Post by Bartonite on Jan 9, 2013 9:37:07 GMT
Notwithstanding the poster's view of my motivation, do readers think there is anything in this notion that the Tories are being misleading or even plain dishonest about candidates for parish council seats? I mean, does a Conservative supporter actually benefit from concealing his or her party allegiance while running for election in the Cotswolds?
In fact, after being asked to Google 'Cotswold Parish Council Results 2011’, I'm a little confused. This is what I found, and yes, once you get past the first three links, there's a notable lack of Tory candidates (I still think this might be because Tories don't bother with parish council seats, so even when a supporter is standing, he or she doesn't play up affiliation, but that's just my view).
The thing that's really baking my noodle, though, is the tally of votes thoughout. Take Cutsdean, for example. Electorate of 56, ballot papers issued, 36, which makes for a turnout of 64.29%. But, votes received, in alphabetical order were 31, 17, 19, 29, 26,24. Way over 36 votes, even if everyone got two votes, due to some kind of alternative voting system, which seems highly unlikely. Strangely, if you take away the first number from each candidate's score, so 1, 7, 9, 9, 6, 4, you do get 36, but then the first candidate would only have 1 vote, and would be the candidate who lost out, rather than the leader.
This just doesn't make any sense at all...
Firstly, your notable economy of truth is what need aught to be talked about on your forum. A
re you a front for a political party and its manifesto, and or for a party political cartel and its manifestos? If ,‘yes’ - then stop defrauding the public, drop the front of anonymity, and yourself ‘frankly debate’.
Q:1. Why did you ignore my conclusive evidence of systemic, election cartel fraud by the Cotswold Constituency Conservative Party - where officially they didn’t put up a single candidate in 84 local councils out of 86, which isn’t just conclusive evidence of their systemic, criminal ‘cartel bid rigging’ of the parish and the town council elections and so of such councils, but because that’s the ‘entry level’ to politics, so they’re thereby rigging every political and executive post directly above in their parties favour too?
Q:2. Why also are you pro Unitary Authority GOV being rolled out everywhere, which because of its super-duper-sized ‘entry level' wards is the total triumph of the national, party political caste, via this super-sizing, criminal and coercive ‘market sharing cartel’ entry level ward, election fraud, with which this cartel institutionally substitutes its national, party political autocracy for genuine, local democracy?
Q:3,a. Are you a member or supporter or sympathiser with any political party or parties and if so which and, Q:3,b: where is your political manifesto or manifestoes? Q:3,c. What is your real, full name?
From what I’ve seen of your M.O. so far, i don’t think you’re into ‘frank debate’ yourself - in short I think that you have a hidden, party political cartel’s institutional, criminal manifesto agenda, but I do hope that you prove my surmise wrong forthwith!?
re you a front for a political party and its manifesto, and or for a party political cartel and its manifestos? If ,‘yes’ - then stop defrauding the public, drop the front of anonymity, and yourself ‘frankly debate’.
Q:1. Why did you ignore my conclusive evidence of systemic, election cartel fraud by the Cotswold Constituency Conservative Party - where officially they didn’t put up a single candidate in 84 local councils out of 86, which isn’t just conclusive evidence of their systemic, criminal ‘cartel bid rigging’ of the parish and the town council elections and so of such councils, but because that’s the ‘entry level’ to politics, so they’re thereby rigging every political and executive post directly above in their parties favour too?
Q:2. Why also are you pro Unitary Authority GOV being rolled out everywhere, which because of its super-duper-sized ‘entry level' wards is the total triumph of the national, party political caste, via this super-sizing, criminal and coercive ‘market sharing cartel’ entry level ward, election fraud, with which this cartel institutionally substitutes its national, party political autocracy for genuine, local democracy?
Q:3,a. Are you a member or supporter or sympathiser with any political party or parties and if so which and, Q:3,b: where is your political manifesto or manifestoes? Q:3,c. What is your real, full name?
From what I’ve seen of your M.O. so far, i don’t think you’re into ‘frank debate’ yourself - in short I think that you have a hidden, party political cartel’s institutional, criminal manifesto agenda, but I do hope that you prove my surmise wrong forthwith!?
In fact, after being asked to Google 'Cotswold Parish Council Results 2011’, I'm a little confused. This is what I found, and yes, once you get past the first three links, there's a notable lack of Tory candidates (I still think this might be because Tories don't bother with parish council seats, so even when a supporter is standing, he or she doesn't play up affiliation, but that's just my view).
The thing that's really baking my noodle, though, is the tally of votes thoughout. Take Cutsdean, for example. Electorate of 56, ballot papers issued, 36, which makes for a turnout of 64.29%. But, votes received, in alphabetical order were 31, 17, 19, 29, 26,24. Way over 36 votes, even if everyone got two votes, due to some kind of alternative voting system, which seems highly unlikely. Strangely, if you take away the first number from each candidate's score, so 1, 7, 9, 9, 6, 4, you do get 36, but then the first candidate would only have 1 vote, and would be the candidate who lost out, rather than the leader.
This just doesn't make any sense at all...