Reply To: Elections aftermath

Home Forums Discussion Forum Elections aftermath Reply To: Elections aftermath

Kim Sanders-Fisher

Postal Vote Investigation @PostalVoteProbe is still hauling in the data with a growing number of people fileing Freedom of Information requests to get postal vote stats from their local authority to post them on the thread. I am not on twitter, and I get very confused over who posted what, when, but each time I check there is more data posted – this is great work. If we have any number crunchers interested in this project this is a good source of data even if it is trickling in piecemeal.

In a post on the 22nd of January, Postal Vote Investigation @PostalVoteProbe wrote:
“There is a growing problem with local authorities @StockportMBC @ADCAshfield etc refusing requests for electoral results (pv stats). Have emailed @ElectoralCommUK to see if anything can be done #postalvotes. Please also ask electoral commission.”
I will be getting on their case again tomorrow; here is a rough copy of the request made to the Electoral Commission:
“Lots of people have been requesting postal vote stats for GE2019 from their local authorities, most local authorities have been happy to provide the information. However some local authorities have refused: stating that Returning Officers are not listed as being regulated under the Freedom of Information Act. Under which government department would the electorate be able to lodge a Freedom of Information to request postal vote information from Returning Officers. In addition has the Electoral Commission recommended or do they plan to recommend that the government requires all local authorities to publish postal vote statistics immediately after an election given that postal votes now comprise roughly 30% of all votes in elections.”

With these individual Freedom of Information requests Ashford has been mentioned several times as uncooperative, now Stockport; do they have suspicious stats that would sound alarm bells? What do they need to hide? Why isn’t all this data readily available from the Electoral Commission?

Postal Vote Investigation @PostalVoteProbe also wrote:
“I invite you to look at the cases listed on this account, and some of the questions they raise. In particular we make the following recommendations 1) Postal votes should be counted separately at the count 2) Publication of results should happen at the polling station level.”

I think in my email to the Electoral Commission I will also be asking them why they don’t strongly recommend that the government requires all local authorities to count postal votes separately when they arrive at the count. There is no logical reason for the postal vote to be mixed in with votes from the wards during the count. If the postal votes were kept separate during the count we could immediately tell if there were huge unexplainable discrepancies that might indicate ballot stuffing.

There is evidence being accumulated out there, but we still need a professional investigative journalist to bring this all together for a credible case that would stand up in court. I have had no “hot on the scent” rapid reply to my request for help from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists yet; they might have written me of as a conspiracy theory nut-case and moved on. If you are as passionate about this as I am you could email them too. Perhaps if members of the consortium realize I am not just one lonely voice in the wilderness they might respond.