TO ALL MEMBERS OF UKIP
In the current UKIP Leadership election, because of an oversight in the drafting of the Leadership Election Rules which fail to deal with a multiplicity of candidates, we face the prospect of electing a leader with less than 50% of the vote (possibly as low as 20%).
This could lead to the dictatorship of the Party by a small minority, and the alienation of the majority, and the end of the Party.
If you would like the next Leader to be elected by more than 50% of the votes then an additional Rule can do it. The NEC cannot change the Constitution, but it can, and often does, change the Rules made under the Constitution.
The proposed new Rule would be:
In the event that no candidate in the current Leadership Election receives more than 50% of the vote there will be a runoff between the top 2 candidates to be conducted by the Electoral Reform Society
However, that will involve expense, so the following alternative is proposed:
In the event that no candidate in the current Leadership Election receives more than 50% of the vote the 7 candidates shall be invited to a meeting at which only the candidates ( or a representative of a candidate who is unable to attend) may be present and vote secretly for the Leader of their choice (a candidate may vote for him/herself).
Each candidate will write the initials of his/her preferred leader on a slip, fold it and place it in a vessel. On completion of the voting the vessel will be emptied, and the votes counted by the candidates.
If a candidate receives 4 or more of the votes cast that person’s name shall be put to Conference for approval or not. If approved, that person becomes Leader of the Party.
(7 candidates represent an average of 14.2% each, so that 4 of them will represent at least 56% of the total. This note is explanatory, and not a part of the proposal)
If not approved there will be a run-off between the top 2 candidates in the Primary Ballot to be conducted by the Electoral Reform Society.
For this to work in legality the NEC will need to pass the Rule, essentially before the result of the Primary Ballot is known in practice, in respect of the first part a majority of the candidates will need to approve it and the conference itself must be willing
In creating this Rule the NEC can overcome the deficiencies of the present Rules, for which the present NEC is not responsible and facilitate the outcome we all want:
that we end up with a Leader who has overwhelming support.
I hope this helps.
Hugh Moelwyn Hughes
UKIP Founder Member.
Leave a Reply
69 Comments on “Digging ourselves out of the hole we are in”
I guess that as the “wrong” candidate did not win, the fact that the winner has 30% of the vote is now perfectly acceptable.
If you change the election rules because you don’t like the result you will have zero moral authority to argue against a 2nd Brexit referendun result being held.
Changing the election rules at the last minute: Where did that last cause a scandal? Turkey wasn’t it? People have voted with the understanding of FPTP. Some would have voted with different tactics if another system was in use. The legal challenge would be enough to destroy the party alone.
I’m waiting forFridaySaturday and sunday Ukip daily posts. NOT the speeches, not the papers, not the articles, not the letteers to the editor, But the posts!….
The only other thing of interest is the winners speech.
and if anything has been learned or deduced. and any sign that suddenly they can cope in a different life. I hope to goodness you can go up a couple of gears.
Ukip has more life in it than pollsters can imagine, Your entrails will be subjected to forensic (Scientificnot TV ) dissection.
Does anyone other than us posters read ’em.
When in a hole the time honoured advice is best. Just stop digging.
Men of England, heirs of Glory,
Heroes of unwritten story,
Nurslings of one mighty Mother,
Hopes of her, and one another!
What is Freedom? Ye can tell
That which Slavery is too well,
For its very name has grown
To an echo of your own
Let a vast assembly be,
And with great solemnity
Declare with measured words, that ye
Are, as God has made ye, free.
The old laws of England—they
Whose reverend heads with age are grey,
Children of a wiser day;
And whose solemn voice must be
Thine own echo—Liberty!
Rise, like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number!
Shake your chains to earth, like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you:
Ye are many—they are few!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masque_of_Anarchy
If I were not a little mad, and generally silly
I should give you my advice upon the subject, willy-nillly!
I would show you in a moment how to grapple with the question
and you’d really be astonished by the force of my suggestion!
Which is why I’ll choose to write to you a valuable letter
full of excellent suggestions when I feel a little better,
but at present I’m afraid I am as mad as any hatter,
so I’ll sing this song from Ruddigore, and it really doesn’t matter!
Any perception of corrupting the legitimate election results and changing the rules at this stage will be seen as just that. Will I believe see members and pubic supporters abandoning UKIP in their droves. It seems to me that to guarantee a candidate gets more than 50% of the votes you would have to start the election with only one candidate. This is surely the end of UKIP should this electoral interference at this late stage proceed.
You want to change the size of the goal just as the ball is heading for it?
‘Yer ‘aving a ‘larf.
funny how ukippers are stubbornly heading to political suicide, trying by any means to block AMW from leading the party.
reminds me “nihilist penguin”.
…
If the rules are changed at this stage of the leadership election, UKIP will have my resignation the same day
Cllr Julien Parrott
How are the nec to blame? By allowing too many candidates to stand?
Three months too late! Does UKIP have a death wish? Plain daft at this eleventh hour!
Indeed, this is the ‘Ranked Choice System’ I mentioned earlier. An additional positive about this system, is that it discourages negative campaigning. Candidates want to be 1st choice, failing that, they want to be 2nd choice. A positive campaign will help, but attacking other candidates will not…
Going forward, it will be e-voting, so no need for baskets, and results at once ?
The term “postal ballots” can include electronic voting – we checked, before we looked into it.
NO TO ANY RULE CHANGES.
We have all had the vote.
Get the votes counted and tell us immediately who won.
The person with the most votes is the New Leader.
“The person with the most votes is the New Leader.”
One hundred % correct.
But will the ‘losing majority’ back this New Leader
with what I expect to be a ‘minority’ of votes?
As a member of the NEC; I might fancy such a rule change.
As a bog standard Kipper who fancies AMW, it stinks.
If she`s winning by a hair in the first ballot – I`m sure she can only lose, when we know all the other candidates will be against her.
Rule change doesn`t sound like my idea of democracy.
I thought UKIP`s days of stitchup were supposed to be over.
Ballot systems that have more than 1 round, will inevitably promote tactical voting, as people see the relative popularity of candidates unfold. That in my view is not good. First past the post is also not good, when there are many candidates to choose from. Obviously, this election must complete according to the existing rules. Future elections might go for a more representative ‘Ranked Choice System’ (Instant-Runoff). Done in a single ballot and therefore also relatively low cost…
If, as you suggest, the clear priority has been ‘anyone but AMW’, it can’t have reassuring that approximately a thousand new members are reputed to have joined specifically to vote for her. With such a small electorate, and maybe a small turnout, new members who owe no allegiance to the Party, could influence the outcome of the leadership election and the future direction of the Party.
I think that is, at the very least undesirable, but as a member who seems to be regarded as nothing more than a speck of inconvenient chaff, I would, wouldn’t I!
Dee, I don’t know what the cut-off date was for this election but I first saw a report of an influx of about 1,000 new members right at the beginning of July. I have seen a letter of complaint from one annoyed, new member who claimed to have joined purely to vote for AMW but hadn’t received a ballot paper. I recall, quite clearly, the lady herself referring to the new members in relation to her bid, at one of the videoed hustings.
Marie, the cut-off date was 23rd June – the constitution, ratified by the membership in 2012, set nominations opening as cut-off to prevent entryism…
The first line should have ended ‘it can’t have been reassuring’
M.
Only lawyers could possibly be interested in this
Most of us don’t care.
Since the EU referendum we’ve had:
48 percenters claiming we didn’t win a clear victory and they really won.
John Major: “The tyranny of the majority”
After Trump:
“Hilary won the popular vote”
Hilary writing books to try and justify her loss.
Jeremy Corbyn claiming Labour really won the election when they lost by over sixty seats.
And these are just a few of endless examples of whining losers that can’t accept a democratic decision and are trying to change the rules after the event.
If UKIP tries to do this they’ll be no better than all of the whining losers.
There is a rumour (and doesnt this party have to run on rumour, with such sparse info coming down to the members from the current Chairman?) that because of the problem identified above, an Alternative Vote system was proposed by the NEC at the outset(!) to the 11 candidates, but that the 11 could not reach a consensus on the matter, so the NEC went ahead with the current Rules which prescribe the First Past The Post sytem, ironically the very system we as a Party object to in Parliamentary Elections!
Battle Of Waterloo
It will be a close run thing on Friday.
Not necessarily the election result but the fall out after the declaration.
“la mies es mucho” or as Gary says wheat and chaff.
I just cannot decide who is who in the coming verbal showdown; who is Napoleon, who Wellington, and who is Blucher? And will history be rewritten?
Step forward HB, AMW, JRE, and poss PW.
I shall not be there but I wish all attending Torquay the very best and that contrary to prognostications and threats that the party unites behind the new leader.
WE HAVE A WAR STILL TO WIN
Borodino, rather, perhaps? The winner doesn’t last over the coming winter?
Dear Hugh,
When I served on the NEC, the advice from the oarty secretary was unambiguous: we should NOT change election rules once an election has been called.
So, IMHO it’s a complete non-starter.
Regards, Rob ?
I have to sadly say that everything that has been going on is reminscient, to me, of the campaign to keep Britain in the EU. If there is a result one doesn’t like, let’s have another vote/referendum – all those that voted the wrong way are….take your choice from the many descriptions, the latest re Brexit from the once great David Attenborough on Twitter, that we ‘didn’t understand the repercussions’.
As someone else said, surely UKIP is better than that!
Final comment.. if UKIP had any sense they would have roped Nigel back in and I’m sure he would still have won handsomely… instead he toys with the media with his I may/may not get back into a leading role and now apparently has plans for a spin-off party if AMW wins. Poor form.
No plans for a spin-off as confirmed on LBC: do try and keep up, 007 ?
If you listen carefully to Nigel he says he has ‘no plans to form a spin-off party’ – future tense. That leaves two options: 1) that a spin-off party has already been formed, or 2) that someone else (Banks?) is going to form the spin-off.
Or that Nigel doesn’t see whatever he is planning as a “spin-off”, or that it will be a movement rather than a political party… plenty of options that would be consistent with his “no spin-offs” line.
Fully expect to see some kind of resurrection of Leave.eu, probably with Farage playing a big role, in the coming months. Especially if AMW wins, but even if she doesn’t. Let’s face it, Remain didn’t stop campaigning on June 23rd and we shouldn’t have done either.
I completely disagree. UKIP’s problems all relate to the party’s inability to move on from Nigel Farage. He has the right (after all he did) to get his life back. Please stop promoting the ‘spin-off party’ canard. Nigel Farage could not have denied this any more clearly, than he did on Sunday.
If the leadership candidates were allowed to vote amongst themselves who would be leader I’d resign my membership immediately… what an insult it would be to the membership that their voice didn’t matter indeed it would send the message that if you want a vote you have to stand for the leadership yourself.
Quite.
Agree with Jason , If this proposal goes through I’m gone from the party . The members elect the leader end of .
The party should have thought about that before running a leadership contest but suspect they’re only now concerned as a left-field candidate rather than one of the ‘in-crowd’ may win.
For future ballots I would suggest members are asked to rank the candidates so that alternative votes come into play as bottom placed candidates are eliminated or there is/are additional run off round(s) to separate the highest placed candidates.
Personally I think there will be a clear winner by a fair margin in this election although probably not a majority.
Secondary voting WAS planned, but not all of the candidates agreed to it ?
The flaw in the argument is that in voting for a candidate I do to know who she or he would vote for in the imagined second round. It is entirely possible that she or he votes for someone I abhor. This method does not produce majority support at all.
No! For heavens sake, we look like enough of a laughing stock as it is! And can you imagine those that voted AMW being happy with that? Because I can’t. We are where we are, end of, ( the ‘and me’ comment was supposed to echo Jeff’s comment ) – we cannot keep on manipulating things. Que sera and all that.
And me!
Well said, Gary. I’m dissapointed in the candidates who blocked secondary vote, but life goes on…
Is the photo used for this article evidence of NEC interference in the election? Looks to me like Mick McGough is stealing the ballot box!
Good one!
Looks like AWM clearly won then.
NO, NO and thrice NO! How many attempts do we have to suffer to try and change the process? This is a disgrace. Have you been taking lessons from Brussels? We have a process, we must stick to it. I have never in all my life seen so many attempts to manipulate an electoral process. ( Maybe because I have never been in the Labour Party). UKIP is better than this, it’s a shameful suggestion.
Much simpler to let the membership shift over the ensuing weeks, so that by Christmas AMW will be supported by a clear majority of the (vastly increased) membership.
…I’m with Grummy
Graham, as usual, an excellent analysis.
Me too.
I,m with Grummy too.
I mean who do the candidates think they are, Common Bl*ody Purpose??