Sohale Rahman
Campaigning For Proper Political RepresentationVote for SOHALE RAHMAN
.jpg)
DID YOU KNOW?
Independent Candidates must pay £5,000 to stand in the European Parliamentary Election, which will be forfeited if 2.5% of the votes cast is not realised!
DID YOU KNOW?
In the last European Parliamentary Election over 62% of Londoners did not vote. That's how sleazy politicians sneak in.
Comitment & Where Does The Money Goes?
Who charges? Where does that money go to? If it would be reimbursed after the elections I can understand that it is a way to prevent "too many" candidates from entering the race. I've been in a EU country where the size of the ballot form was so big you could hardly unfold it in the ballot box! This served the aim of some on the ballot: rediculazing the election process well. Of course is money is asked (reimbursable or not) this should be for every candidate: on a list or independent. For parties it can't be too hard to raise the cash and for individuals who have the pretension to be that popular they want to run for office it neither can be too hard to raise some cash amongst their supporters of the first hour IMO. Maybe the money can be used to fund projects supporting citizen's autonomy from politicians or for a watchdog organization safeguarding Human Rights in the West? The money then would only be reimbursed after the next elections, e.g. after 5 years. Candidates will have to think well before making a bit in the polls. If they go for it it would show they are committed and; if not being able them self to provide; they already have some popular support. In the end no one would loose out with such scheme.
REPLY - Apparently, the money goes to the treasury! I think it should be returned if the candidate has conducted themselves properly in the election process. Sohale.
Re: Money to Treasury vs Returned
Yes, if a more complex structure isn't feasible (cf. suggestions in previous posting) then the money should indeed be returned to any candidate who conducted him/her self properly. It can be hard enough to raise the cash and surely the Treasury taking the money when a candidate doesn't get 2.5% of the votes is unreasonable. It's actually outrageous. A question here is what nowadays still is considered as "proper behavior" for citizens: should a candidate who is arrested during e.g. a protest against the war still get the money back? That question is not on the table: the Treasury takes the money and that's not gone change any soon we can think. IMO the money should always be returned. That appears to me the only fair way to go. The amount also should be better defined. Maybe something like: "For every candidate, on a party list or not, the amount of 3 times an average monthly wage in that constituency is asked to be returned within X months after the elections". --- Maybe make it "average national wage" and leave out the reference to the candidate's constituency to avoid that in richer areas only rich(er) candidates can easily run. Maybe local Councils should be allowed to lower the "fee", not to raise it above the amount set in the national rule. IH
£5000.00 charge
they are saying " we don't want your opinion thank you , but give me your money instead, so that we can increase our portfolio of properties! What a scam! ,
I just can't believe it. It's
I just can't believe it. It's a closed shop for the rich and well heeled. I hope you win Sohale.