Open candidacy

[philipjohn]

A proposal to allow more people to truly represent their communities

[Floppy]

How do you deal with time-wasting candidates, or people running purely to disrupt the process? Is that actually a problem? Could the deposit be charged afterwards instead of before, so there's no up-front cost, but still have a small barrier to non-serious candidates? I'd be interested to know if any systems do without a deposit, and whether they have any problems.

[philipjohn]

Time wasters might be an issue, yes. I think the key would be to ensure that this is implemented alongside improving the administration of elections. I.e. less paper, more typing... to reduce the manual effort required to process candidates. More research needed certainly.

[PaulJRobinson]

I agree with lowering the bar to entry, but there should be some element of
financial contribution to deter timewasters: perhaps £50-100 rather than
£500. I think anyone getting 5% of votes gets their deposit back anyway,
but few people would blow £100 just on a whim. Anything below £50 and
people may be inclined to take the mickey without any intention of actually
campaigining.

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 7 January 2014 10:37, philipjohn notifications@github.com wrote:

Time wasters might be an issue, yes. I think the key would be to ensure
that this is implemented alongside improving the administration of
elections. I.e. less paper, more typing... to reduce the manual effort
required to process candidates. More research needed certainly.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/33#issuecomment-31727522
.

[philipjohn]

My aim here was to have zero barriers to potential candidates given that even a small amount will be prohibitive to the poorest in society. If we are to be serious about making politics accessible to all and not just the rich (we I think we should be), removing barriers is crucial. Even if we move to charge deposits post-election that still means the big parties are fine and the smaller, low-budget candidates are penalised.

Time wasters will be an issue, so rather making it difficult for everyone we should pair this with measures to make sure the cost of those time wasters is minimal. I don't know what they are yet :)

[Floppy]

Maybe we have a proposal thing, whereby any candidate has to get, say, 20 people to propose them? Avoids obvious timewasters, but no financial barrier to entry.

[Floppy]

And the proposers could be public, so backing candidates would have an "embarrassment deposit".

[PaulJRobinson]

Good point - that already happens. 10 for a parish /town election as I
recall. 20 for County I think. I assume it's more for Westminster. But
you're right this does in itself prevent anyone down the pub deciding to do
it just for a laugh.

Happy to remove all financial barriers to entry on this basis.
On 7 Jan 2014 16:50, "James Smith" notifications@github.com wrote:

Maybe we have a proposal thing, whereby any candidate has to get, say, 20
people to propose them? Avoids obvious timewasters, but no financial
barrier to entry.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/33#issuecomment-31754933
.

[philipjohn]

Oh excellent, I didn't realise that was already a thing.

P.s. James, it's nice to be collaborating with you again. Save Parliament was a long time ago ;)

[Floppy]

wasn't it just? :)

[Floppy]

I was trying to find the number required for westminster before I merge this, just in case we need to add something.

[PaulJRobinson]

Don't take my figures on trust. Hang on...

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 7 January 2014 17:32, James Smith notifications@github.com wrote:

I was trying to find the number required for westminster before I merge
this, just in case we need to add something.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/33#issuecomment-31758893
.

[PaulJRobinson]

Candidates standing for election as an MP require 10 electors from within
the constituency to propose them on their Nomination Paper.
Candidates standing for election to County Council require 10 electors from
within the division.
Candidates standing for election to Borough/District/Unitary Council
require 10 electors from within that ward.
Candidates standing for Town or Parish Council election require 2 electors
from within that ward.

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 7 January 2014 17:33, Paul Robinson robinson.pauljames@gmail.com wrote:

Don't take my figures on trust. Hang on...

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 7 January 2014 17:32, James Smith notifications@github.com wrote:

I was trying to find the number required for westminster before I merge
this, just in case we need to add something.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/33#issuecomment-31758893
.

[PaulJRobinson]

which all seems rather low to me! I would propose requiring candidates
standing in a General Election to find 20 people within the constituency to
propose them on their Nomination Paper.

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 7 January 2014 17:43, Paul Robinson robinson.pauljames@gmail.com wrote:

Candidates standing for election as an MP require 10 electors from within
the constituency to propose them on their Nomination Paper.
Candidates standing for election to County Council require 10 electors
from within the division.
Candidates standing for election to Borough/District/Unitary Council
require 10 electors from within that ward.
Candidates standing for Town or Parish Council election require 2 electors
from within that ward.

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 7 January 2014 17:33, Paul Robinson robinson.pauljames@gmail.comwrote:

Don't take my figures on trust. Hang on...

with kind regards,
Paul Robinson

about.me/pauljrobinson

On 7 January 2014 17:32, James Smith notifications@github.com wrote:

I was trying to find the number required for westminster before I merge
this, just in case we need to add something.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/33#issuecomment-31758893
.

[Floppy]

I'd agree that a slightly higher threshold seems reasonable if we're dropping the fee. @philipjohn, fancy making that change?

[philipjohn]

Sure, will do that this evening! Thanks guys

[PaulJRobinson]

👍

[Floppy]

👍

[PaulJRobinson]

👍