Electoral expert says Copeland by-election ‘unlawful’

This is interesting. It seems all the pundits have jumped the gun massively and need to rethink their assumptions: The Copeland by-election was unlawful, according to experts.

The absence of key information on the number of ballots issued (by post or in person), the number of postal votes not returned and the number of rejected (which is not the same as ‘spoiled) ballots means that a prima facie case exists that the election was not conducted lawfully.

This means that there is significant scope for the count not to have been conducted correctly or fairly.

Nothing definitive can be said about the outcome of the election – but based on the information available so far, Applied IF insists that it can already conclude that the election was not conducted lawfully, which should be of serious concern to every reader, regardless of political leaning or party allegiance.

Source: Exclusive: electoral expert – Copeland by-election ‘unlawful’, count ‘suspect’ | The SKWAWKBOX

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

13 thoughts on “Electoral expert says Copeland by-election ‘unlawful’

  1. Roy Beiley

    This is extremely worrying.I have worked in local government. The Returning Officer (usually the Chief Executive or Head of Service) has a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that the ballot is conducted in accordance with statutory requirements.
    There is often some dispute at the count about spoiled votes between the candidate and the person delegated by the Returning Officer to be in charge of the count. All candidates have to be consulted before a ballot paper can be declared as spoiled. These are kept in a separate pile. All votes valid or not have to be accounted for.
    If this was not the case in Copeland then we are on the slippery slope of becoming no better than a Third World country at conducting democratic elections. What other jiggery pokery can we expect in future elections?

  2. John Harrington

    I don’t know if anyone checks these comments or if it is even relevant. But I noticed something fishy about this by election, too. I distinctly remember reading in, I think, the Guardian live blog on Friday that 70% of the votes cast had been postal votes. I then went back to find this yesterday but could find no trace of the comment. I then searched to find any info about the postal voting online but could find nothing.

    However, intriguingly, while the official Council website for Stoke Central gives a breakdown of the postal votes cast in its election and the detailed results given in the press do too, the Copeland one makes no mention of it at all and nor do any of the results reported in the press.

    I can now find no official breakdown of this anywhere. Seems a little strange to me.

  3. Dez

    Surely not smelling a rat? That would be a great revalation if a real professional reporter were to get onto this asap and find there has been some skull duggery…..unfortunately not sure there are any left to follow up such a story let alone find a boss that would let them report it in their biased newspapers and media.

  4. Barry Davies

    I don’t think the pundits jumped the gun, as they were responding to the “official” result, it is also strange that this has not as et been reported in the mainstream media.

    1. chriskitcher

      Of course it’s not been reported in the mainstream media. This would almost certainly hand victory to Labour and they to a man want the Tories to win. I am surprised that you have so much faith in the media.

  5. hypermobilecat

    ms may was in copeland, looking very shifty before the election. she was on for just over a minute on tv the bbc interviewed her. it was cleverly done making it look as though she was put in a tight spot about nhs services in copleand. yet what is really was , was a platform for ms may to say trudy harrisons name 4 times assuring the people of copeland nhs services there were not in any danger, labour were lying and trudy had some excellent ideas regarding the nhs services. very cleverly done, except Ms may looked as shifty as shannon Mathews mother did when she was talking supposedly about her missing daughter.

Comments are closed.