That was my point. The UK is a haven for postal vote fraud as opposed to fraud in person.
Why turn up (with or without ID) when you can send in a postal vote and no-one will check. Also, if you want your numerous relatives to vote for Labour or Lib Dems then it's easier for them to send in a postal vote. Why go to the trouble of them turning up in person. Many of them may not even speak English and therefore have problems voting in person. -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 1/8/14, Bryn Salisbury <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: [ORG-discuss] UK Electoral Commission wants to introduce Voter ID To: "Open Rights Group open discussion list" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2014, 9:53 AM As I recall, that particular case centered around postal vote fraud, rather than "in person" voting. As Ben points out, presenting VoterID won't actually fix the that issue. B On 8 January 2014 17:46, Bobby Brewster <[email protected]> wrote: The problem occurs when a two bedroom terraced house in inner London mysteriously contains 45 people registered on the Electoral Register all with similar sounding names. These names may well derive from practicioners of a certain religion. -------------------------------------------- On Wed, 1/8/14, Ben Brown <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: [ORG-discuss] UK Electoral Commission wants to introduce Voter ID To: "Open Rights Group open discussion list" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, January 8, 2014, 8:17 AM IIRC the biggest area of fraud in UK elections is via postal votes. How would mandatory ID solve this? On 8 January 2014 15:49, David Durant <[email protected]> wrote: > My point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's rather sidetracking the thread but that premise can lead to all kinds of issues. We don't know that the person living next door isn't plotting a terrorist attack so therefor we'll monitor his (and everyone else's) private data communications just in case. In this particular case, as with so many others, I think it comes down to risk vs. reward and damage. If a lot of money is spent to prevent a small amount of fraud and in the same instance a lot of people are disenfranchised then the whole system is questionable. It's hard to discuss this without reliable statistics but I would start off by asking whether anyone thinks enough organised voter fraud is happening in the UK to actually change the outcome of elections? -- 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- -- 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 -- 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 -- http://about.me/bryns/bio -----Inline Attachment Follows----- -- 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 -- 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
