´óÏó´«Ã½

Perhaps you will also inform your colleague James Landale of the current and foreseeable difficulties and impossibility of Mr Lavery, along with all other Chief Electoral Registration Officers and Chief Election Returning Officers across the UK, in being able to deliver a genuine, verifiable and credible one person-one vote referendum and the inability of the Electoral Commission/Boundary Commissioners to deliver accurate one person-one registration constituency population calculations for any proposed constituency reconfigurations as revealed in Mr Lavery's letter to Mr Clegg (who is the sponsor, along with that jokey old buffer Lord McNally, of the 'Dog's Breakfast' Bill).

Here's another quote ( from /blogs/grahamsmith/2011/01/devonwall_bill_zzzzzzz.html ) that your colleague James Landale may also find of interest:

'In the light of the content of Mr Lavery's letter to DPM Clegg is it not clear to you, Mr Smith, that a credible, verifiable, legitimate and unchallengeable one person-one vote referendum on AV v FPTP in May 2011 is actually not achievable without major changes to UK Electoral Law in conjunction with the empowerment of all UK Chief Electoral Registration and Chief Election Returning Officers with thorough and fully functional UK wide multiple constituency electoral register, voter and voting record access, scrutiny and enforcement powers? '

No doubt you have a copy of Mr Lavery's letter and briefing notes to DPM Clegg that you can forward to Mr Landale as you don't appear to have been able to do much with it so far under your own steam. Too much indoor tennis?

"thorough and fully functional UK wide multiple constituency electoral register, voter and voting record access, scrutiny and enforcement powers? '"

We have just got rid of the ID card/National data base scheme and up you pop proposing another one.

An extrapolation or three too far there, BofanE.
As things currently stand around 2M of the UK electorate are able to apply to register on more than one constituency electoral roll. That needs to change of course and Electoral Law should be changed to ensure that people can only register to vote in the constituency of their primary residence.
In the meantime Chief Electoral Registration Officers and Chief Election Returning Officers need to be in a position to scrutinise multiple constituency electoral roll registrant voters and votes to screen out and disqualify ineligible and/or illegal multiple votes in all local government elections, UK national elections and any proposed referendums to ensure verifiable and demonstrable one person-one vote legitimacy. (You wouldn't want us to be living in one of them there 'banana republics' where minority interests manipulate election outcomes would you, BofanE?)
All that needs is for CEROs to have cross constituency data access across the UK so they can eliminate all those dodgy votes. At the moment they are unable to do so. Surely that's shocking. Particularly when this kind of thing is endemic:

And, of course, there would be no point, credibility or validity in any proposed recalculation and redrawing of constituency populations and boundaries if individuals were to be counted more than once across the UK.

I'm not extrapolating - I'm translating into English! You want a national electoral register. What is this if it is not a national database?

Perhaps there isn't a significant difference between a single national electoral register and a forest of local election registers, BofanE. In any case, as things stand, CEROs are signing elections off as 'free and fair' when, as Mr Lavery confirmed in his letter and briefing note to DPM Clegg, they don't have the tools or resources to do so. At the very least CEROs should be able to cross refer multiple constituency electoral roll registrants, voting entitlements and voting practices across UK constituencies in order to eliminate/disqualify/prosecute all those dodgy voters and votes:

We might then be able to have some greater confidence in the integrity of our 'democratic' processes and procedures.
Don't you think?

To me there is a huge difference between a national electoral register and a forest of local ones. Perhaps I just don't trust the government. The link you give is related to postal fraud.

Well, BofanE,your caution may be justified. However, it isn't actually necessary to have a national electoral register (however much that would simplify, regularise and reduce the cost of our various elections and proposed referendums). All that is required is that CEROs are properly equipped to fulfill their function which is to deliver sound elections with absolute integrity. All that is required for them to do that is cross constituency data checking powers.

PS The link given is to as many types of UK electoral fraud that you care to imagine:

About 163,000 results and, now you come to mention it on this well indexed ´óÏó´«Ã½ page, no doubt rising.

Or you could search 'UK + election + fraud' :

Which gives you about 362,000 results.
Plenty for you to mull over there...

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

That's interesting. A link to a public and publicly funded authority and a quotation from its web site removed by the ´óÏó´«Ã½ moderators. Which could have possibly caused the problem?

The link to a Cornwall Council press release titled 'Council calls for clarification on confusing second homes voter registration legislation' :
?

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

Or the sourced and quoted content from that page quoted below?

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

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

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

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

Well,the process of elimination appears to suggest that quoting the content at
'Council calls for clarification on confusing second homes voter registration legislation' :

was problematic for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ moderators, possibly due to copyright considerations.

Anyway, the content is readily accessible via that link, confirms the points being made in the first comment above and makes a very good read in the wider context of the bogus AV v FPTP 'referendum' being proposed by the LibDemCon Coalition for May 2011 and the bogus constituency boundary changes being proposed thereafter - all within the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Shambles Bill currently at the House of Lords.