5 ms·

Protecting the integrity of elections that have all been shown to have very little fraud? Mass fraud without IDs being something of a pipe dream. That doesn’t m

Protecting the integrity of elections that have all been shown to have very little fraud? Mass fraud without IDs being something of a pipe dream. That doesn’t make much sense.

brigandish 5y ago
Aside from that being a different concern, even if we were to assume that is true, I don't see why it follows that election security shouldn't be improved. Regardless, election fraud has happened many times in the UK, most often from the politicians[1][2][3] (the links would be endless, I'll stop at three), and the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps[4]. However, an audit[5] was undertaken by Democratic Audit, who are funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (both are non-partisan), and here is what they found: > The emergence of evidence of electoral malpractice in English elections during the 2000s ranks among the most concerning emerging developments identified by this Audit. Evidence of malpractice began to mount from 2005 onwards, after an election court convened in Birmingham found five men guilty of large-scale electoral fraud, involving thousands of postal ballots, at local elections in June 2004. In his written judgement, the election commissioner, Richard Mawrey QC, referred to ‘evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.’ > While the Birmingham case represented the most systematic proven case of attempted ballot rigging, there have been numerous other convictions for electoral fraud in the UK since 2000. Court cases relating to large-scale fraud in local elections in Slough in 2007 and Peterborough in 2004 resulted in six convictions each. Following a lengthy police investigation and two re-trials, five men were eventually convicted in September 2010 for electoral fraud offences in the Bradford West constituency during the 2005 general election (the first relating to fraud in a UK general election for almost one hundred years). In total, more than 100 people have been found guilty of electoral malpractice in the UK since 1994. The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties. > The emergence of electoral fraud as an issue in UK politics cannot be divorced, therefore, from changes in electoral law since the 1990s, which introduced provisions for proxy voting and the widespread availability of postal voting. In particular, the introduction of ‘postal voting on demand’ via the Representation of the People Act 2000 created obvious opportunities for malpractice, especially when combined with a ‘rather arcane’ system of electoral registration. They go into more detail but I would suggest alleviating yourself of the notion that the current system isn't being tested by those looking for unfair advantage. If you read the Election Commission's views on these incidents you might come away thinking they were small things, yet it's also become easy to see they are not entirely fair nor are they fit for purpose. Bring on the improvements. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politician)#Channel_4_Dispatches_documentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politic... [3] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-back-together https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-bac... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-fine-electoral-spending https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-... [5] https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-extent-of-electoral-fraud-at-english-elections/ https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-exten...
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  This stuff. At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs. The obvious reason to not “improve election security” is when that’s not the reason it’s being done. When it’s being done to attempt to suppress voter turn out. If the end result of as many valid votes of willing voters as possible being counted while no one fraudulently gets votes. I don’t see much difference between one candidate who loses a portion of the votes they would have gotten because of “election security” laws and provisions that were not done only to improve security. I’ve personally not heard of people bringing up ID related voter security measures who didn’t have a partisan interest in making voting harder/lowering votes of whatever party they are against. Is this different? Not specifically how you feel. I’m not questioning You. But the politicians who are pushing for this. Are they pushing for election integrity truly just for that reason? I skimmed a bit on the UK. It doesn’t appear as if the politicians are much different than most other places. But I didn’t read up a lot
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs. Firstly, that’s not true. As quoted above: > The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties. That requires processes that are slack about identity. The requirement to prove/provide identity at certain points in the process would render these problems moot. If you wish to focus solely on in-person voting then say so, but that’s not the same as there being no relationship. Secondly, as with any conspiracy theory, you would have to: - show me how you knew their intentions without recourse to mind reading And with restpect to this particular case: - show how needing ID would reduce (legitimate) votes cast (I hope it’s not something like this[1]) - explain why increased security is a bad thing (taking into account the ease and low cost of this solution) It would be just as easy to claim that those who are against such measures wish to benefit from the fraud. That wouldn’t be possible without mind reading and I lack that ability. However, it does correlate, those against better election finance protections tend to benefit from them (Conservatives and Labour). Those against better proxy vote, postal vote and in-person voting fraud tend to benefit from it (Labour). In either case I don’t care, to improve the legitimacy of elections via simple measures like showing an ID are reasonable, cheap, and easy. What’s the downside? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk

Protecting the integrity of elections that have all been shown to have very little fraud? Mass fraud without IDs being something of a pipe dream. That doesn’t make much sense.

brigandish 5y ago

Aside from that being a different concern, even if we were to assume that is true, I don't see why it follows that election security shouldn't be improved. Regardless, election fraud has happened many times in the UK, most often from the politicians[1][2][3] (the links would be endless, I'll stop at three), and the idea that the Electoral Commission is going to produce investigations of any worth is sheer fantasy given some of their previous missteps[4]. However, an audit[5] was undertaken by Democratic Audit, who are funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (both are non-partisan), and here is what they found: > The emergence of evidence of electoral malpractice in English elections during the 2000s ranks among the most concerning emerging developments identified by this Audit. Evidence of malpractice began to mount from 2005 onwards, after an election court convened in Birmingham found five men guilty of large-scale electoral fraud, involving thousands of postal ballots, at local elections in June 2004. In his written judgement, the election commissioner, Richard Mawrey QC, referred to ‘evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic.’ > While the Birmingham case represented the most systematic proven case of attempted ballot rigging, there have been numerous other convictions for electoral fraud in the UK since 2000. Court cases relating to large-scale fraud in local elections in Slough in 2007 and Peterborough in 2004 resulted in six convictions each. Following a lengthy police investigation and two re-trials, five men were eventually convicted in September 2010 for electoral fraud offences in the Bradford West constituency during the 2005 general election (the first relating to fraud in a UK general election for almost one hundred years). In total, more than 100 people have been found guilty of electoral malpractice in the UK since 1994. The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties. > The emergence of electoral fraud as an issue in UK politics cannot be divorced, therefore, from changes in electoral law since the 1990s, which introduced provisions for proxy voting and the widespread availability of postal voting. In particular, the introduction of ‘postal voting on demand’ via the Representation of the People Act 2000 created obvious opportunities for malpractice, especially when combined with a ‘rather arcane’ system of electoral registration. They go into more detail but I would suggest alleviating yourself of the notion that the current system isn't being tested by those looking for unfair advantage. If you read the Election Commission's views on these incidents you might come away thinking they were small things, yet it's also become easy to see they are not entirely fair nor are they fit for purpose. Bring on the improvements. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39289195 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politician)#Channel_4_Dispatches_documentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(British_politic... [3] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-back-together https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rahman-gets-the-gang-bac... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-activist-darren-grimes-wins-appeal-against-fine-electoral-spending https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/19/pro-brexit-... [5] https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-extent-of-electoral-fraud-at-english-elections/ https://www.democraticaudit.com/2013/11/26/what-is-the-exten...

skinnymuch 5y ago
This stuff. At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs. The obvious reason to not “improve election security” is when that’s not the reason it’s being done. When it’s being done to attempt to suppress voter turn out. If the end result of as many valid votes of willing voters as possible being counted while no one fraudulently gets votes. I don’t see much difference between one candidate who loses a portion of the votes they would have gotten because of “election security” laws and provisions that were not done only to improve security. I’ve personally not heard of people bringing up ID related voter security measures who didn’t have a partisan interest in making voting harder/lowering votes of whatever party they are against. Is this different? Not specifically how you feel. I’m not questioning You. But the politicians who are pushing for this. Are they pushing for election integrity truly just for that reason? I skimmed a bit on the UK. It doesn’t appear as if the politicians are much different than most other places. But I didn’t read up a lot
- brigandish 5y ago
  > At least some of them is about proxy and postal voting. That has no relation to IDs. Firstly, that’s not true. As quoted above: > The vast majority of convictions have involved postal or proxy ballots, often in conjunction with attempts to manipulate the electoral registers by registering bogus electors or adding electors to the register at empty properties. That requires processes that are slack about identity. The requirement to prove/provide identity at certain points in the process would render these problems moot. If you wish to focus solely on in-person voting then say so, but that’s not the same as there being no relationship. Secondly, as with any conspiracy theory, you would have to: - show me how you knew their intentions without recourse to mind reading And with restpect to this particular case: - show how needing ID would reduce (legitimate) votes cast (I hope it’s not something like this[1]) - explain why increased security is a bad thing (taking into account the ease and low cost of this solution) It would be just as easy to claim that those who are against such measures wish to benefit from the fraud. That wouldn’t be possible without mind reading and I lack that ability. However, it does correlate, those against better election finance protections tend to benefit from them (Conservatives and Labour). Those against better proxy vote, postal vote and in-person voting fraud tend to benefit from it (Labour). In either case I don’t care, to improve the legitimacy of elections via simple measures like showing an ID are reasonable, cheap, and easy. What’s the downside? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk