jack: (Default)
Next week is the PCC election. I'm not convinced that's a good idea, but if we have one at all, better to have a good one. This time there seems to be less of a broad choice, there are four candidates who are endorsed by parties, even if that was not what was supposed to happen.

https://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/area/cambridgeshire/?postcode=CB

My non-impartial summary follows

Conservative

* "Tough on crime, tough on the causes on crime".
* Moar war on drugs
* Moar police, less back-office expenses

UKIP

* The same, but more so
* Rah police! Down with political correctness!
* Anti-speeding (as was Con), also pro-resources-for-non-emergency-101

Labour

* Some platitudes, more police
* Ex-fireman, ex-Anglia-public-service-lecturer
* Sounds committed to actually going things, in getting involved with communities and bridging them to police

Lib-Dem

* Positive manifesto steps for preventing crime, preventing re-offending, not just being "tough"
* But via friends-of-friends have heard bad things about him personally

To me, Labour guy sounds best, unless anyone has any other rec?
jack: (Default)
I managed to vote. (About 8.30 -- I felt very organised :))

I wasn't positive, but I felt even "not one of the awful parties" was a better heuristic than most people would use, so I went with my best guess (both independents)

Is spoiling your ballot superior to not turning up? My instinct says very much yes -- a ballot with 100% turnout and 100% spoiled ballots is a clearer protest than 0% turnout, since the latter might just be apathy. But it's also true that many people will judge purely by the turnout and not the results, or attribute all spoiled ballots to incompetence.

I was interested to observe the process. I virtuously filed my polling card in my "electoral reg" file, and found it instantly on polling morning, so a big win for organisation there: usually I'd have it, but it'd be sitting on my "urgent stuff" pile between when I received it and when I used it.

Unfortunately, it seemed the postman had exchanged poll cards with my neighbour and neither of us noticed until it was too late. So I felt a little silly, but I was very glad I didn't need it to vote, else I likely wouldn't have been able to, or only if I went through some additional faff. I don't know if I'd have managed to check sooner if I'd known it was necessary: maybe, but it made me appreciate how easy it is for a small mistake to deny someone the right to vote if the government cracks down. Especially if the government has a plausible excuse for cracking down in some areas and not others: that's blatant election rigging.

On the other hand, I was surprised that you really do only need to give your name and address to vote. It works surprisingly well considering, and I guess if you tried to vote for someone else, they'd notice when the real one came in, although at that point there's presumably no way of recovering the first ballot paper? But if you know someone's not voting, it seems there's nothing really stopping you claiming to be them.

And recording who's voted is itself a potential security flaw: voting is private, traditionally to prevent people being manipulated into voting for someone. But if you were in a position to intimidate someone into voting for who you wanted, you could do half as well by telling them not to vote, and it seems fairly easy to spot who has and who hasn't.
jack: (Default)
http://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/candidates/area/cambridgeshire?postcode=CB41RT
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19511791

I don't know if electing a police and crime commissioner is a good idea or not, but given it's being voted on, if you know at least as much as an average voter, it's probably better to vote (including spoiling your ballot paper if you want to register your disapproval, or choosing randomly amongst acceptable candidates) as best you can.

Unfortunately, the brief statements supplied are not very informative. Does anyone know anything positive/negative about them?

After a brief scan, my triaging method was to discard any candidate whose statement included the following:

  • "United Kingdom"
  • "England"
  • "Tough"
  • "Victims"
  • "More police on the beat"
  • Vague platitudes


which eliminated most of them. And then look to see if anyone seemed to be proposing anything specific. The candidates are:

  • UKIP and English Democrat. I may be doing them a disservice, but it seems most English/British nationalist parties are simplistic and xenophobic, especially when it comes to policing. Let me know if I've judged too harshly and should actually know something more about one them.

  • Conservative party candidate. Former MP. Election statement kind of platitude-y. Conservative party sympathetic friends say policing isn't the area they'd most prefer conservative party influence.

  • Labour Party candidate. Anti-current government. Relevant experience. Mentions "victims" (probably bad) and "prevention" (probably good) and some platitudes.

  • Lib-dem Party candidate. Reasonably promising manifesto, but I've heard bad things about him personally.

  • Ansar Ali. Lots of relevant experience with specifics. Seems like he has specific priorities even though I find it hard to tell from the manifesto exactly what.

  • Farooq Mohammed. Sounds sincere, but the manifesto is a bit platitude-y. It does mention transparency.


So I guess, based on the extremely superficial profile information, Ali, labour, and Mohammed sound most plausible, but does anyone know anything about the candidates personally? Even just "my second cousin knows er slightly and e seemed competent/hard-working/decent"?

If not, I'll probably guess based on the manifestos (probably Ali, then Labour), but even though that's reasonable for eliminating people, it not really reliable for telling who'd actually be best.