大象传媒

Do all Council letters take so long to get written and posted as this one?
Are those responsible attempting to get a mention in the Guinness Book of Records?

鈥淪o there must be some reason for the delay outside of his office - and I'd love to know what it is.鈥�

Probably the same problem as we have on here.

鈥淭his comment has been referred for further consideration.鈥�

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Snap

"This comment has been referred for further consideration"

Any news Graham?

I have a good theory.
Those that think that Cornwall is ruled by politicians voted in by "multiple home-owners" have discovered that this is not the case and are desperate to hide their embarassment and have kidnapped the dispatch-rider carrying the Letter. They have stolen the Letter and left the poor dispatch-rider upside-down in a hedge near Bodmin.

@ Graham, so still no news then, do we know if it has even been sent yet, or not?

@ Slimslad, it is the principle of "One man, one vote" that is the issue here, or do you believe that those with the most money should have the most influence?

While folk have been concentrating on the how this new Bill will affect their "borders" they may have missed the fact that A.V. may actually mean "one man more than one vote".

No Slimslad, it will still be "One man, one vote". It is the way in which the vote will be used, theoretically to place candidates in order of preference, that will change, not the number of votes.

The winner is decided as follows:
1) In the first round, votes are counted by tallying first preferences (in the same way as plurality voting, or First Past The Post).
2) If no candidate has a majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes are counted at full value for the remaining candidates according to the next preference on each ballot.
3) This process repeats until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among the remaining candidates.

Each person is one person.
Each individual person is entitled to one vote and one visit to the polling booth only for the purposes of a General Election or, now(maybe), National Referendum in 2011(presumably but yet to be wrapped up as there hasn't been one before).
(Unless they are a multiple property owner with as many registrations on electoral rolls in as many constituencies as they have properties and they fancy a punt at voting more than once because they know the chances of detection and a modest 拢5,000 fine are as slim as a Slimslad pixel.)
They use their single vote to indicate their preferred candidates in order.
They only enter the voting booth once and only exercise their vote once and then they leave and don't come back.
Not at all like the TIC polls eh, Slimslad?

The A.V. system may include "preference voting", where if there were, say, 3 candidates the voter would "grade" their preference 1 2 or 3, with 1 being their main choice. One voter, three preferences.
Should I draw a picture?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Slimslad wrote:-
"The A.V. system may include "preference voting", where if there were, say, 3 candidates the voter would "grade" their preference 1 2 or 3, with 1 being their main choice. One voter, three preferences.
Should I draw a picture?"

Yes please.
I am trying to work out how you consider "grading" candidates in order of preference to be multiple voting.
How you feel that such a system could give someone more than one vote?

Interestingly, P_Trembath, George Eustice MP appears to be labouring under a similar difficulty to distinguish between a single vote and a voter's indicated preferences within that voter's single vote:

What do you expect, he's a Tory.

Indeed, P_Trembath.
In fact, having won his seat by a margin of merely 66 votes and there being around 1,200 houses in the Camborne & Redruth constituency owned by people who don't live in the Duchy but on the basis of such ownership such non-residents can register to vote, it is quite possible George Eustice MP owes his MP position to the very vote 'flipping' and entirely possible illegal multiple voting which the letter to Mr Clegg that is the subject of this post by Mr Smith addresses.
It will be interesting to see how far Mr Eustice is prepared to go to promote and defend the principle of 'one person-one vote'.
How many votes did George Eustice MP get from non-residents of Cornwall in the UK General Election 2010?
How many of them were illegal?
Perhaps we should be told.

He beat the Liberal Democrat by 66 votes, certainly.
But he beat the "Party for Cornwall" hopeful by 15,000 or so.

So,
"1,200 houses in the Camborne & Redruth constituency owned by people who don't live in the Duchy but on the basis of such ownership such non-residents can register to vote"

Not sure where these figures come from, but even if there are 5 people in every house voting, that is 6,000 registering to vote, that is 6,000 votes. Even 10 people is 12,000 votes. Still not enough to cover the majority that Eustice has over M.K.

Eustice, George Conservative 15,969 (37.52%)
Goldsworthy, Julia Liberal Democrat 15,903 (37.36 %)
Robinson, Jude Labour 6,945 (16.32%)
Elliott, Derek UK Independence Party 2,152 (5.06%)
Jenkin, Loveday Mebyon Kernow 775 (1.83%
McPhee, Euan Green 581 (1.37%)
Hawkins, Robert Socialist Labour Party 168 (0.4%)

Majority 66 votes

Electorate 63,975

Turnout (42,570) 66%

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Type of voting system: First Past The Post.
Difference in number of votes between 1st and 2nd Place: 66.
No of houses in the Camborne & Redruth constituency owned by non-residents
currently able to register to vote in the UK General Election 2010: circa 1,200.
(The point being made, Slimslad, is nothing to do with Mebyon Kernow)
The point being made is about whether those 66 votes were scrutinised and passed the test of legitimacy.
Was that election 'victory' due to 66 or over 'flipped' or, indeed, illegal votes cast by people not entitled to vote in that constituency?
Or not?
We should be told.

Conspiracy or "cock up", after 5 months we hear that this letter has, at long last, been sent.
Mr. Williams holds his hands up and says "Mea culpa", and puts it down to a "cock up".
At the beginning of September, it was considered to be "inappropriate" to have sent the letter during Parliament's summer recess.
Then, we are told, over a month ago, 24 October, that the letter just needed to be "circulated for comment", and would be posted "in the next fortnight".
Now, 3陆 weeks after it was supposed to have been posted, we learn that it has just been sent.
Which ever view you take, Conspiracy or "cock up", it hardly inspires confidence in the internal workings of the Council.

I wonder if I was 5 months late paying my Council tax, they would take pity on me if I were to claim that it was due to a "cock up"?