Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Perhaps the hired help still consider it to be "inappropriate"?

It once again raises the question, who runs the council, the elected representatives or the hired help?

Perhaps they are waiting for the post office to be privatised and save money posting the letter. I am sure a better saving could be made in not posting it

Perhaps Cornwall Council's Conservative Councillors are loathe to loose a chunk of non-resident Cornish elections wrecking,vote manipulating Tory gerrymandering votes?

Apparently, at the last full Cornwall Council meeting, Deputy Leader James Currie had the gall to slyly insinuate that discontinuing the distorting presence of non-resident multiple property owners on the electoral rolls of Cornwall & Scilly would exacerbate the threat to the territorial and constitutional integrity of Cornwall & Scilly and The Duchy Of Cornwall's boundary with England posed by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Now there's a desperate Tory!

No, to any person with any respect for democracy, the purpose of the electoral rolls of Cornwall & Scilly must be to enable the fullest expression of the democratic will of the people who actually live in Cornwall & Scilly. THAT's democracy!

We know who's running this Council Serco.

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.

Rudimentary calculations suggest if they banned every person with more than one home from voting anywhere. Support for MK would not change from the 2-3% they currently have and falling, I really fail to see the fixation the nats have on this issue, a storm in a tea cup.

You appear to have mislayed your understanding of what democracy means, 'Andrew Jacks'. Simply put - 'One Person - One Vote'.
This has nothing to do with party politics. It's about equal individual vote value and fair elections.

AccurateChronometer it is illegal to vote more than once, the crime already exists. People that have more than one property can decide on the day where they vote, it really is not complicated

1.As there isn't a UK national electoral register, there is currently no effective means or method for detecting multiple voting in UK national elections, Peter.
2.Multiple property owners can apply to register in as many constituencies as they have properties, Peter.
3.Local government elections are each defined as 'single' elections, Peter. It is therefore possible for multiple house owners to place as many votes in as many constituencies in local government elections as they have houses on the back of which they have registered on the electoral roll, Peter.
4.What possible objection could any property owner have to only being allowed to vote in the constituency of their 100% Council Tax liability primary residence, Peter?

"A person’s name may appear on the electoral register only if they reside at an address within the electoral area. Residence is not defined in law, but it has been held by the courts to entail a ‘considerable degree of permanence’. Based on this criteria, it is possible for a person to be registered to vote in two different electoral areas. A person with two homes who spends about the same amount of time in each can be lawfully registered at both addresses.

However, it is unlikely that ownership of a second home that is used only for recreational purposes would meet the residency qualification. Ownership of a second home that a voter pays council tax on but is not resident in does not qualify them for electoral registration in that area. It is for the local Electoral Registration Officer to decide in the light of an individual voter's circumstances whether they may be said to be resident at an address, and therefore eligible for registration. Electoral Registration Officers are required to consider each case on its own merits.

If an elector is registered to vote in two different electoral areas, they are eligible to vote in local elections for the two different local councils. However, it is an offence to vote twice in any one election. Such an offence could result in a fine of up to £5,000."

(The Electoral Commission)

It's all very well quoting theoretical rules which are, in practice, rarely applied nor enforced, Slimslad. Here's a taster of reality from Mr Smith's laudable, sustained and yet hitherto fruitless attempts to grapple with electoral chaos, corruption and lack of transparency, clarity, supervision and enforcement :

/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/kevins_too_busy_to_probe_secon.html

'Remember I asked Cornwall Council's Electoral Services team to tell me what percentage of postal votes were cast from second home addresses in the recent Falmouth Town Council by-election? I've now had a reply to my Freedom of Information application and quote the following extracts:
"The Electoral Registration Officer does not carry out the duties on behalf of the local authority but in his own personal capacity....the Freedom of Information Act does not list any person appointed under the Representation of the People Act 1983. It follows that the Electoral Registration Officer, Returning Officer or any other person appointed under the Act are not subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

Due to the current high level of work in progress and the level of resources required to undertake this exercise, I do not intend to investigate this request at the present time.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lavery

Electoral Registration Officer
Cornwall Council"

Naturally I'm disappointed - I chose this particular by-election to study because the turnout was low, the percentage of postal votes was high and the winning margin only 20 votes. It's hard to see how the "level of resources required" to investigate could be smaller.'

More here:
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/second_home_voters_1.html
here:
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/secret_ballots_and_second_home.html
here:
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/worried_about_second_home_vote.html
here:
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/game_on.html
and here:
/blogs/grahamsmith/2010/06/a_letter_to_the_chief.html

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.

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

Your obsession appears to be getting the better of you again, Slimslad.
The issues here are to do with fair democratic enfranchisement.
That's an issue of principle - not partisan politics.

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.

Thanks Graham I always thought you had final say. Let us all hope parity has been restored

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.