Our aim here is to demonstrate the glaring abuses of current electoral practice that militate against the ability of nationalist political parties to advance our cause electorally, with anything other than isolated or sporadic successes that are inevitably short lived; which make it virtually impossible in the current circumstances for a nationalist political party to achieve power; and which render the electoral route to political power a futile process for us at present.
History has shown that where there is widespread scope for electoral malpractice by the state, any radical new movement that challenges the fundamental values of the current political regime, can only bring about a reform of the electoral system once it has achieved the wherewithal such that it is able to challenge the existing order by extra-parliamentary means.
History of the Electoral System
Detailed below is a catalogue of the main pieces of legislation determining the current electoral system in the UK. It is important that we have a basic understanding of the evolution of the current system and while the scope exists for the current system to be tightly administered in such a way that the public could have complete confidence in its robustness, current electoral practice has been allowed to become sloppy to such an extent that no intelligent person, aware of the facts, can have anything less than grave doubts over the legitimacy of the results of recent elections, at either a local, regional or national level, or indeed at the European level.
While the Bill of Rights 1689 established the principle of regular parliaments and free elections, until the Reform Act of 1832 no more than 10% of the adult male population of Britain had the right to vote.
The Reform Act of 1832, sometimes referred to as the Great Reform Act, abolished the Rotten Boroughs that had corrupted earlier politics and reduced the property qualifications required to vote, thereby enfranchising a further 4% of adult males. These steps were not greatly significant in themselves, but what was important was that these reforms were the first significant step on the way to universal adult franchise.
During the mid-1800s the Chartist movement campaigned for universal male franchise and the secret ballot, but to no avail. However the Reform Act of 1867 did increase the size of the electorate up to 32% of the adult male population by introducing further provisions reducing the property qualification so that all male householders could vote, and this allowed some working class men to vote for the first time.
The Ballot Act 1872 replaced open elections with a secret ballot system. This was followed by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883, which criminalised attempts to bribe voters and standardised the amount that could be spent on election expenses. The Representation of the People Act 1884 and the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 (the Third Reform Act) together increased the electorate to 56% of the adult male population.
The Representation of the People Act 1918 expanded the electorate to include all men over the age of 21 and most women over the age of 30. Later that year, the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 gave women over 21 the right to stand for election as MPs.
The Equal Franchise Act 1928 lowered the minimum age for women to vote from 30 to 21, making men and women equal in terms of suffrage for the first time. The Representation of the People Act 1949 abolished additional votes for graduates and the owners of business premises.
The Representation of the People Act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. The Representation of the People Act 1985 gave British citizens abroad the right to vote for a five-year period after they had left the United Kingdom. The Representation of the People Act 1989 extended the period to 20 years; and citizens who were too young to vote when they left the country also became eligible.
The Labour Party introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which created the Electoral Commission, which since 2000 has been responsible for the running of elections and referendums and regulating party funding. It also reduced the period during which British expatriates can vote, from 20 years after they emigrate to 15 years.
The Sloppy Administration of Electoral Processes and Procedures
We maintain that the potential for widespread corruption exists within our current electoral system and our belief that as a result of this potential, our current political establishment will have been ‘fixing’ all critical election results for many decades.
Anyone who has actively participated in an election campaign will know that the basic rules designed to ensure a robust outcome to elections are nowadays flagrantly flouted on a routine basis. The current system is administered in such a sloppy manner that it would be impossible to measure the full scope for electoral fraud which could be committed by our political establishment:
Polling agents are routinely frustrated in their efforts to check that ballot boxes are empty at the start of polling; ballot boxes are routinely opened during the course of polling ostensibly so that ballot papers can be squashed down to make more room in those ballot boxes; the electoral staff do not use numbered seals, so the seals on the boxes can be broken and the boxes repeatedly opened and resealed unchecked; when parties apply their own numbered ballot box seals, which they are entitled to, these seals are often found broken open prior to the count with no explanation; ballot boxes are transported to the count in the boots of the private cars of electoral staff, which often take an inordinate length of time to reach the count, again with no explanation offered; ballot boxes are often stored overnight in poorly secured storage facilities; and ballot boxes are routinely broken open before election agents and counting observers are admitted to the counting hall. All of these are flagrant breaches of electoral procedure and these breaches are routinely ignored when complaints are made.
Ballot boxes may contain fraudulently completed ballot papers at the beginning of polling day; polling station staff could add fraudulent ballot papers to ballot boxes during polling day, unsealing and resealing the ballot boxes as required; the ballot boxes delivered to the count could have been opened and interfered with on route to the count, or entire, fraudulently stuffed ballot boxes could be substituted in their place on route; and finally, ballot boxes could be interfered with at the count prior candidates and agents being admitted. All these abuses listed could be carried out by a small number of corrupt electoral officials under the current system in circumstances in which no-one else would find out.
Furthermore, once we begin to consider the increased take-up of postal voting, in which it is known that community leaders within the ethnic minorities exercise an undue influence over the way in which the members of their communities vote, in some cases going so far as to oversee the way their people vote and collect the ballot papers from them for bulk delivery to the electoral services office, we start to see how the practice of immigrant communities voting as a bloc has developed and is perverting the outcome of elections. The immigrants involved are effectively denied a secret ballot and are induced through community loyalty to vote under the duress of their community leaders.
Postal votes are also received at electoral services offices over a period of several days prior to polling day and are stored in facilities that offer only dubious security.
Lastly, in many cases when the count does not take place on the same day as polling, both postal votes and the ballot boxes containing ballot papers completed in the normal way are stored overnight in the sports halls that frequently serve as counting halls, in simple sports equipment storage cupboards, which presumably the manager of that facility, the caretaker and cleaners all have keys with which to gain access.
In order to fraudulently ‘fix’ the outcome of a general election, it would not be necessary for our current political establishment to commit electoral fraud in every ward of every constituency across the land, but just in enough of the critical ‘marginal’ wards, in just the critical or marginal constituencies, in order to tip the balance and produce the desired outcome.
Similarly, in order to prevent a rising nationalist party from acquiring any effective political representation, it would not be necessary to ‘fix’ the election results in every ward or constituency, but solely in the critical wards and of the critical constituencies in those areas where that new party is likely to get candidates elected.
When Nationalist Candidates Have Been Elected
Obviously, our political establishment are not infallible and occasionally they will miscalculate and in an area where they have in the past not expected a nationalist victory, it has been possible for a surprise win to sporadically occur. Furthermore, if an isolated nationalist victory would not materially affect the balance of power, the establishment might choose not to interfere and in such cases we have seen isolated nationalist councillors elected to local councils and county councils where as a lone voice, shunned by the councillors of the establishment parties, they have had no power to influence council policy or decision making.
Many people have pointed to the successes of nationalist candidates and quasi-nationalist conservative parties such as UKIP in European elections and have questioned why it is that UKIP were able to get 24 candidates elected to the European Parliament if our electoral system is so easily corrupted, and the answer to this is simple. Over the larger electoral constituencies, electoral regions, that exist for the purposes of European parliamentary elections, the amount of ‘fixing’ would need to be extensive and the number of people needed to actively corrupt the outcome everywhere, such that no UKIP or nationalist candidates would be elected, would require a mammoth effort, and electoral fraud on that scale would greatly increase the risk of it being uncovered by some chance mistake.
Furthermore, the election of members of the European Parliament (MEPs), even in the numbers achieved by UKIP, does not significantly affect the balance of power at either Westminster or the European Parliament. Nationalist or UKIP MEPs have no jurisdiction at Westminster and therefore cannot influence legislation at the national level, and they are so small in number compared to the vast number of liberal/left-wing MEPs within the European Parliament, that they are powerless there also. Therefore our political establishment can afford to be more relaxed about the outcome of European elections, although we can be sure that in-so-far as it is possible to ‘fix’ outcomes at little or no risk, such ‘fixing’ will none-the-less still be taking place.
The Principle of Moral Hazard
Some people may accept that the potential exists for electoral fraud to take place, but they might also question whether or not it does actually take place routinely enough or systematically enough and on such a scale as to affect the outcomes of elections generally, and we accept this as a valid viewpoint, albeit naïve.
Within banking there is the ever-present possibility of bank staff embezzling customers’ money and while we all like to think that bank staff are chosen for their inherent honesty, banks as institutions have found that it is impossible to rely on such honesty on the part of their staff, because of what has become recognised as ‘moral hazard’.
The principle of moral hazard, which has evolved as a result of banking experience, asserts that if someone is regularly and routinely exposed to the temptation of committing an illegal act that will be of benefit to them, in circumstances in which no-one would know and no-one would find out, they will eventually succumb to that temptation. For this reason, banking procedures are all designed with moral hazard in mind and all bank staff are made aware that thorough checks and audits are regularly conducted so that any act of dishonesty on their part will inevitably be discovered and their identity as the culprit revealed.
Furthermore, where banking procedures are discovered to be insufficiently robust, such that embezzlement could take place without being discovered or without the culprit being identified, the assumption is that such fraudulent activity will have been taking place.
Therefore, based upon the experience of the banking industry, we must acknowledge that with the massive potential that exists for electoral fraud to take place and remain undiscovered and for the perpetrators to remain concealed, electoral fraud must have been taking place on a widespread basis for many decades. It would be naïve in the extreme to assume otherwise.
Indeed, such is the massive scope for fraud to take place, it is inconceivable that no-one involved in the electoral process has as yet realised this and the dangers posed. The fact that such a flawed system has been allowed to continue without reform for so many years, is a clear indication that someone in authority does not want the system reformed and have vested interests that are served by the current flawed system being perpetuated.
When the Authorities are Confronted
Our experience is that when the authorities are confronted by complaints from nationalist parties, as they were by the British National Party during elections between 2000 and 2010, regarding the inadequate way in which elections are administered, the authorities simply shrug off the complaints dismissively and reply, stating that no-one else is concerned about this issue.
The authorities know that even at the best of times, nationalist parties have in the past lacked the resources needed to take court action to force a reform of the electoral system or to force the authorities to more robustly administer elections. They also know only too well that in the immediate aftermath of a major election, all political parties, and especially the smaller parties will have empty ‘war chests’ and will be impotent in the face of their intransigence.
The Six Prerequisites
As stated earlier, history has shown that where there is widespread scope for electoral malpractice by the state, any radical new movement that challenges the fundamental values of the current political regime, can only bring about a reform of the electoral system once it has achieved the wherewithal such that it is able to challenge the existing order by extra-parliamentary means. Furthermore, this should not be interpreted as a threat of violence as there are many ways in which political influence can be exercised, outside of parliament and without recourse to violence, but they all require the possession of significant assets.
In that it is impossible for a nationalist political party to win power under the current electoral system, for all of the reasons discussed above, the only route to power for us is through the acquisition of the means through which we will be able to impose serious consequences upon the current political establishment if they fail to carry out the necessary reforms and if they continue to gerrymander elections in the way they have to date.
This means that before we can contest elections with a realistic hope of winning power, we must spend time acquiring the assets needed, and while this will entail a massive undertaking on our part, we have no hope of electoral success, or success by any other means if we shrink back from that undertaking.
We have set out a ‘shopping list’ of the assets we must have before we can mount a realistic challenge to the establishment, and that list we call the ‘Six Prerequisites’.
The Six Prerequisites have not be chosen lightly and they are not fantastic, ‘pie in the sky’ things that have simply been taken off the top of our heads, and six in number because we believe that six is a nice round number, like the number of cans in a six-pack. The Six Prerequisites are vital assets that we must have if we are to have any hope of winning power and without which our movement will inevitably fail.
Once we have the Six Prerequisites, then a new era of hope for the electoral path to power will be established and we can look forward to a glorious future in which political power will be achieved by us both legitimately and constitutionally. It is therefore a matter of the utmost urgency that all men and women of goodwill, who care about the values inherent in our traditional British way of life and who care about the future survival, welfare and self-determination of the indigenous British people, join us and help us to acquire the Six Prerequisites as a prelude to the subsequent democratic challenge for political power.
By Max Musson © 2016
# # # #
JOIN WESTERN SPRING
Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:
# # # #