British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Bellatrix · 10-07-2007, 04:09 PM

Bellatrix has reported a post.

Reason:

Quote:

If this was a locked forum, this would be okay, but it's not. It's a letter which anyone can read and will just cause trouble for those in the party who are trying to get on with our tasks.

I'd be grateful if you could remove this so the party could get on with the task of winning elections and getting Britain out of the EU rather than questioning whether head office are rigging elections. It's insulting to so many people concerned.

Thank

Clive and Annabelle

Post: NEC election letter
Forum: UKIP General Issues
Assigned Moderators: N/A

Posted by: Anthony Butcher
Original Content:

Quote:

This letter was sent to every senior party member today:

Quote:

Voices of concern are being raised by an increasing number of people
over the recent NEC elections. Coupling together the fiasco of the 1st
(cancelled) ballot and the 2nd ballot these concerned members smell
great potential for vote rigging!

But what is the connection between the two ballots, and why the concern?

Well, it would appear that the concerns centre upon the requirement for
members to write their membership number on the '/outside/' of the
ballot envelope. What's the problem with that you may say - it would
after all be vital to ensure that those voting had an entitlement to do so.

To answer such a question we need to begin with the 1st ballot fiasco
(and walk through the sequence of events one step at a time), which as
most will recall, had to be cancelled, because of the various articles
by certain NEC candidates that appeared in 'Independence' immediately
prior to the election.

As mentioned, the membership number of the voter had to be written on
the outside of the envelope in this ballot and in the subsequent
ballot. By chance a senior party member, noticed on a visit that
subsequent to the cancellation of the first ballot that an ex-party
secretary/NEC member was gaily opening the received ballot papers. When
asked why, this person said that it was being done because some members
had placed cheques in the envelopes and these needed to be recovered.
Whether this was a truthful answer or not is clearly a moot point.

This gives rise to 2 questions:
1. Why weren't the voting envelopes for the cancelled ballot immediately
destroyed - thereby maintaining confidentiality and any possible
concerns about that confidentiality being raised in the first place?
2. Because the ballot envelopes were not immediately destroyed it
allowed (the concerned members wonder) it allowed those who opened the
envelopes to cross reference the membership number with the candidate
voted for. The first round of ballot papers should have been destroyed.
That this was not done is utterly reprehensible!

Now fast forward to the 2nd ballot, upon which the current NEC is
mandated. Here is where the concerns become really major. For given the
possibility of point 2 above taking place, it would now become possible
for returned ballot envelopes to be checked against a list compiled from
the 1st ballot returns, and those whose membership number showed them to
be voting for certain candidates discarded - or minimised - to ensure
that certain other persons gained a place.

For instance, is it really credible that candidates who are hardly
known to the party at large, e.g. Andrew Smith , should be elected,
whilst most of the candidates on the grassroots list, who by
contrast,were much better known - ie Toby Mickelethwaite, were not
elected!!!

In addition, it is also being seriously suggested that the 1st ballot
was deliberately bungled, so as to facilitate the required result in the
2nd ballot. Maybe, maybe not, but those with long memories might recall
that such a scenario is not without precedent??

If you are a candidate who did not get elected it would appear that you
have grounds to demand that the returning officer order a re-run - a
third ballot. Maybe it will be third time lucky and the result will be
an honest one!

Regards

Iris