News1 min ago
Plan To Prevent Voting Fraud
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“…voter fraud through postal voting is not a huge problem, “
It’s bigger than you think, Mikey, and certainly bigger than the authorities will care to admit. It is prevalent in certain communities but I won’t emphasise which particular communities because it doesn’t matter.
“…election officials and police will be given new powers to tackle intimidation of voters by activists, who will also be banned from collecting postal votes for submission “
There are already measures in place to prevent both postal voting fraud and intimidation, etc. at polling booths. The problem is that the authorities refuse to use such powers. In the Lutfur Rahman affair in the Tower Hamlets mayoral election the police refused to investigate widespread voting fraud properly. They took a cursory glance and decided no offences had been committed despite being presented with shedloads of evidence from a group of local voters. They effectively had to launch a private prosecution (in fact elicit a writ from the "Election Court") at considerable financial risk to themselves. The court (the judgement of which I’ve pointed to many times on AB) found otherwise. It determined that intimidation, postal voting fraud, “treating” and religious pressure took place on a staggering scale (considering the size of the electorate). The poll was declared void, Mr Rahman was thrown out of office and barred from standing for five years.
I believe that the extension of postal voting to an “on demand” facility was a grave mistake and had undoubtedly led to the type of fraud seen in Tower Hamlets. There is no need for such a facility to be available to all and it should be restricted to those working away, those who are too ill to get to the polling station. Proof of the need should be required and renewed at least every five years.
It’s bigger than you think, Mikey, and certainly bigger than the authorities will care to admit. It is prevalent in certain communities but I won’t emphasise which particular communities because it doesn’t matter.
“…election officials and police will be given new powers to tackle intimidation of voters by activists, who will also be banned from collecting postal votes for submission “
There are already measures in place to prevent both postal voting fraud and intimidation, etc. at polling booths. The problem is that the authorities refuse to use such powers. In the Lutfur Rahman affair in the Tower Hamlets mayoral election the police refused to investigate widespread voting fraud properly. They took a cursory glance and decided no offences had been committed despite being presented with shedloads of evidence from a group of local voters. They effectively had to launch a private prosecution (in fact elicit a writ from the "Election Court") at considerable financial risk to themselves. The court (the judgement of which I’ve pointed to many times on AB) found otherwise. It determined that intimidation, postal voting fraud, “treating” and religious pressure took place on a staggering scale (considering the size of the electorate). The poll was declared void, Mr Rahman was thrown out of office and barred from standing for five years.
I believe that the extension of postal voting to an “on demand” facility was a grave mistake and had undoubtedly led to the type of fraud seen in Tower Hamlets. There is no need for such a facility to be available to all and it should be restricted to those working away, those who are too ill to get to the polling station. Proof of the need should be required and renewed at least every five years.
// …voter fraud through postal voting is not a huge problem, “ //
oo-er Mrs !
not according to this:
http://
I thought up to 26% of votes case postally were possibly fraudulent
but the article has upped it to 50%
wow !
The difficulty is that 3.6 m people in the UK ( that corrspondes to the voting population of London) do not have the ID required / planned
and so would be disenfranchised
oo-er Mrs !
not according to this:
http://
I thought up to 26% of votes case postally were possibly fraudulent
but the article has upped it to 50%
wow !
The difficulty is that 3.6 m people in the UK ( that corrspondes to the voting population of London) do not have the ID required / planned
and so would be disenfranchised
Exactly, samurasian, couldn't agree more about the need for an NHIS card - can double-up as identity and make it clear who is entitled to free treatment in one go. See my earlier post about the French Green Card' - properly titled 'Carte Vitale' - which bore your photo. Local Soc. Sec. Depts. collected and collated info. and issued cards which explained under which regime you were registered and to what you were entitled. Once set up it is simple and every resident had one.
If the amount of fraud is sufficient to require extra layers of security so be it - personally speaking , if I can easily satisfy them I will continue to vote as I always have done.
If they are too unwieldy then turnout (in whichever form of voting) will fall.
I would be happy to have a free ID Card.
If they are too unwieldy then turnout (in whichever form of voting) will fall.
I would be happy to have a free ID Card.
Free biometric ID's are the way forward, the cost would easily be offset by reductions in NHS/DHSS fraud etc. Mayber the financial community cold be 'asked' to contribute.
Postal voting is another issue. I have one but that is because I could never guarantee where in the country (or even which country at one point) I would be at a given time (I could go into work in the morning expecting to be home later and find myself traveling at lunchtime to another country). Since at the time I was paying well in excess of 50K a year in tax I don't see why I should not have a say. So the problem I think still remains on the postal side which I do admit is an issue.
Postal voting is another issue. I have one but that is because I could never guarantee where in the country (or even which country at one point) I would be at a given time (I could go into work in the morning expecting to be home later and find myself traveling at lunchtime to another country). Since at the time I was paying well in excess of 50K a year in tax I don't see why I should not have a say. So the problem I think still remains on the postal side which I do admit is an issue.
-- answer removed --
What is your point? It is in those places because that is where the problem lies.
You can try to be as PC as you like but the reality is where many of these people come from it is perfectly acceptable to behave like that. Clearly we need to ensure they dont do it here. We could arrest them all but really that serves no purpose, far better to prevent it happneing in the first place surely?
You can try to be as PC as you like but the reality is where many of these people come from it is perfectly acceptable to behave like that. Clearly we need to ensure they dont do it here. We could arrest them all but really that serves no purpose, far better to prevent it happneing in the first place surely?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.