|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Feb 26, 2010 15:13:00 GMT
OK, maybe this is a bit random, but then again what happens over the pond today often happens here tomorrow..... I often listen to various US Stations on the net and there was an ad today that made me think. It was for some group that purports to promote safe democracy (i kid you not). The strapline was that if you needed a photo-identity to buy beer, then surely you should need a photo-identity to vote, too. I would've thought that if you don't need a photo-ID to vote then why do you need one to buy beer? Shouldn't they be campaigning to scrap the beer ID rather than introduce another one?  |
|
|
|
Post by thevicar on Feb 26, 2010 17:56:36 GMT
Its odd but given the amount of ballot box stuffing that appears to be going on either side of the pond at the moment I'm beginning to see a need for a more stringent form of identity check at the Polling Station than is currently applied - 'What's your name then...'
|
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Feb 26, 2010 19:35:37 GMT
Its odd but given the amount of ballot box stuffing Evidence please. Although Sultan claims 'what happens over the pond today happens here tomorrow' I should indeed point out that nothing has actually happened, this is just an ad he has caught the back end of on internet radia rather than a filibuster proof piece of legislation. There is little comparison between Great Britain and the United States on this topic. The legal age of drinking in America is a stringent 21, and is enforced as it is in most New World countries with strict application, which I found out to my surprise when trying to buy a Broon ale in Boston shortly after my 21st Birthday and being asked to produce a passport instead of the required. This has lad to many countries such as Australia, NZ and Canada adopting informal photo ID that is accepted into bars, clubs etc. usually at the cost of refusing legitimate EU driving licences. Something else I found out to my cost. The British are in contrast, extremely European in respect to both their drinking laws and general observance of the idiosyncracies applying to photo identification. Unless you want to get onto a an easyjet flight that is! Biometric Identity Cards aren't an particularly bad idea in a New Europe, and could be used as an all purpose failsafe for identification regarding voting, medical needs, proof of age and habitual residency testing across Europe. It certainly would benefit America to have them, where roughly 1 in 10 have a passport, whereas the average Briton can roughly expect to accumulate a passport, driving licence, national insurance number card, NHS registration card at least a P45 and most likely a P60 by the time they've reached 18. A marked contrast between the citizens of the two nations. |
|
|
|
Post by thevicar on Feb 26, 2010 21:48:59 GMT
Its odd but given the amount of ballot box stuffing Evidence please. My pleasure In the UK: From the Electoral Reform Society: www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=44See also news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3797685.stmand news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4406575.stmIn the US: How about the systematic vote fraud that has gone on over several elections (see Greg Palast's 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy')? Admittedly the greatest degree of impact is probably in denying people their vote there but 30 seconds with google shows brought up this: www.caller.com/news/2010/feb/21/mail--ballot-abuse-prevalent-south-texas/So I'm guessing that it wouldn't be too hard to affect the result in a few key marginals fairly simply just through mail in votes. Equally, simple human error denied me a vote in the last council elections as the council worker working the voting station had crossed my name off the list instead of my wife's (who voted earlier in the day). Anecdotal of course but what can one do? Richard Mawley, quoted above, was the Electoral Commission's own representative, supposedly the guardians of the electoral system in England and Wales, and still no one has thought to fully investigate the postal vote system in England. |
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Feb 26, 2010 22:21:08 GMT
My pleasure So I'm guessing that it wouldn't be too hard to affect the result in a few key marginals fairly simply just through mail in votes. I asked for evidence of 'th amount ballot stuffing here and in the U.S' you brought forth one case. In a local election. Where all six people were caught and charged and prevented from standing from any future seats. Oh, and an anecdotal article from Texas. Where the alleged fraudsters were also caught. D- Must do better next time! I also find if you're being intimidated and threatened with deportation extra ID would be a foil to such intimidation. P.S Sorry if I've angered the PRA/Thought Police with the above comment ;D |
|
|
|
Post by thevicar on Feb 28, 2010 13:12:21 GMT
I find the school grading a bit dismissive of the vidence presented but I wouldn't describe myself as angered, more bemused by the dimissive nature of your comments.
I've presented 1 case from the UK, yes, but you seem to be ignoring the Judge in that case. Might I point out again that he was representing the Electoral Commission who are 'an independent body set up by the UK Parliament', their aim is 'aim is integrity and public confidence in the democratic process.' He said "The system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that". I'm not sure that we could get a more damning description of the status quo in the UK. The US case is a simple bit of evidence of how similar systems in the various states have exactly the same flaws as the UK system.
Are you suggesting that we should wait until there are proven widespread cases of voting fraud before we implement simple protections? I believe that's called shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Just so you are aware this isn't something where 'nothing has actually happened'. Last time I checked (Obama's election) 6 states had or were in the process of approving photo id rules in place for elections (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri). At the moment it is being treated as a matter for the individual states but there have been movements in Congress to implement photo id in federal elections. A bill passed the House of Representatives back in September 2006 but failed to find a sponsor in the Senate. Another example would be Canada, where photo id and proof of address is required to vote (although you can vote without ID so long as someone with ID vouches for you).
There are a number of valid arguments against photo id (voter disenfranchisment being the very obvious one) but to suggest that there isn't evidence of a massive hole in vote security is ignoring the view of the government's own independent election scrutiny body. To rely on Richard Mawley QC one last time, his response to those that claim the current postal vote system is working - "Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising."
|
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Feb 28, 2010 14:54:59 GMT
Fair enough, but to say that postal voting would encourage systematic voting fraud akin to a banana republic is seriously flawed regardless of who's made the statement. Going to have to disagree with the QC there
Of course I don't advocate putting protections or having photo ID as a matter of routine mainly because suffrage encourages the liberty of someone to vote without having to endure the expense or requirement of photo identification. There is a forum member who once was troubled by lack of photo identification and I'd to think in the event of a general election that particular forum member as a citizen was unable to quantify their ideals and beliefs as a vote due to the fact they didn't have ID. Less of a case of bolting the door once the horse as bolted and more about infringement of basic freedoms of an otherwise extremely successful electoral system.
You can also manipulate photo identification. If there's a way to commit fraud it will be done. Crimes such as fraud don't stagnate and die once safeguards are introduced, they evolve. If they didn't, fraud wouldn't be of concern.
still, as E.M Forster states in 'Two Cheers for Democracy', that the very notion of a electoral system that is able to accept criticism upon itself is indeed a strength in itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Mar 1, 2010 16:11:30 GMT
I was just making a semi-serious observation that whenever an anomoly like this occurs, it always seems that we are always pushed towards increasing restrictions on our lives rather than relaxing them.
Didn't expect to come back and find some of the TT "big guns" opening up large cans of whoopass......
|
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Mar 1, 2010 18:23:45 GMT
Fair enough, but to say that postal voting would encourage systematic voting fraud akin to a banana republic is seriously flawed regardless of who's made the statement. An entirely correct statement - but also a massive straw man. The QC didn't suggest (nor even imply) that the postal vote system encourages voting fraud akin to a banana republic: his statement was a riposte to those who would suggest that the postal vote system was working well despite the fact that he had just overseen a case of large-scale electoral fraud. I think your dismissal of his statement is therefore flawed. still, as E.M Forster states in 'Two Cheers for Democracy', that the very notion of a electoral system that is able to accept criticism upon itself is indeed a strength in itself. I would agree with that but I don't see how it adds anything further to your argument. |
|
|
|
Post by thevicar on Mar 1, 2010 18:33:40 GMT
I was just making a semi-serious observation that whenever an anomoly like this occurs, it always seems that we are always pushed towards increasing restrictions on our lives rather than relaxing them. Fair point but is this just a reflection of humanity's desire for fairness in public systems? If we can take steps to make things more 'fair', we've shown a tendency over the last 60 odd years to vote/legislate that way. |
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Mar 1, 2010 21:20:10 GMT
[An entirely correct statement - but also a massive straw man. The QC didn't suggest (nor even imply) that the postal vote system encourages voting fraud akin to a banana republic: his statement was a riposte to those who would suggest that the postal vote system was working well despite the fact that he had just overseen a case of large-scale electoral fraud. I think your dismissal of his statement is therefore flawed. If you're trying to suggest that a QC suggesting that encountering fraud that would make a Banana Republic embarrassed does not seek to imply that postal voting is encouraging fraud, then in my opinion there's a certain amount of delusion on your part. Do you have your historian hat pulled over your eyes perhaps? Postal voting was introduced primarily as a means for older voters or the immobile to vote without visiting a polling station. Of course it is not exclusive to them, but the opportunities it's given those people to play a part in elections I would argue is entirely successful. still, as E.M Forster states in 'Two Cheers for Democracy', that the very notion of a electoral system that is able to accept criticism upon itself is indeed a strength in itself. I would agree with that but I don't see how it adds anything further to your argument [/quote] It was not used a means of strengthening my argument, merely as a recognition that the fact the system invites criticism and reform is a strength regardless of anyone's individual beliefs in the flaws or strengths of postal voting. By the way vicar, the Electoral Commission actually made a bit of a U turn with postal voting after all-postal vote elections were trialled and no further evidence of votal fraud was found. Both sides of this argument need to be heard. |
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Mar 1, 2010 23:05:05 GMT
[An entirely correct statement - but also a massive straw man. The QC didn't suggest (nor even imply) that the postal vote system encourages voting fraud akin to a banana republic: his statement was a riposte to those who would suggest that the postal vote system was working well despite the fact that he had just overseen a case of large-scale electoral fraud. I think your dismissal of his statement is therefore flawed. If you're trying to suggest that a QC suggesting that encountering fraud that would make a Banana Republic embarrassed does not seek to imply that postal voting is encouraging fraud, then in my opinion there's a certain amount of delusion on your part. Do you have your historian hat pulled over your eyes perhaps? I'm deluded because I'm not putting words into his mouth? Right... his response to those that claim the current postal vote system is working - "Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising."To translate into a back and forth argument situation: Party A: The current postal vote system is working QC: I find this statement surprising A: Why? QC: Because I have just seen evidence of banana republic style fraud, which indicates that there are holes in the system which may be exploited I don't see how he suggests that the postal vote system encourages fraud. He is simply suggesting that the postal vote system has security flaws which may allow fraud to occur. Your original assessment hyperbolised his statement in order to make it appear ridiculous and easily dismissable. You do it a lot, I've noticed. Postal voting was introduced primarily as a means for older voters or the immobile to vote without visiting a polling station. Of course it is not exclusive to them, but the opportunities it's given those people to play a part in elections I would argue is entirely successful. I think postal voting is a good thing. Of course it is successful in enfranchising more people and is therefore peforming a useful role in our electoral system. To argue that it is entirely successful is to ignore the blatant holes which the fraud case exposed. Having had on-the-ground experience in elections I can confirm that it would be very easy to commit postal vote and proxy vote fraud. While the two systems are a very good way of enfranchising more people (and rewarding more well-organised parties) there are issues with both systems which could be improved upon. I wholeheartedly agree with your positive assessment of postal voting. However, I feel you are too ready to dismiss the evidence against a 100% positive appraisal of the system. |
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Mar 2, 2010 0:16:35 GMT
I don't see how he suggests that the postal vote system encourages fraud. He is simply suggesting that the postal vote system has security flaws which may allow fraud to occur. So he suggests there are flaws which may allow fraud to occur, publicly accounces it on record, recommends no safeguards or solutions to flaws and you think this isn't a blatant suggestion that the QC is saying postal voting can encourage fraud? Sorry, In all honesty, hyberbole or not, that is absolutely ludicrous. I think postal voting is a good thing. Of course it is successful in enfranchising more people and is therefore peforming a useful role in our electoral system. To argue that it is entirely successful is to ignore the blatant holes which the fraud case exposed. Having had on-the-ground experience in elections I can confirm that it would be very easy to commit postal vote and proxy vote fraud. While the two systems are a very good way of enfranchising more people (and rewarding more well-organised parties) there are issues with both systems which could be improved upon. Ah a bit of anecdote! It's immaterial whether your 'on the ground' (as opposed to up in the sky?) election experience masterminded Harold Wilson's non-consecutive second term as Prime Minister, I disagree that it's very easy to commit postal vote or/and proxy vote fraud. Partly because the Electoral Commission are having serious trouble proving correlation between fraud and increased amounts of Postal Votes, partly because it's simply not happening. [I wholeheartedly agree with your positive assessment of postal voting. However, I feel you are too ready to dismiss the evidence against a 100% positive appraisal of the system. It isn't perfect, I find democracy and especially the first past the post system generally isn't, however given the majority of benefit contrasted to the relatively small amount of flaws makes postal voting successful. To contrast it with the benefits system, a system riddled by fraud which largely guarantees welfare rights to the people that require it, given it's success and it's minor (although disproportionately publicised) failures, I'm still staunchly in favour of it. |
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Mar 2, 2010 0:26:14 GMT
Ahh, but how do you know it's not happening? Fraudsters can be VERY clever you know! Not that I disagree with you, just thought I'd play the devil's advocate  |
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Mar 2, 2010 0:30:17 GMT
Ahh, but how do you know it's not happening? Fraudsters can be VERY clever you know! Not that I disagree with you, just thought I'd play the devil's advocate Could be a possibility. However I tend to think that they're not that clever, as if they were they'd have the sense to do things properly. Happy Birthday, by the way. |
|
