This discussion is closed.
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
B1131 - Anti-electoral Fraud Bill, TSR UKIP



Anti-electoral Fraud Bill


A
BILL
TO


Reduce instances of electoral fraud in the UK


BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1) Definitions

(a) ‘Valid proof of identity’ refers to valid identity documents issued by the UK government that show the holder’s full name, date of birth, gender, and valid photo, such as a driving licence, passport, or voter ID card.

2) Verification of identity

(1) Electors must present valid proof of their identity before they can be issued with a ballot paper at polling stations for elections and referendums.
(2) Electors may apply for a voter ID card from their local authority.
(3) Voter ID cards must contain the holder’s full name, date of birth, gender, and a valid photo.
(4) Valid photos for Voter ID cards have the same requirements for a UK passport photo.

3) Political and election campaigners

(1) Campaigners may not—
(a) take, complete or help to complete postal or proxy vote applications;
(b) take completed postal or proxy vote application forms from electors, including taking completed application forms to post them or deliver them to the Electoral Registration Officer;
(c) include an intermediary address for the return of postal or proxy vote applications – all applications should be returned directly to EROs;
(d) take, complete or help to complete postal ballot papers and/or postal voting statements; or
(e) take completed postal ballot packs, including taking completed postal ballot packs to post them or deliver them to the Returning Officer.
(2) Violations of the provisions listed in this section shall carry a maximum fine of £100,000 and up to five years imprisonment.

4) Postal votes

(1) A person is eligible for an absent vote at elections or referendums only if—
(a) he is or will be registered as a service voter,
(b) he cannot reasonably be expected—
(i) to go in person to the polling station allotted or likely to be allotted to him under the appropriate rules, or

(ii) to vote unaided there, by reason of serious health condition, hospitalisation or disability

(c) he cannot reasonably be expected to go in person to that polling station by reason of the general nature of his occupation, service or employment or that of his spouse or civil partner, or by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution or that of his spouse or civil partner, or
(d) he cannot go in person from his qualifying address to that polling station without making a journey by air or sea.

5) Repeals

(1) Schedule 4 Paragraph 2(7), 2(8), and 2(9) of the Representation of the People Act 2000 are hereby repealed.
(2) Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 is hereby repealed.
(3) Section 69 of the Electoral Administration Act is hereby repealed.

6) Short title, commencement and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Anti-electoral Fraud Act 2017.
(2) This Act comes into effect 120 days after Royal Assent.
(3) This Act extends to the entirety of Great Britain.

Notes

Electoral fraud is a serious issue in the UK, according to an Electoral Commission report: http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...nal-report.pdf
This bill seeks to reduce postal voting fraud, which has been called ‘easy’ by the electoral commissioner: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oner-says.html
Here is just one of many examples of voting fraud: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...r-Hamlets.html
Electoral fraud is widespread in Muslim communities and needs to be tackled as soon as possible:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...unities-becau/

The Representation of the People Act 2000 allowed for certain local authorities to participate in pilot schemes to trial the extension and entitlement of postal voting, and in some cases, even allow for an all-postal ballot election. Other pilot schemes available included extending polling station opening hours/days, and the trialling of electronic voting and counting. It was concluded that the extension of postal voting was conducive to increasing voter participation in selected authorities, leading to a full roll-out for the General Election the following year. These changes were implemented in time for the 2001 General Election. That General Election however was noted for its low voter turnout – 59.4%. That is, despite restrictions on postal voting being relaxed, as roughly 4% of voters opted for postal ballots. Following this poor voter turnout, further pilot schemes were announced, in order to kick-start voter participation. Perhaps the most significant pilot scheme was in 2004, when four English regions (North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and East Midlands) trialled a postal-only ballot for the European Elections. Voter turnout in those regions did indeed increase significantly on the 1999 election, but turnout also increased in regions without a postal-only ballot. In fact, as The European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Act 2004 only achieved Royal Assent just ten weeks before the Local and European elections, some local authorities were left unprepared, meaning that some voters were unable to return their ballot in time.

With postal voting, voters are able to cast their ballot weeks away from polling day and from a remote location. In many cases, voters will cast their vote in private when their ballot paper arrives. Sadly, there have been a number of examples where postal voting has opened up issues of electoral fraud.

Blackburn
Blackburn councillor Muhammed Hussain was prosecuted and jailed for three and a half years, after being found guilty of conspiring to defraud local elections in 2002. Investigators had found that 233 votes were fraudulent after it was discovered he had a campaign team dedicated to collecting blank postal ballots from voters. The police revealed that Hussain’s home became a ‘conveyer belt’ for blank ballots to be fraudulently filled in. Judge Peter Openshaw called Hussain’s actions to be of a scale unknown in Britain for a hundred years before brandishing the postal vote system as "wide open to fraud". In the run up to the General Election, independent candidate in Blackburn and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, in an interview with the Sunday Times, highlighted the many issues faced with postal voting. In his interview he said: “I’ve been approached by several people in the Asian community who are under huge pressure from Labour activists to apply for a postal vote rather than a ballot vote and then hand their postal vote over to the Labour Party.”

Birmingham
During the 2004 European and Local Elections, Birmingham became the focal point of postal voting fraud, when allegations were made against six Labour councillors. Of these, councillors Mohammed Islam, Muhammed Afzal and Mohammed Kazi, all of the Aston Ward, were described by the police as handling unsealed ballot papers in a deserted warehouse in the city in a so-called ‘vote-rigging factory’. On one occasion, police discovered the three men working in the warehouse in the middle of the night with ‘hundreds of postal votes spread out on a table’. Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey QC upheld the convictions in 2005, saying "the system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that," and adding that "massive, systematic and organised fraud" was the result of at least 1,500 postal votes being cast fraudulently across Birmingham. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the number of postal ballots issued in Birmingham jumped from 28,000 in 2003, to 70,000 in 2004. The issue was compounded in April 2005 by the discovery of 1,000 uncounted postal ballots from the previous year’s local elections, resulting in the suspension of John Owen, the head of Electoral Services in Birmingham.

Burnley
In 2006, Mozaquir Ali and Manzoor Hussain were accused and subsequently jailed for conspiracy to defraud postal-only elections in Burnley in 2004 by dishonestly applying for proxy votes. Returning Officer Gillian Taylor noted that 195 proxy applications were made in the Daneshouse with Stoneyholme Ward, whereas only 15 applications were made in the rest of the borough. Shamefully, Councillor Hussain retained his seat on the local authority for a number of months, whilst he was serving his 18-month prison sentence.

Peterborough
In 2008, former Labour Mayor of Peterborough Mohammed Choudhary was jailed for nine months following the uncovering of a postal vote rigging scam where applications were made for ballot papers to be sent to different addresses. Postal vote applications were deliberately forged in such a way, that ballot papers were posted to addresses connected to Choudhary. Those voters would never receive their ballot papers, whilst other charges included the illegal handling of postal ballots, with voters being told to forfeit their votes as they arrived. Cultural reasons such as the notion that the head male of the family should handle votes and a lack of English skills were identified as enabling factors.

Tower Hamlets
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has been plagued by continuous problems associated with postal voting since as early as 2005. Respect, the party formerly headed by George Galloway, along with other local parties, made complaints to the police after the number of postal vote applications had nearly doubled. The then Labour-led council had issued 18,700 postal ballot papers with claims that on the April 18th deadline for returns, 6,000 applications were received. In one ten-storey tower block of flats in the borough, 90 out of 93 registered voters had applied for a postal ballot, many without their knowledge. Those voters subsequently failed to receive their ballot paper, with even the Electoral Commission highlighting the risk of ballot papers being intercepted on the ground floor lobby of apartment buildings. Postal vote issues continued into the Council elections in 2006, where many voters arrived at polling stations only to be turned away after finding that their vote had already been cast. During the London Mayoral and Assembly election in 2012, six Labour councillors were reported to the Metropolitan Police for “gross voting malpractices” after allegations of voting irregularities became rife in the borough. Allegations of voting irregularities include examples of postal votes being sent to voters no longer living in the borough and postal ballots being collected from voters. In 2014, Lutfur Rahman of Tower Hamlets First was elected to the position of Mayor, amid rampant speculation of voter fraud. He was subsequently removed from the post on corruption charges in April 2015. It was found that Rahman’s supporters “cast hundreds of fake postal votes” and “a handwriting expert gave evidence to the court that hundreds of ballot papers may have been completed by the same person.” At the trial, Richard Mawrey QC warned of “postal voting factories” and thousands of ballots being sold across Britain.

Wythenshawe and Sale East
In some instances, for example, at Parliamentary by-elections, postal voters can receive their ballot just a few short days after the closing date of nominations. This was the case at the 2014 Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, where postal ballots were posted just three days after the close of nominations. UKIP Leader Nigel Farage MEP commented: "I have been on benders for longer than the opening of the nominations and the start of the postal ballots. This has been a farce." With postal ballots typically completed within a few days of being received, it is now not uncommon for the bulk of these votes to be returned over a week, maybe even two weeks before polling day. During short campaigns, such as Parliamentary by-elections, this short lead time between the close of nominations and the issuing of postal votes invariably benefits parties such as Labour or the Conservatives, at the expense of challenger parties.

International Concerns
Cases of electoral fraud in 2004 were so severe, that the Council of Europe began investigating and alleged that the UK was in breach of European Convention on Human Rights for failure to ensure free and fair elections citing ‘the growing body of evidence that widespread absent vote fraud is taking place’. Former Home Office Ministerial aide David Wilshire expressed concern that “if the UK found itself in the company of places like Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Ukraine, which have been severely criticised” for failing to ensure elections were free and fair, it would not be a good place to be. The seriousness of postal vote fraud even led to authoritarian Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko raising his concerns of highlighting “a potential risk of violations of the principle of equal elections and of extensive abuses”

Voters let down by postal votes
Besides the already well-publicised cases of electoral fraud related to postal voting, many voters are being disenfranchised, as their postal ballot has been rejected. At the 2015 General Election, 214,155 postal ballots were rejected across the UK. This equates to 3.3% of all postal ballots returned. Whilst this is a decline on 2010 figures, it is surely worrying that so many votes could be rejected. A quarter of these rejections were due to mismatched signatures with another 20% rejected for a mismatched date of birth.

Criticism of postal voting
The introduction of postal voting did indeed increase voter participation, albeit for a very limited period. The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust report on the Purity of Elections in the UK found that the so called ‘turnout premium’ is only temporary and that voter turnout declines in the elections that follow. This temporary ‘turnout premium’ however has come at a cost of electoral integrity. The same report by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust found that “greater use of postal voting has made UK elections far more vulnerable to fraud and resulted in several instances of large-scale fraud”, with 42 electoral fraud convictions between 2000-2007. As already discussed, a number of these cases involved attempts at large-scale voter fraud, involving the manipulation of postal ballot papers and postal vote application papers. Whilst the UK suffers from low public confidence in the electoral process, compared to other Western European nations, there is evidence to suggest that this confidence has been eroded further by postal voting. British Asian voters, a sub-section of voter disproportionately at risk from postal vote fraud, registered very low confidence in the electoral process, with only 46% of voters regarding the postal vote system as safe. This may be in part due to, as the report mentions, the very real issue of “traditional forms of Pakistani ‘clan politics’ which have been a common factor in a significant minority of recent prosecutions for electoral fraud.”

1
Basiil17
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Aye
1
GaelicBolshevik
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
UKIP seem to be running out of ideas.
1
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Aye.
1
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
Nay. The goal of this is merely to disenfranchise persons who may be less likely to attend the polling station in person or apply for a card for whatever reason, for the pursuit of political ends. Disenfranchisement is not a good thing.
2
Martin Grainger
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
(Original post by adam9317)
B1131 - Anti-electoral Fraud Bill, TSR UKIP




Anti-electoral Fraud Bill


A
BILL
TO


Reduce instances of electoral fraud in the UK




BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1) Definitions

(a) ‘Valid proof of identity’ refers to valid identity documents issued by the UK government that show the holder’s full name, date of birth, gender, and valid photo, such as a driving licence, passport, or voter ID card.

2) Verification of identity

(1) Electors must present valid proof of their identity before they can be issued with a ballot paper at polling stations for elections and referendums.
(2) Electors may apply for a voter ID card from their local authority.
(3) Voter ID cards must contain the holder’s full name, date of birth, gender, and a valid photo.
(4) Valid photos for Voter ID cards have the same requirements for a UK passport photo.

3) Political and election campaigners

(1) Campaigners may not—
(a) take, complete or help to complete postal or proxy vote applications;
(b) take completed postal or proxy vote application forms from electors, including taking completed application forms to post them or deliver them to the Electoral Registration Officer;
(c) include an intermediary address for the return of postal or proxy vote applications – all applications should be returned directly to EROs;
(d) take, complete or help to complete postal ballot papers and/or postal voting statements; or
(e) take completed postal ballot packs, including taking completed postal ballot packs to post them or deliver them to the Returning Officer.
(2) Violations of the provisions listed in this section shall carry a maximum fine of £100,000 and up to five years imprisonment.

4) Postal votes

(1) A person is eligible for an absent vote at elections or referendums only if—
(a) he is or will be registered as a service voter,
(b) he cannot reasonably be expected—
(i) to go in person to the polling station allotted or likely to be allotted to him under the appropriate rules, or

(ii) to vote unaided there, by reason of serious health condition, hospitalisation or disability

(c) he cannot reasonably be expected to go in person to that polling station by reason of the general nature of his occupation, service or employment or that of his spouse or civil partner, or by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution or that of his spouse or civil partner, or
(d) he cannot go in person from his qualifying address to that polling station without making a journey by air or sea.

5) Repeals

(1) Schedule 4 Paragraph 2(7), 2(8), and 2(9) of the Representation of the People Act 2000 are hereby repealed.
(2) Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 is hereby repealed.
(3) Section 69 of the Electoral Administration Act is hereby repealed.

6) Short title, commencement and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Anti-electoral Fraud Act 2017.
(2) This Act comes into effect 120 days after Royal Assent.
(3) This Act extends to the entirety of Great Britain.

Notes

Electoral fraud is a serious issue in the UK, according to an Electoral Commission report: http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...nal-report.pdf
This bill seeks to reduce postal voting fraud, which has been called ‘easy’ by the electoral commissioner: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oner-says.html
Here is just one of many examples of voting fraud: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...r-Hamlets.html
Electoral fraud is widespread in Muslim communities and needs to be tackled as soon as possible:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...unities-becau/

The Representation of the People Act 2000 allowed for certain local authorities to participate in pilot schemes to trial the extension and entitlement of postal voting, and in some cases, even allow for an all-postal ballot election. Other pilot schemes available included extending polling station opening hours/days, and the trialling of electronic voting and counting. It was concluded that the extension of postal voting was conducive to increasing voter participation in selected authorities, leading to a full roll-out for the General Election the following year. These changes were implemented in time for the 2001 General Election. That General Election however was noted for its low voter turnout – 59.4%. That is, despite restrictions on postal voting being relaxed, as roughly 4% of voters opted for postal ballots. Following this poor voter turnout, further pilot schemes were announced, in order to kick-start voter participation. Perhaps the most significant pilot scheme was in 2004, when four English regions (North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber and East Midlands) trialled a postal-only ballot for the European Elections. Voter turnout in those regions did indeed increase significantly on the 1999 election, but turnout also increased in regions without a postal-only ballot. In fact, as The European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Act 2004 only achieved Royal Assent just ten weeks before the Local and European elections, some local authorities were left unprepared, meaning that some voters were unable to return their ballot in time.

With postal voting, voters are able to cast their ballot weeks away from polling day and from a remote location. In many cases, voters will cast their vote in private when their ballot paper arrives. Sadly, there have been a number of examples where postal voting has opened up issues of electoral fraud.

Blackburn
Blackburn councillor Muhammed Hussain was prosecuted and jailed for three and a half years, after being found guilty of conspiring to defraud local elections in 2002. Investigators had found that 233 votes were fraudulent after it was discovered he had a campaign team dedicated to collecting blank postal ballots from voters. The police revealed that Hussain’s home became a ‘conveyer belt’ for blank ballots to be fraudulently filled in. Judge Peter Openshaw called Hussain’s actions to be of a scale unknown in Britain for a hundred years before brandishing the postal vote system as "wide open to fraud". In the run up to the General Election, independent candidate in Blackburn and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, in an interview with the Sunday Times, highlighted the many issues faced with postal voting. In his interview he said: “I’ve been approached by several people in the Asian community who are under huge pressure from Labour activists to apply for a postal vote rather than a ballot vote and then hand their postal vote over to the Labour Party.”

Birmingham
During the 2004 European and Local Elections, Birmingham became the focal point of postal voting fraud, when allegations were made against six Labour councillors. Of these, councillors Mohammed Islam, Muhammed Afzal and Mohammed Kazi, all of the Aston Ward, were described by the police as handling unsealed ballot papers in a deserted warehouse in the city in a so-called ‘vote-rigging factory’. On one occasion, police discovered the three men working in the warehouse in the middle of the night with ‘hundreds of postal votes spread out on a table’. Election Commissioner Richard Mawrey QC upheld the convictions in 2005, saying "the system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that," and adding that "massive, systematic and organised fraud" was the result of at least 1,500 postal votes being cast fraudulently across Birmingham. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the number of postal ballots issued in Birmingham jumped from 28,000 in 2003, to 70,000 in 2004. The issue was compounded in April 2005 by the discovery of 1,000 uncounted postal ballots from the previous year’s local elections, resulting in the suspension of John Owen, the head of Electoral Services in Birmingham.

Burnley
In 2006, Mozaquir Ali and Manzoor Hussain were accused and subsequently jailed for conspiracy to defraud postal-only elections in Burnley in 2004 by dishonestly applying for proxy votes. Returning Officer Gillian Taylor noted that 195 proxy applications were made in the Daneshouse with Stoneyholme Ward, whereas only 15 applications were made in the rest of the borough. Shamefully, Councillor Hussain retained his seat on the local authority for a number of months, whilst he was serving his 18-month prison sentence.

Peterborough
In 2008, former Labour Mayor of Peterborough Mohammed Choudhary was jailed for nine months following the uncovering of a postal vote rigging scam where applications were made for ballot papers to be sent to different addresses. Postal vote applications were deliberately forged in such a way, that ballot papers were posted to addresses connected to Choudhary. Those voters would never receive their ballot papers, whilst other charges included the illegal handling of postal ballots, with voters being told to forfeit their votes as they arrived. Cultural reasons such as the notion that the head male of the family should handle votes and a lack of English skills were identified as enabling factors.

Tower Hamlets
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets has been plagued by continuous problems associated with postal voting since as early as 2005. Respect, the party formerly headed by George Galloway, along with other local parties, made complaints to the police after the number of postal vote applications had nearly doubled. The then Labour-led council had issued 18,700 postal ballot papers with claims that on the April 18th deadline for returns, 6,000 applications were received. In one ten-storey tower block of flats in the borough, 90 out of 93 registered voters had applied for a postal ballot, many without their knowledge. Those voters subsequently failed to receive their ballot paper, with even the Electoral Commission highlighting the risk of ballot papers being intercepted on the ground floor lobby of apartment buildings. Postal vote issues continued into the Council elections in 2006, where many voters arrived at polling stations only to be turned away after finding that their vote had already been cast. During the London Mayoral and Assembly election in 2012, six Labour councillors were reported to the Metropolitan Police for “gross voting malpractices” after allegations of voting irregularities became rife in the borough. Allegations of voting irregularities include examples of postal votes being sent to voters no longer living in the borough and postal ballots being collected from voters. In 2014, Lutfur Rahman of Tower Hamlets First was elected to the position of Mayor, amid rampant speculation of voter fraud. He was subsequently removed from the post on corruption charges in April 2015. It was found that Rahman’s supporters “cast hundreds of fake postal votes” and “a handwriting expert gave evidence to the court that hundreds of ballot papers may have been completed by the same person.” At the trial, Richard Mawrey QC warned of “postal voting factories” and thousands of ballots being sold across Britain.

Wythenshawe and Sale East
In some instances, for example, at Parliamentary by-elections, postal voters can receive their ballot just a few short days after the closing date of nominations. This was the case at the 2014 Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election, where postal ballots were posted just three days after the close of nominations. UKIP Leader Nigel Farage MEP commented: "I have been on benders for longer than the opening of the nominations and the start of the postal ballots. This has been a farce." With postal ballots typically completed within a few days of being received, it is now not uncommon for the bulk of these votes to be returned over a week, maybe even two weeks before polling day. During short campaigns, such as Parliamentary by-elections, this short lead time between the close of nominations and the issuing of postal votes invariably benefits parties such as Labour or the Conservatives, at the expense of challenger parties.

International Concerns
Cases of electoral fraud in 2004 were so severe, that the Council of Europe began investigating and alleged that the UK was in breach of European Convention on Human Rights for failure to ensure free and fair elections citing ‘the growing body of evidence that widespread absent vote fraud is taking place’. Former Home Office Ministerial aide David Wilshire expressed concern that “if the UK found itself in the company of places like Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Ukraine, which have been severely criticised” for failing to ensure elections were free and fair, it would not be a good place to be. The seriousness of postal vote fraud even led to authoritarian Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko raising his concerns of highlighting “a potential risk of violations of the principle of equal elections and of extensive abuses”

Voters let down by postal votes
Besides the already well-publicised cases of electoral fraud related to postal voting, many voters are being disenfranchised, as their postal ballot has been rejected. At the 2015 General Election, 214,155 postal ballots were rejected across the UK. This equates to 3.3% of all postal ballots returned. Whilst this is a decline on 2010 figures, it is surely worrying that so many votes could be rejected. A quarter of these rejections were due to mismatched signatures with another 20% rejected for a mismatched date of birth.

Criticism of postal voting
The introduction of postal voting did indeed increase voter participation, albeit for a very limited period. The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust report on the Purity of Elections in the UK found that the so called ‘turnout premium’ is only temporary and that voter turnout declines in the elections that follow. This temporary ‘turnout premium’ however has come at a cost of electoral integrity. The same report by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust found that “greater use of postal voting has made UK elections far more vulnerable to fraud and resulted in several instances of large-scale fraud”, with 42 electoral fraud convictions between 2000-2007. As already discussed, a number of these cases involved attempts at large-scale voter fraud, involving the manipulation of postal ballot papers and postal vote application papers. Whilst the UK suffers from low public confidence in the electoral process, compared to other Western European nations, there is evidence to suggest that this confidence has been eroded further by postal voting. British Asian voters, a sub-section of voter disproportionately at risk from postal vote fraud, registered very low confidence in the electoral process, with only 46% of voters regarding the postal vote system as safe. This may be in part due to, as the report mentions, the very real issue of “traditional forms of Pakistani ‘clan politics’ which have been a common factor in a significant minority of recent prosecutions for electoral fraud.”

There are seven different ways to fraud elections. Without having an independent body count the votes we do not know if the correct results have been announced. A lot of vote counters work in the public sector, therefore could be told to announce the votes as a ratio. I know this probably does not happen but could. The postal votes can be used anywhere there is evidence they were used to swing 2015 to a tory majority
1
username2585877
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
nay
1
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
I support compulsory voting, so that has a significant impact upon how I view this bill.

I don't disagree with the voter ID bit per se, but I do object to the restrictions on postal votes, and without these restrictions enforcing voter ID begins to look inconsistent.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I support compulsory voting, so that has a significant impact upon how I view this bill.

I don't disagree with the voter ID bit per se, but I do object to the restrictions on postal votes, and without these restrictions enforcing voter ID begins to look inconsistent.
So you object to the restriction of the primary method of voter fraud? Then again, you are the primary beneficiary.
2
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
I'd support this on the proviso that local authorities were obliged to provide these ID cards free of charge and with the minimum amount of notice possible pre-election, with the funds needed to do so provided by central government. It would be unacceptable to introduce an economic barrier to the ballot, but equally so to push cash-strapped local authorities any further than they already are.
1
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
Yep, I support this
1
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
Aye.
1
username2768016
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
The principle behind this is something I'm sure most honourable members would support. However this is a little far-fetched (birth certificates and normal ID cards should suffice as valid authentication). Plus the punishment is a little harsh, is it not?
1
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
This is an excellent proposal - an Aye from me. Electoral fraud should not be tolerated in our democracy, and I don't feel this should overly impact turnout.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Nay. The goal of this is merely to disenfranchise persons who may be less likely to attend the polling station in person or apply for a card for whatever reason, for the pursuit of political ends. Disenfranchisement is not a good thing.
Bar the non standard ID requirement there is little evidence from the US to suggest any real effect on turnout, for a start almost everybody possesses relevant ID except with super strict requirements, and those who don't are least likely to vote anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Bar the non standard ID requirement there is little evidence from the US to suggest any real effect on turnout, for a start almost everybody possesses relevant ID except with super strict requirements, and those who don't are least likely to vote anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile
So... not barring the non standard ID requirement?
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
Not familiar enough with current voting law to form an opinion this, so abstain...
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by Gladstone1885)
Not familiar enough with current voting law to form an opinion this, so abstain...
It's pretty simple and extremely liberal*. Anyone who wants a postal vote, gets a postal vote - which can even be handed in at any polling station, by anyone, allowing for e.g. a canvasser or family member to instruct someone on how to fill it out and then hand it in for them (the voter's signature is however required on the vote). And you need no ID whatsoever to vote anywhere in the country - you simply turn up at your allocated polling booth and state your name, which is then ticked off the list, and you get given a ballot.

(At least for mainland Britain - Northern Ireland has its own rules).
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
(Original post by Saoirse:3)
It's pretty simple and extremely liberal*. Anyone who wants a postal vote, gets a postal vote - which can even be handed in at any polling station, by anyone, allowing for e.g. a canvasser or family member to instruct someone on how to fill it out and then hand it in for them (the voter's signature is however required on the vote). And you need no ID whatsoever to vote anywhere in the country - you simply turn up at your allocated polling booth and state your name, which is then ticked off the list, and you get given a ballot.

(At least for mainland Britain - Northern Ireland has its own rules).
Im guessing ukip is attempting to tighten the requirements with this then.

I see no demonstrable need, nay
0
Saoirse:3
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by Gladstone1885)
Im guessing ukip is attempting to tighten the requirements with this then.

I see no demonstrable need, nay
Yep - this bill would substantially tighten voting requirements from what they are at present in Britain (more liberal than even the liberal-voting American states generally).
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's stopping you doing a masters?

It's too expensive (48)
23.08%
My career doesn't need one (28)
13.46%
I'm sick of studying (43)
20.67%
I can't find a course I want to do (5)
2.4%
I don't know enough about them (15)
7.21%
Nothing, I'm going to do it! (69)
33.17%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise