(no subject)

[djm4_lj]

The UK follows the US's lead in making voting fraud easier. Or one more reason why I won't be voting Labour, no matter how scared I am of a Michael Howard government (*). It's not the fact that the fraud was perpetrated by Labour in this case - as the article rightly points out, "other experts say the fraud is not confined to particular communities, or to Birmingham, or to the Labour Party" - it's the fact that it was Labour who brought in the rules to allow more people to vote by post, without any of the safeguards that such a move needs.

My freedom is not safe in the hands of these people.

Edit: (*) for the record, I'll be voting Lib Dem unless something very unexpected happens between now and then. But I'm expecting the 'anyone but Michael Howard' campaign to do a similar thing to the 'anyone but Bush' one in the US, and try to persuade people that voting for any aprty other than Labour is effectively a vote for the Tories. Which may have some validity, but tough.

Comments

[countess-sophia.livejournal.com]

We haven't had a secret ballot for many years - all the papers are numbered against the counterfoils and the numbers noted down so it is possible to trace an individual vote to the elector. Or course, they are not supposed to do this, but...

Soph

[vampwillow]

it *is* a secret ballot though, indeed without those numbered counterfoils a vote won't get counted (and that happens quite often, indeed where someone crosses out the number on the back there vote will be considered 'spoiled' no matter how clear their intention)

The reason is straight-forwardly to prevent fraud as - on application to a court after the end of the ballot - a check can be made to see who actually voted. The Birmingham case would have relied on this. About four weeks after the election - if there are no appeals - the slips are destroyed and never checked against the lists. Even when they are used it is usually to check the voter's numbers rather than for whom they voted (one reason why the ballot number and official mark are on the opposite side)

[countess-sophia.livejournal.com]

The fact that usually they don't doesn't mean they can't, and therefore it isn't actually secret. Also, it is well known that in the 1960s and 1970s the security services did ocassionally make illegal use of this to find out who voted for certain 'fringe' parties. I know that numbers are a fraud prevention device but they do have this additional feature, sorry bug.

Over in Ireland, where they use broadly similar voting methods to us, I understand they abolished the numbers because of concerns over this very issue.

[vampwillow]

first bit: :: nods :: it is an imperfect system with or without imho

second bit: ah yes, the country that invented "Vote Early, Vote Often" ;-P


actually, ireland has it right in respect of carrying a ballot box around to the elderly, etc. so that they can still cast their ballot in person rather than trust the mail ...

[lovingboth]

It only really works with tiny parties: you can see who cast a particular vote much more easily than finding out how a particular someone voted. In the former, you've got the ballot paper + reference no and it's a quick search to find out whose it is, but in the latter, you've got an awful lot of ballot papers to look through to find the right one...

It was done to help convict a Tory owner of an old people's home who got proxy votes for some of hir residents without bothering to ask them about it though.