On 08/01/14 13:00, David Gerard wrote: > On 8 January 2014 12:55, Gervase Markham <[email protected]> wrote: >> So, to be clear: the article's (and your?) position is that we should >> wait until we can prove that voter fraud is happening via impersonation >> before we address it? >> How might such evidence come to light? > > From the original link: > > "The Electoral Commission is generous enough to preface its demand for > voter identification at polling stations with the admission that there > is no evidence of widespread voter fraud." > > Presumably if they had any, they'd have put it with the proposal.
That's not my question. My question is to you: if you think we should do nothing about voter fraud until evidence of it exists, how might you expect such evidence to come to light? For example, you might say: "Well, someone who committed such fraud might become a Christian and, as part of their repentance, spill the beans about their deeds." Or something else. My point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I feel the burden of proof here is on those who say that there's no need to identify voters. Gerv -- Please support ORG's work - join and help fund our future: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [email protected] or use https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/org-discuss
