Re: Postal ballot fraud - UK experience.

From: David Webber \(XML\) <"David>
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 21:59:43 CDT

Ron,

Notice that the UK is now enacting new legislation to
prevent re-occurrence in future.

As with everything - you start with a situation that
allows voters to vote, with minimal intrusion from
a bureacratic process. That can be good - especially
for people that find themselves suddenly away when
polling occurs. It was not abused - and served those
who had a need well. In small communities the
scope for abuse is minimal.

Unfortunately unscrupulous people attempted to
exploit this - thinking that they could - but stupidity
will out - and of course they get caught - now we
have a situation where normal people will be
inconvenienced as a result. It always seems
to be the way.

Hopefully we can make a better system through
a secure voting process that allows more people
to vote more easily and not the reverse.

DW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Crane" <voting@lastland.net>
To: "David Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>; "Open Voting Consortium
discussion list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 7:52 PM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Postal ballot fraud - UK experience.

> That's a pretty interesting mix of coercion and bribery. This article:
> http://money.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/05/
> nvote105.xml has lots about it. But each instance of voter coercion
> still required a coercer to approach a voter. There seemed to be some
> attempts to acquire blank ballots by bribing mail carriers, but the
> article doesn't say whether they were successful. It would seem that
> any ballot, in any condition, was then counted, irrespective of whether
> it showed evidence of alteration or whether the signature matched the
> voter's. Very sloppy.
>
> This kind of thing argues for preserving poll-place voting (since that
> can make stuffing and alteration harder), and also for making it
> impossible to determine how each voter votes.
>
> -R
>
> On May 23, 2005, at 4:23 PM, David Webber ((XML)) wrote:
>
> > Ron,
> >
> > Not so - the heavy's simple demand the unmailed ballot forms!
> >
> > Then the candidates staff complete them and mail them. This
> > just happened on a large scale in the UK election in certain
> > ethnic districts - leading to six councillors being struck down,
> > and the elections re-run.
> >
> > http://www.electoralcommission.co.uk/
> >
> > DW
> >
> >>
> >> Mail-in
> >> ballots are susceptible to buying or coercion at the point of casting,
> >> but this fraud requires a buyer or coercer to be present as each
> >> ballot
> >> is sealed into its envelope and mailed.
> >> -R
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC discuss mailing lists
> > Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> > arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:47 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:53 CDT