|
On 08/01/2014 13:54, Gervase Markham
wrote:
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. I would expect a significant proportion of impersonated voters to discover the impersonation when they tried to vote, and to complain. (If voters are informally voting by proxy, they won't complain; but then that's hardly worth worrying about.) Nicholas |
-- 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
