|
Post by ambersalamander on Mar 2, 2010 12:39:07 GMT
Thanks Loy And yes, you're probably right.
|
|
|
Post by robotsmfc on Mar 3, 2010 17:09:54 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. You've subtly changed the meaning of what you were saying to something completely different. You've gone from ' encourage systematic voting fraud akin to a banana republic' to 'can encourage [some] fraud'. Please do make your mind up. Of course the flaws that the QC points out make fraud possible, but from that quote it is by no means clear that he is saying that they 'encourage systematic voting fraud', nor fraud at all for that matter. Pointing out that there are exploitable holes is an entirely different thing to claiming a system encourages fraud. There are many systems in which fraud is possible. If I was to view evidence of a case of fraud only for people to tell me that the system was working fine then I might too say that the facts that had been presented to me showed that it wasn't all working smoothly. Would that mean that I was implicitly claiming that the system in question encouraged fraud? 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. Loy, I never claimed to be an authority on the issue. I didn't claim that my views were representative of every person who has ever worked on elections. I didn't claim that it was happening on a large scale basis, or even at all. However, I don't see how you can dismiss my experience, however anecdotal the evidence may seem, on you unsupported claim that 'it's simply not happening'. I don't think there is a lot, if any fraud going on in the vast majority of British elections. I agree with you. Your dismissal of my personal experience in favour of your unsupported claim is something I do disagree with, though. You come across as arrogant and condescending and it is no surprise that people take issue with you. It doesn't surprise me that the Electoral Commission can't find a correlation between fraud. As I said, I don't believe there is an awful lot of it going on. That doesn't take away from the fact that there are holes that could be exploited, sometimes quite easily. The system is working, but it could always be made more secure.
|
|
|
Post by loy PRA on Mar 4, 2010 21:45:06 GMT
You've subtly changed the meaning of what you were saying to something completely different. You've gone from ' encourage systematic voting fraud akin to a banana republic' to 'can encourage [some] fraud'. Please do make your mind up. Of course the flaws that the QC points out make fraud possible, but from that quote it is by no means clear that he is saying that they 'encourage systematic voting fraud', nor fraud at all for that matter. Pointing out that there are exploitable holes is an entirely different thing to claiming a system encourages fraud. There are many systems in which fraud is possible. If I was to view evidence of a case of fraud only for people to tell me that the system was working fine then I might too say that the facts that had been presented to me showed that it wasn't all working smoothly. Would that mean that I was implicitly claiming that the system in question encouraged fraud? Yeah, in my opinion it would. If you highlight certain weaknesses in a system and make it clear fraud can (and in that particular case, has) happen then you're essentially saying the system encourages fraud. I'm not going to take the evidence as purely analytical impartiality, the review was commissioned for a reason. Have a guess what the reason was. Especially if the person in question of detailing the fraud mentions a banana republic! By the way, no one has ever EVER called me subtle. Subtly is not my forte. Loy, I never claimed to be an authority on the issue. I didn't claim that my views were representative of every person who has ever worked on elections. I didn't claim that it was happening on a large scale basis, or even at all. However, I don't see how you can dismiss my experience, however anecdotal the evidence may seem, on you unsupported claim that 'it's simply not happening'. I don't think there is a lot, if any fraud going on in the vast majority of British elections. I agree with you. Your dismissal of my personal experience in favour of your unsupported claim is something I do disagree with, though. You come across as arrogant and condescending and it is no surprise that people take issue with you. . I'm not dismissing your experience, but to mention that you've got 'on the ground experience of elections' suggests some sort of credence on your part. It's my belief that regardless of what you did, when you did it and who you did it for it has no place in this particular debate. I've got a litany of personal experience regarding fraud (alas, not in elections) however specific experience brings nothing to the debate so it's best left unmentioned. By the way, you've never met me so please refrain from suggesting that people take issue with me. If you think I'm arrogant and condescending that's fine, you're entitled to your view and you may well be right however this is just a football forum, and 'loy' is no indication of the life I lead when I'm off the computer. Cheers.
|
|