have been reason enough not to vote for her, thereby moving candidates A, B, and C, up one place each on those respective ballots. It may have influenced some members to drop her one place farther down the list. Since each list is different this could potentially benefit A, B, or C or none of them at all depending on where they were placed on that individual ballot. Some members might not have voted for A, B, or C but in dropping Marta off the list made a space available for one of them. Of course this is all compounded when you recall that Victor Webb is another South East candidate also standing in London and that the same uncertainty affects his votes as well. Basically it is impossible to know what the members would do if all the information was presented to them.
You forget that getting onto the MEP list is not a cheap process. We have paid £250 for the privelege of being able to contest the list and are expected to pay a further £800 towards the election deposit if we make the list. Have you considered that, consideration having been given, a contract has been formed between the candidates and the party and that it is open for any disgruntled candidate to refuse pay the £800 election deposit now because the balloting procedure has been compromised and the contract breached?
Have you considered how much that could potentially cost the party?
Go give your head a shake and think it over a little more carefully.