> turnout. Despite this, only 25 allegations of voter impersonation at a > polling stations were recorded by the Electoral Commission in 2012[1] - > 19 of which related to one specific area. (Peterborough)
So we should also ask how much it will cost per incident to deal with. If its going to cost tens of millions to deploy to catch 25 events it's awfully bad looking for austerity and responsible spending. > > The commission also highlights that none of these cases had any > influence on any election result. > > So why the push for ID? The Electoral Commission's own paper on the > issue gives the answer.[2] They are pushing for ID checks for voters not > because of fraud or even because THEY think it will reduce fraud, but > purely because the PUBLIC think it will reduce fraud. I don't think so. The public mostly don't care (most of them don't even vote in the first place). Their ultimate purpose as with any UK state body is - to continue to exist - to grow in size - to get paid more - to be 'indispensible' The public aspect is simply a way of justifying doing something for their internal goals. If they found a method of brilliantly reliable voting that meant they could be mostly abolished they would run a mile. Alan -- 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
