3 ms·

The UK doesn't have national identification. The government tried to bring it in a decade or more ago but it was shot down by the successful no2id campaign. The

The UK doesn't have national identification. The government tried to bring it in a decade or more ago but it was shot down by the successful no2id campaign. The UK also doesn't have a significant problem with electoral fraud: like the US it has robust processes in place to ensure that its (admittedly less than perfect) electoral system is implemented fairly[0], correctly, and with integrity. This doesn't depend on national identification so I'm not sure why you're implying it should be a prerequisite for holding elections. [0] Fairly within the constraints of its framework: you can obviously argue about first past the post versus alternative vote versus proportional representation versus a collegiate system as being the fairest system, but that's a separate question.

thu2111 6y ago
Actual MPs disagree with you about that: https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/there-is-widespread-abuse-of-postal-votes-this-simply-cannot-go-on https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/there-is-wides... "I believe the overwhelming majority of my constituents would be shocked if they knew the extent of corrupt election practices and voter fraud which happen each time there is an election. I want open and lawful elections, upholding the principle that every entitled voter should have one vote, and cast it freely." The system is wide open to abuse. The article goes into a large variety of schemes. There's a risk that in future the UK may face a similar outcome as the USA. The only way to really fix this is to reign in postal voting significantly to only those who strictly need it - and I say that as someone who votes by post (because I live abroad).
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  “We have received reports” is the same BS the Trump folks are trying to pull with their “voter fraud hotline” today. You’ve posted an op-ed that offers no actual evidence.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    The article says that in one case they can evidence it, but an individual MP isn't a police force. At any rate, the reasons behind the design of elections is to pre-emptively block fraud because proving it retroactively is hard. Hence the private ballot box, polling stations, the reluctance to use computerised/internet based voting and so on. People have to believe the system is inherently robust. Why, because what sort of hard evidence could be generated for those sorts of problems, and at what scale? People registering with their friends/family addresses so they can tip votes outside where they live is inherently hard to obtain large-scale evidence of.
- arethuza 6y ago
  It would be interesting to see if he actually reported those cases to the relevant authorities. The Electoral Commission takes voting fraud pretty seriously: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/electoral-fraud-data/2019-electoral-fraud-data https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w...
- bartread 6y ago
  > There's a risk that in future the UK may face a similar outcome as the USA. What outcome is that exactly? Are you alleging that there has been widespread electoral fraud in the USA? Because if that is what you're suggesting you need to drop the euphemisms and point to the hard evidence. I am aware of precisely zero solid evidence of material levels of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and zero evidence that postal ballots have caused any fraud-related issues. If that's not what you're saying then what exactly are you saying?
  - thu2111 6y ago
    The outcome is "an election in which a large number of people don't believe it was a fair contest". What matters is people's belief that the process has integrity. By its very nature, most vote fraud is hard to prove as due to the privacy protections in the system, it will boil down to people saying "I saw fraud happening with my eyes". And there are people in the US making that exact allegation right now under oath. I take no position on whether they're correct or not, merely observing that polls show the number of people who don't believe the election was run properly is dramatically higher now than it was before election day (amongst Republicans, Dems of course love it and are sure there's no fraud at all).
flavius29663 6y ago
When I voted in the UK I didn't feel like it was very secure at all. At the most, you only have to show a proof of address IIRC, but anyone can snatch a bill from your mailbox and vote in your place. Or you can take your grandma's and vote for her etc.

thu2111 6y ago

Actual MPs disagree with you about that: https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/there-is-widespread-abuse-of-postal-votes-this-simply-cannot-go-on https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/there-is-wides... "I believe the overwhelming majority of my constituents would be shocked if they knew the extent of corrupt election practices and voter fraud which happen each time there is an election. I want open and lawful elections, upholding the principle that every entitled voter should have one vote, and cast it freely." The system is wide open to abuse. The article goes into a large variety of schemes. There's a risk that in future the UK may face a similar outcome as the USA. The only way to really fix this is to reign in postal voting significantly to only those who strictly need it - and I say that as someone who votes by post (because I live abroad).

ceejayoz 6y ago
“We have received reports” is the same BS the Trump folks are trying to pull with their “voter fraud hotline” today. You’ve posted an op-ed that offers no actual evidence.
- thu2111 6y ago
  The article says that in one case they can evidence it, but an individual MP isn't a police force. At any rate, the reasons behind the design of elections is to pre-emptively block fraud because proving it retroactively is hard. Hence the private ballot box, polling stations, the reluctance to use computerised/internet based voting and so on. People have to believe the system is inherently robust. Why, because what sort of hard evidence could be generated for those sorts of problems, and at what scale? People registering with their friends/family addresses so they can tip votes outside where they live is inherently hard to obtain large-scale evidence of.
arethuza 6y ago
It would be interesting to see if he actually reported those cases to the relevant authorities. The Electoral Commission takes voting fraud pretty seriously: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/electoral-fraud-data/2019-electoral-fraud-data https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-w...
bartread 6y ago
> There's a risk that in future the UK may face a similar outcome as the USA. What outcome is that exactly? Are you alleging that there has been widespread electoral fraud in the USA? Because if that is what you're suggesting you need to drop the euphemisms and point to the hard evidence. I am aware of precisely zero solid evidence of material levels of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and zero evidence that postal ballots have caused any fraud-related issues. If that's not what you're saying then what exactly are you saying?
- thu2111 6y ago
  The outcome is "an election in which a large number of people don't believe it was a fair contest". What matters is people's belief that the process has integrity. By its very nature, most vote fraud is hard to prove as due to the privacy protections in the system, it will boil down to people saying "I saw fraud happening with my eyes". And there are people in the US making that exact allegation right now under oath. I take no position on whether they're correct or not, merely observing that polls show the number of people who don't believe the election was run properly is dramatically higher now than it was before election day (amongst Republicans, Dems of course love it and are sure there's no fraud at all).

flavius29663 6y ago

When I voted in the UK I didn't feel like it was very secure at all. At the most, you only have to show a proof of address IIRC, but anyone can snatch a bill from your mailbox and vote in your place. Or you can take your grandma's and vote for her etc.