Sheffield is one of the areas chosen this year to pilot an all postal vote election. Do you think this will increase voter participation or do you think as I do that it is open to widespread abuse.

It may have worked better in the days when we had a less fluid population but I see it as a licence for fiddling votes.

Take a house in multiple occupation where tenant turnover is rapid. Who will know whether somebody has fraudulantly returned ballot papers for people who have moved away or just don't want to vote. Never in a million years will it be detected.


If there is anything more galling than the prospect of Sheffield returning a Labour council then it's Sheffield returning a Labour Council on fiddled votes.

Bad move I believe.

Meh, it's almost a given Labour will walk it anyway at the Election cos when all's said and done, Labour are a bunch of lying, backstabbing merchant bankers (that's 1 thing t020 and I actually AGREE on), but so are all the other Politicians from other Parties.

I mean let's face it, the Tories can't run themselves with stupid in-fighting much less the whole of the UK, and do YOU want Michael Howard running the show?! I know I don't.... And the Lib Dems have almost NO policies that anyone with sense actually gives a hoot about.

Originally posted by Mo
Take a house in multiple occupation where tenant turnover is rapid. Who will know whether somebody has fraudulantly returned ballot papers for people who have moved away or just don't want to vote. Never in a million years will it be detected.

I have lived in an area where 20% or more of the houses were in multiple occupation. The current system is open to even more abuse as the polling cards just come through the letter box and are usually left on a communal table for anyone to pick up and use. At least with a postal ballot each form will need to be verified and returned to the election office.

As to fraudulent use, afaik the most recent case prosecuted was when a candidate went round residential homes harvesting the votes from the residents. (Not Sheffield, btw and not Labour).

As to whether it increases the vote or not well it did in Rotherham last year so we will just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by max
I have lived in an area where 20% or more of the houses were in multiple occupation. The current system is open to even more abuse as the polling cards just come through the letter box and are usually left on a communal table for anyone to pick up and use. At least with a postal ballot each form will need to be verified and returned to the election office.

As to fraudulent use, afaik the most recent case prosecuted was when a candidate went round residential homes harvesting the votes from the residents. (Not Sheffield, btw and not Labour).

As to whether it increases the vote or not well it did in Rotherham last year so we will just have to wait and see.

I take your point but still think that it would be harder to impersonate somebody than you think. For a start you would have to know that that person hadn't already voted. If not you would be sussed straight away by the polling clerk. Also you wouldn't be able to do it more than once in any polling station as you would be recognised and you certainly couldn't do it at your own polling station or you would forfeit your own vote :loopy:

If you were criminal enough to falsely fill in somebody elses postal vote slip then I assume wouldn't think twice about falsifying the witness slip.

As for postal votes in OAP homes then I'm sure that this could currently be abused if the resident has dementia or is not quite with it.

Originally posted by Mo
I take your point but still think that it would be harder to impersonate somebody than you think. For a start you would have to know that that person hadn't already voted. If not you would be sussed straight away by the polling clerk. Also you wouldn't be able to do it more than once in any polling station as you would be recognised and you certainly couldn't do it at your own polling station or you would forfeit your own vote :loopy:

If you were criminal enough to falsely fill in somebody elses postal vote slip then I assume wouldn't think twice about falsifying the witness slip.

As for postal votes in OAP homes then I'm sure that this could currently be abused if the resident has dementia or is not quite with it.

I agree that it would be difficult if someone was acting alone but with a team of supporters it is quite simple. Plus, in many wards in Sheffield there were only a few votes which made the difference. If someone could identify the wards were a few dozen votes would swing the result then they would only need a few helpers to ensure the result.

If the person had already voted then a simple ‘Oh, that wasn’t me, I’ll report that’ will do. Plus, I doubt the clerk will recognise every voter, they’re there for 13 hours after all.

I still say that both systems are wide open to abuse and, imo, it’s time for a change.

Not sure what you’re getting at with the OAP thing as I’ve already pointed out that abuse does happen.

This is a desperate ploy by all politicians to attempt to raise turn outs and thereby make their own positions look legitimate.

It's doomed to failure when at the very top one man decides he's going to war (several months before it's announced) and the same man decides to have a referendum on Europe and the first some cabinet ministers know is when they open the newspaper!

There's little to choose between any of the main parties. The general election allows you to select which Autocrat is going to be in charge for the next 4 - 5 years.
Local elections are even more irrelevant as once again there is little to choose between parties but also there is the fact that local government has been emasculated by Thatcher, Major and then Blair.

Postal ballots will not breathe new life into a democracy which is increasingly a sham. Politicians should be honest, transparent and properly accountable and should offer real choices on policy. This won't happen.

Democracy has become almost meaningless. If it meant anything at all, the voters wouldn't find it a burden to stroll down to their local polling station and we wouldn't be having to discuss voting by e-mail, txt, or through the post

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
Democracy has become almost meaningless. If it meant anything at all, the voters wouldn't find it a burden to stroll down to their local polling station and we wouldn't be having to discuss voting by e-mail, txt, or through the post

You owe your entire way of life to democracy - not least your freedom of expression. Sigh !

I don't think we should be particularly grateful to be allowed to express an opinion without being imprisoned, tortured or shot.
I know that these vile practices are common place throughout the world but is that the best democracy can offer?
Shouldn't it offer an opportunity to influence change and to align yourself with a power base that shares at least some of your core values?
Politicians are supposed to represent the people, what happens is that the politicians formulate and implement policies which increasingly originate from a largely undemocratic clique. The media is then used to spin how the Government is responding to the needs of the electorate.
OK, there's a minor panic every so often when they get caught out when there's sudden transparency of State manipulation (Moxon/Assylum issue).
I'd like to feel my vote could contribute to making real change so
I won't bother walking down to the polling booth. Offering numerous other ways of vote casting is a waste of taxpayers' money which is an attempt to clothe politicians with a cloak of legitimacy (for which they are becoming increasingly desperate)

Who does Bliar listen to apart from a clique of mates and his boss George W? He'll make a pretence of listening to the likes of us on the run up to an election which must be rather inconvenient for him but it's the least he has to do. Any other PM would be much the same.
Democracy is basically about debate and therefore this forum does far more to promote democracy than our political parties.

Trouble with not voting is you have absoulutely no right to moan or comment about anything on the political landscape.
You vote - then you moan :)

I prefered the online voting we had last time - much better.

I have every right to moan. I live in a democracy!!!
You are asking a lot, expecting me to select one ****er (make your own choice of noun) from three or more.
It's a long time since I voted FOR anyone, athough I have voted against specific parties/candidates quite often. I understand that there may be some anti-war candidates standing in the coming elections which may allow me to gesticulate to the main parties by giving them my vote.

What's wrong with postal and on-line voting? All-postal ballots will see significantly improved turnouts I feel, while I cannot see any reason why, in this electronic age, on-line voting cannot also be used.

Obviously, there need to be safeguards against abuse, just as such safeguards are necessary in current voting systems. That is no reason to take a flat-earth opposition to any change in our voting system, which has remained substantially unchanged since the 1872 Ballot Act.

Originally posted by Lickszz
What's wrong with postal and on-line voting? All-postal ballots will see significantly improved turnouts I feel, while I cannot see any reason why, in this electronic age, on-line voting cannot also be used.

Obviously, there need to be safeguards against abuse, just as such safeguards are necessary in current voting systems. That is no reason to take a flat-earth opposition to any change in our voting system, which has remained substantially unchanged since the 1872 Ballot Act.

Nothing wrong at all Lickszz. AFAIC anything that gets more people to vote can only be a good thing but I still think that it has the potential to be abused. Also when you think about the state of the PO delivery service today your vote may never reach it's destination and how would you know? There is something very reassuring about pushing that folded piece of paper through the little slit in that black tin box. ;)

Just had another thought. the ballot papers are to go out around May 25th and will obviously come back in dribs and drabs. Where are they kept until the count and who looks after them? I can remember the days when a police officer would escort each black box to the count.

Hi Mo. Please forgive my editing your post.

Originally posted by Mo
Nothing wrong at all Lickszz. AFAIC anything that gets more people to vote can only be a good thing

Overall I would agree.


Originally posted by Mo
but I still think that it has the potential to be abused. Also when you think about the state of the PO delivery service today your vote may never reach it's destination and how would you know?

Noted. I suppose you could never be sure that your vote had reached its destination. Is the postal service really that bad? I know I've had numerous bad experiences but I reckon quite a few instances are people lying saying something was 'lost in the post' as opposed to sending and not been received.

Postal voting has actually existed for many years without a noticeable problem; it has been available to people who couldn't get to the polling booth e.g. because of disability. It has also been successfully used in the past couple of years, in postal-only ballots, which have raised turnout considerably in the areas they have been used.

Originally posted by Mo
There is something very reassuring about pushing that folded piece of paper through the little slit in that black tin box. ;)

I would also add that traditional methods of voting, using polling booths and paper ballots, are by no means immune from irregularities and controversy, as a certain election in Florida back in 2000 illustrates.

Regarding online voting there are issues with this, and it is for these reasons that it has not yet been introduced, to my knowledge, in any democratic country. However, once these issues are resolved (and there's no reason they couldn't be) I see no reason in principle to reject on-line voting.


Finally, In addition to all this, there is the possibility of phone voting. This is already widely used by TV. We can vote by phone for the Big Brother winner, Pop Idol etc, why not for serious elections? :o ;)

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
I have every right to moan. I live in a democracy!!!
You are asking a lot, expecting me to select one ****er (make your own choice of noun) from three or more.
It's a long time since I voted FOR anyone, athough I have voted against specific parties/candidates quite often. I understand that there may be some anti-war candidates standing in the coming elections which may allow me to gesticulate to the main parties by giving them my vote.

I don't agree with you on you having a right to moan about something you've refused to contribute to.
I agree the lack of choice makes it difficult to register an anti-all vote, but that's why I think voting shoud be compulsory. Make it law you HAVE to vote, and then include a null vote option. Think about it - 45% turn out on a vote or 55% voting for no one. Which sends out a stronger message?

What about if we have a system of compulsory voting but you have an option to vote for no-one? A sort of opt out option. That way, if more than 50% of people opt out they don't get an elected representative? It would cut down on the cost of local and national government.

Originally posted by max
What about if we have a system of compulsory voting but you have an option to vote for no-one? A sort of opt out option. That way, if more than 50% of people opt out they don't get an elected representative? It would cut down on the cost of local and national government.

There's an echo in here ;)

Originally posted by rinty
There's an echo in here

I'm guessing you mean this:

Originally posted by rinty
I don't agree with you on you having a right to moan about something you've refused to contribute to.
I agree the lack of choice makes it difficult to register an anti-all vote, but that's why I think voting shoud be compulsory. Make it law you HAVE to vote, and then include a null vote option. Think about it - 45% turn out on a vote or 55% voting for no one. Which sends out a stronger message?

Sorry, I didn't realise that you meant that if there was a majority of null votes then no-one would be elected which is what I was suggesting.:blush: :blush:

Guess you'll just have to be more explicit in future.

I was reading tonights letters section in the star and noticed that there was a letter about the postal voting system for this year, I am of a mixied opinion at the moment, and am just glad that the school wont be closed for the day meaning i wont have to take a day off work. I can see the up and downside to postal voting. If the rest of sheffield is like me and leaves mail sitting on the side for three weeks before posting there will be a very poor vote this year.. what does every one else think?

i'm expecting the 'turn out' to be higher with postal voting than through poll stations.

what's the use... they are all the same...

I think it's utterly disgraceful. Postal voting as an *option* is fair enough - it will encourage those with disabilities or the bone idle to use their vote. But being compulsory is wrong. I have no qualms about going to my local polling station and should be allowed to do so if I choose. I don't trust the postal service since they lose so many letters, and it is also a lot less secure way to carry out the proceedings.

Originally posted by t020
. I don't trust the postal service since they lose so many letters, and it is also a lot less secure way to carry out the proceedings.

Totally agree. With postal votes being returned to the town hall in dribs and drabs for nearly 2 weeks all manner of 'things' could go on. Where will they be stored?Who will have access to them?How will we know if our postal vote ever reached it's destination?

Votes will be counted in two or three sessions during the week of June 3rd. Then the big count up will be Fri 11th June. Thats an awful lot of opportunities for votes to go astray etc etc.

I willing to give it a try, let's not knock it until we've proved it doesn,t work.

If you are too lazy or apethetic to go to your polling station then to be honest your opinion on who should govern us is probably worthless anyway.

mod: merged threads

A major problem with postal (and online) voting is intimidation.

In the polling station system once a person is behind the curtain nobody else has control over what mark is made. There is some room for another person to check the vote after the voter has left the curtain and before they have posted it in the box but this would be obvious to the clerk.

However given postal voting one dominant person can easily control the votes of others (within a family for instance). This factor could be significant where voting is 100% postal.

g

I think postal voting is OK. Its something everyone can do! Everyones got a postbox near by and no-one can use the excuse that theyre at work and cannot get to a voting station. I think its cool and ill be using it. Its a good idea to me. Now all ive got to do is overcome the decision of who the hell to vote for!

Originally posted by kittikatII
Everyones got a postbox near by and no-one can use the excuse that theyre at work and cannot get to a voting station.

lol, I was in a block of flats explaining the benefits of postal voting to the occupants. I couldn't use this as a benefit as they used to cast their votes in the community rooms on the ground floor but this year would have to walk 400m to their nearest post box.:loopy:

We'd definately need bigger post boxes as with only one collection a day, well just imagine it!

I vote and encourage my children to vote as well but I know many youngsters are just not interested. Compared to some other young nationals our younger voting generation are simply not 'up' on politics. Voting via the internet may change that but I think they should allow postal or personal voting an option too.

Thank goodness that there will not be another all postal election.

After reading the report I couldn't help but note that Sheffield managed to increase it's costs of running the election from £450,000 (for a normal election) to £710,572 for an all postal one.

Seems like a huge failure all round.

You have to ask WHY they brought in postal voting in Sheffield - I don't believe it was to 'fiddle' the outome in some vote rigging way but changes like this are only made because someone believes they have something to gain...

I have to say that I think postal voting was indeed brought in to help the governing party.

I intenely dislike the idea of universal postal voting - that voting paper and witness slip was a bloody pain in the bum. It's obvious it's going to be exploited in some places - just as the next big idea, Electronic Voting, would be.

However, I doubt that the process was introduced just to help Labour.

The issue is why people don't want to vote - and it's because we have no real acceptable alternatives most of the time. Head banging extremists in one corner, of any political colour you choose and Labour, Lib Dems and Tories who are churning out the same crap year after year.

I spent 10 years involved in local politics in the 1980s / 1990s and it was quite soul destroying.

I would actually move towards compulsory voting - BUT with an extra entry on the ballot paper that says 'None of the Above'. If the 'None of the Above' 'candidate' wins then it shoudl be treated as an alarm call to the local or national politicians, and if the 'None of the Above' 'candidate' got over 50% of the vote then the election would be re-run.

Joe

Originally posted by evildrneil
You have to ask WHY they brought in postal voting in Sheffield - I don't believe it was to 'fiddle' the outome in some vote rigging way but changes like this are only made because someone believes they have something to gain...

I do not think that the government brought it in to arrange a poll rigging exercise, but rather to genuinely try to increase voter turn-out. They are so blinkered though that they just cannot see the reasons why people don't turn out to vote....because the electorate are bloody fed up of the lot of them and see very little to choose from between them.

What I did say was that I believe that as a method of voting it is open to much greater abuse than the conventional system and this has been proved so with the recent enquiry.