Tuesday, 27 May 2014

Post Election Analysis. Feeble 71 as an independent as opposed to 281 Green in 2012.

I stood in the local election because not one of my candidates was willing to commit to the things I care about, and things that most people you speak to agree with whole heartedly when it comes to transparency in contracts.

I spent most of my time preparing a SMART-voter.org promise list and the platform so that other honest / democratic candidates can stand in the future off of the same pedestal.

I also printed and put up 8 posters which I was well aware were being taken down. I'll note that I only found three after the election. Posters can only work if the competition believe in your right to an informed decision.

If someone took the time to write my name and Evendons into Google the first link would be to my campaign page. If they followed the link on the poster they would have come to an identical blog page. This way I was able to see how many people took the time to type loku.co.uk/kaz into their browser having read the poster or put Kaz Evendons into Google.

The stats were always buffed up when I put something into Facebook or Twitter with as many as 40 views in 1 day. I was well aware though that those views were more likely from fellow activists from all sides.

What I was most interested in seeing was if members of the public would spontaneously research their candidates online in the run up t the election. For this reason I did not promote the links in the final days.

By the time the election came I had 100 views of the poster link, which I has also been promoting prior to the posters. There were perhaps 10 views from when the posters went up. I typically divide by four to get real human figures so I'll call that 2 researching stimulated by the posters.

At the same time I had 150 views of the google search page over the week. Again, dividing by 4 you get 50. If you take into account how many of those were people researching their candidate in the last few days running up to the election, that was a mear 50. Divide that by 4 that's 12.5 people out of 8000 who googled their candidates name in the run up to the election.

Were I to have to put money on how many genuine voters looked into my online presence I'd say 50 people out of 8000. Less than 0.65%

It would appear that the only way presently to get elected is to go door to door for the month prior.

Candidates can lie on the doorstep. They are also advertising the fact that they are not representative of the public who simple can not afford to invest the time. It may well be that they have a vested interest outside the £8k-22k they are paid but strangely not advertised when the chance to stand for election is poorly advertised.

Had I received 2000 views and I concluded that 500 genuine voters has seen my information then I would have been disappointed that the commitments I was offering were not important to voters.

As it happened, only 50 people looked and 71 people voted. I therefore received 21 votes from people who were too lazy to treat their democracy with the respect it deserves.

My motivation in all of this is not Wokingham. I would like to see people all over the world voting out corrupt bankers, war mongers and land owning trusts.

As long as people vote for the most attentive person, real honest people will not be able to compete with vested interests.


  1. Or to put it another way, people vote for independent candidates when they believe in the issues and have serious issues to fight for (think Martin Bell, Richard Taylor). I've read your blog and your tweets and all you do is just rant and launch unsubstantiated, potentially libellous attacks at all the other politicians - maybe one day you'll be right but it'll be hard to see through every attack you launch - ironically you've become an exaggerated version of the very politician you are fighting against.

  2. Nice logic free conclusion there. The body of evidence would be in your favour if I had 1000's of real people google me in the run up o the election but still received few votes. As it turned out 20% of the electorate voted in in support of how the Tories are running things. I have no way of guessing what proportion of the 60% who did not vote were also happy, bit I'm guessing they simply think all politicians are a bunch of liars with self interest at heart too.

    I often run into people who express that they voted for the only person who could be bothered to turn up. My entire campaign is that the 'libellous' actions I express are risks that unnecessarily remain undiscoverable. Would you trust someone to not to have something in their hand when then they keep one hand behind their back at all times? Would you vote for them?

    Were I that kind of politician people hate, could I sign a contract in which my hands were held up supporting measures that allow other individuals to compete with me on the balance of their ideas, not the time / money their vested interests allow? Would I support measures that exposed the theatre that might be planning and scrutiny meetings? Would I support measures that meant that those same 'Good idea' candidates having an equal footing to me to my trusted peers may have the right to scrutinise the government contract that were previously reviewed by hand picked people?