Jump to content

Parliamentary elections: votes required so as not to lose deposit?


Joe9T

Recommended Posts

not true. People can only VOTE in one constituency, but candidates can STAND in as many consituencies as they want in parliamentary elections.

 

Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party stood in three seats in 1992, losing his deposit in all three.

 

further back Charles Stewart Parnell was elected in 1880 in three constituencies in Ireland, then part of the UK.

 

 

 

bankrupts, traitors, prisoners serving sentences of more than one year (they changed that following Bobby Sands), and in addition those guilty of electoral malpractice cannot stand. Phil Woolas for example will not be able to stand as an MP for 3 years.

 

you lose your deposit is 5% of the votes cast, not counting spoiled ballots. Deposit is £500. It used to be a high one-eighth (12.5 per cent) but it was lowered 20-plus years ago.

 

You see, I should have read further on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tory party lost two deposits at the last election despite the minimum being only 5%. Labour lost five, but the Lib-Dems took all their deposits back home with them.http://www.regionaltopup.co.uk/2010/05/12/press-release-nearly-1million-in-lost-deposits/

 

I have no figures for constituencies where the three big parties secured less than 12.5% of the vote, but there must, obviously, have been more than just 2 and 5 respectively.

 

Bet they don't do so well next time :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've actually reached power, and so far are showing that they can be trusted to deal responsibly with it. The chances are they'll do better next time.

 

Well that's your opionion, and mine is they will get stuffed. I guess time will tell.

 

I'm also prepared to bet that Clegg will personally get stuffed. For my money he has two choices. Defect to the Tories and find a safe seat in Surrey, or stick around as a Lib Dem and get a thrashing in Sheffield Hallam. I'm hoping for the latter, as it will be more humiliating. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not true. People can only VOTE in one constituency, but candidates can STAND in as many consituencies as they want in parliamentary elections.

 

I can't find an official statement to confirm or deny this. Do you have one?

 

 

I ask because I did find an official statement which says you cannot stand in more than one ward at a local council election. You can be nominated for any number of wards but you must withdraw your nomination from all but one of them by a fixed date, otherwise you are deemed to have withdrawn from all of them and you do not stand.

 

It would be logical to think that what applies at local elections also applies at general elections, but very little about governmental rules has ever been logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thread title says parliamentary elections. The rules for local and European elections are different, yes you can only stand in one division in those.

 

in the event of being victorious in more than one seat a candidate has one week to decide which one he wants to represent. What I don't know is what happens next - I would imagine there'd have to be by-elections in the other seats that a candidate won. They couldn't just award it to the runner-up.

 

there isn't a single electoral law that specifically says who can stand for parliament. I guess this is a loophole or anomaly that has never been closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thread title says parliamentary elections. The rules for local and European elections are different

 

As I said ... who needs logic and consistency? This is government we're talking about.

 

I wondered if this was another case, like with myself and the prisoners standing, where something was "known to be true" but had changed recently. Evidently the rules have been changed enough to prevent Parnell repeating his trick, if you have to choose which of your three elected seats you will represent and give up the other two. But you are clearly sure of your ground, and I wasn't trying to argue you were wrong; I just wanted some clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.