Omtzigt wants an explanation from the CDA board about voting in list-tenant elections

CDA Member of Parliament Pieter Omtzigt wants clarification from the party leadership about the course of events during the vote for the list leader. In the programme 1 on 1 on NPO Radio 1 he said that he has not yet seen the results of the investigation into this.

Omtzigt was defeated by Minister Hugo de Jonge in last month’s internal CDA election with a very small difference: he received 50.7 per cent of the votes in the decisive round and Omtzigt 49.3 per cent. This week it became clear that the CDA received six reports from members who went wrong. Omtzigt’s wife said she thought she was voting for her husband, but the message was “thank you for voting for Hugo de Jonge”.

No technical errors

The CDA party board announced this week that it had already investigated during the election period whether there were any technical errors and that they did not appear to be there.

Omtzigt said to be very curious about the exact outcome of the investigation. He does not expect that the investigation will lead to a different outcome, and he is now waiting for the party leadership to come out with it. “I assume that there is a conclusive explanation, otherwise I would have said something else a long time ago. I think it’s important to clarify this.”

CDA: no irregularities

The CDA says in a response that the party is late to the statement on the state of affairs given earlier this week. It states, among other things, that the six reports not only concerned people who thought they had voted for Omtzigt and received a thank you for voting for De Jonge, but that the opposite also happened. The response emphasises that a civil-law notary called in independent technical experts and found no irregularities.

According to the notary’s statement, the vote was “calm and gives a true and fair view of the election”.

At an earlier stage of the election, when there were still three candidates, the party board decided that the vote had to be taken over. It turned out that malicious parties could automatically cast false votes.