Is Taunton BID committing electoral fraud?
According to Wikipedia, electoral fraud, sometimes referred to as election fraud, election manipulation or vote rigging, is illegal interference with the process of an election, either by increasing the vote share of the favoured candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. Although technically the term "electoral fraud" covers only those acts which are illegal, the term is sometimes used to describe acts which are legal, but considered morally unacceptable for a democracy. When we apply this to the Taunton BID ballot, seems the BID proposers are conducting the equivalent of electoral fraud in order to get a YES mandate. Just because there’s a vote it doesn’t necessarily make the whole BID process democratic, as with true democratic elections, it’s the way a vote is conducted that makes it democratic.
Looking at some of the tactics employed in electoral fraud let’s examine how the Taunton BID ballot compares to see if it lives up to the principles of democracy, and demonstrate how Taunton BID really are committing what amounts to electoral fraud.
Electorate manipulation: Electoral fraud can occur in advance of voting if the composition of the electorate is altered. Deliberate manipulation of election outcomes is widely considered a violation of the principles of democracy.
This is an easy one to start with given the Taunton BID map has been manipulated in favour of a YES outcome, by ensuring the inclusion of properties that are known or likely to vote YES, whilst omitting known NO voters. See our article The Taunton BID map is biased and unfair. The thing is, Taunton BID have even publicly said they’re doing this, Steering Group meeting minutes 21/5/19; “Current map is a work in progress – the red line can be moved by extending or reducing the area to include particularly enthusiastic businesses, or to exclude negative voices”. The biggest example of this is not including Morrisons.
Another example is Taunton BID including as many public authority properties as they can, even if they don’t naturally fit into the BID area like Brendon House, Wood Street car park and Canon Street car park (without any public access within the BID area). Taunton BID know Council’s normally vote YES for their properties because of their own conflicted and vested interests in helping force in a BID, and considering the high Rateable Value of car parks etc their votes can be very influential. In fact if the Public Authorities all vote, they are forecast to have cast 7.28% of the votes by number, and 17.68% by cumulative Rateable Value. So to be a fair ballot with the BID proposers embracing BID as a scheme for the businesses, decided on by the businesses, Public Authorities really should abstain. See our articles The case for SWT Council to abstain from voting in the Taunton BID ballot and Are council votes fair? A look at how council votes create bias in a BID ballot and why they should abstain. Given the strength of the vote NO case we could have been lobbying the Council’s to vote NO for their properties, but given their overwhelming influence on the ballot result we feel this would be undemocratic and unfair on those businesses that want a BID (at least the NO side are showing democratic morals). Given Taunton BIDs electorate manipulation including as many public authority properties as possible in the map, abstention really is the best situation for Council’s to embrace BID legislation, appease both sides of voters, reduce reputational risks and help ensure a truly democratic ballot.
Disinformation: People may distribute false or misleading information in order to affect the outcome of an election.
There are clear examples of Taunton BID distributing false and misleading information in an attempt to secure YES votes. Just read our articles demonstrating the disinformation their spreading (note it’s quite an extensive list and we have more examples of their lies held back for our February ballot campaign!):
FAQ mistruths from Taunton BID.
£2mn match funding claims are simply Bull****!
Council funding scrutiny: Are Taunton BID deceiving the Council & businesses?
5 months after the launch of the Taunton BID “consultation process”, we had business owners tell us they’d not heard anything from Taunton BID. Unfortunately there is no legal requirement for BID proposers to have informed or consulted with all businesses in a BID area, which tends to lead to them focussing on informing and motivating only YES voters to exercise their votes, whilst hoping NO voters will quietly forget about or not think it’s important to vote when they receive a ballot cards in the post. There’s not even any requirement to ensure every voting business receives their ballot card!
One step further than distributing false or misleading information, is silencing alternative views and attempts to combat mistruths being told by Taunton BID. They have done this for example by blocking No Taunton BID from commenting, asking questions or making recommendations on their only social media channel, Twitter. Considering Taunton BID have taken £45,000 of public money to run a ballot for businesses to make up their own minds based on both sides of the argument, it’s hardly democratic to silence the alternative views because they’re scared the electorate might read them on their Twitter.
Disenfranchisement: The composition of an electorate may also be altered by disenfranchising some classes of people, rendering them unable to vote. Groups may also be disenfranchised by rules which make it impractical or impossible for them to cast a vote.
Well we’ve already touch on one such class of people, and that’s those likely to vote NO on the periphery of the BID boundary whom can easily be drawn out.
Another class of people being disenfranchised in Taunton are those small businesses with a Rateable Value of £5,000 or less, as they will not be allowed to vote on what is a very important decision on how the town centre will be managed. See our article Smallest businesses are excluded from having a say. One could also say they’ve disenfranchised whole streets from having the opportunity to be part of, vote and benefit from BID, like Bridge Street, and East Reach whom the Taunton BID Consultant is minuted as describing “a tricky business community to convert”.
Intimidation and coercion: The demographic that controls the voting ballot try to persuade others to follow them, going to great lengths for the desired elective to win. Voter intimidation involves putting undue pressure on a voter or group of voters so that they will vote a particular way, or not at all. Intimidation can take a range of forms including verbal, physical, or coercion.
The Taunton BID ballot is a publicly funded vote to the tune of £45,000, but with that money the voters are only being “sold” vote YES. The Steering Group minutes even documented their role as following; “it will be a case of ‘all hands on deck’ to get the voting message out, to encourage all eligible businesses to support the BID”. Clearly all about persuading rather than with a publically funded campaign present both sides of the argument and let the voters decide for themselves. SWT Council have effectively provided funding of £45,000 for only a YES campaign with no interest or concern for true democratic representation of both voting sides. See our article It’s just a marketing & PR propaganda exercise for Taunton BID, for more information on the extensive marketing and public relations (PR) spin exercise paid for by SWT Council to buy YES votes.
As one business owner told us on 9/1/20, the Steering Committee know she’s a NO for BID and from their various visits to question and encourage her to vote YES, it’s got to the stage where she “feels bullied and made to feel selfish” for her views. It’s sad that members of the Taunton business community are making someone feel like this, and it’s clear evidence of face-to-face verbal intimidation going on - which Steering Group members MUST immediately stop doing. Taunton BID simply need to deliver their proposal and respect voters to make up their own minds to do what is right for their businesses, without insulting their intelligence. Ultimately, which way voters vote is of no business to Taunton BID, after all it’s a secret ballot and illegal to ask any voter which way they will have voted in the ballot. So Taunton, seems like for an easy life and not becoming a victim of coercion and intimidation either, it’s probably best you to tell the Steering Group at this stage you’re thinking of voting YES, they’ll leave you alone, and then you cast your real vote in the ballot where it counts. We’ve already have people tell us this is what they’re doing!
Whilst persuading Taunton BID have been attempting to neutralise any opposing representation and views. In December 2019 No Taunton BID were blocked from Taunton BID’s Twitter to silence any commenting and representation of alternative views, and in addition we’ve been told The Steering Committee Chairman has told voters mistruths about the Founder of ‘No Taunton BID’ in an attempt to discredit him i.e. he’s knows nothing about BID. But he’s been through 3 Taunton BID ballot’s, one failed Taunton BID as a levy payer, and from reading this website surely you can tell he’s quite upto speed on BID’s?!
Holding an unfair ballot. Preventing those entitled to a vote from voting, whilst allowing those not entitled to a vote, to vote.
We inspected the BID ballot voter list just before Notice of Ballots were about to be sent out, and were shocked by the number of mistakes, including properties within the BID map not included in the list to vote, and the inclusion of properties outside of the BID map able to vote. Read our full article about this here “Inaccurate voter list, denying some businesses the right to vote”.
Considering Taunton's poor BID history and potential reputational risks for Taunton as a town and SWT Council if BID goes wrong again, it's just so important BID is done right this time, and that starts with a truly democratic ballot process applying the principles of democracy. If BID is to go ahead, then the best chance of it being a success is by ensuring the true majority of businesses in Taunton embrace BID as a result of:
An informed electorate that understands what BID is and how it could effect them, along with counter arguments, so that fully informed voting decisions can be made.
High voter turnout encouraged, no matter the voting persuasion.
An inclusive "all or nothing" BID map that really is fair, could help as many Taunton businesses as possible and hasn't been heavily manipulated in attempt to force the outcome.
A ballot without Council votes influencing the result.
These reasonable circumstances would give a fair ballot the best chance of succeeding and if it's a YES result then fair enough, Taunton businesses really would have spoken as the result of a truly democratic process and shown that the true majority of businesses really are fully behind BID. That's the mandate we need to make BID successful in Taunton and to leave the “ghosts” of our last failed BID experience 2007-12 behind. In addition, our Councillors as elected community representatives should be doing their utmost to uphold the principles of democracy, and certainly not risk reputational damage by being seen partisan to not applying them in an attempt to help force in BID undemocratically.
BID regulations are woefully inadequate and although under them Taunton BID are not doing anything illegal (that we’ve seen yet), what they are doing should at least be considered morally unacceptable for a true democratic process.
Post script:
Well the 4 tactics above Taunton BID are using to achieve electoral fraud are quite enough, but there are other tactics that have been employed by BID proposers across the UK. Luckily we haven’t yet seen (or rather not got any evidence of the following tactics being used in Taunton), but they include:
Vote buying: Vote buying occurs when a political party or candidate seeks to buy the vote of a voter in an upcoming election. Vote buying can take various forms such as a monetary exchange, as well as an exchange for necessary goods or services. This practice is often used to incentivise or persuade voters to turn out to elections and vote in a particular way.
Misleading or confusing ballot papers: Ballot papers may be used to discourage votes for a particular party or candidate, using the design or other features which confuse voters into voting for a different candidate. Poor or misleading design is usually not illegal and therefore not technically election fraud, but it can nevertheless subvert the principles of democracy.
Misuse of proxy votes: Proxy voting is particularly vulnerable to election fraud, due to the amount of trust placed in the person who casts the vote.
Intimidation: Voter intimidation involves putting undue pressure on a voter or group of voters so that they will vote a particular way, or not at all. Intimidation can take a range of forms including verbal, physical, or coercion.