For myself I am increasingly convinced as I have been saying for some time now that postal voting was introduced deliberately to muddy the electoral waters and to aid the Labour Party. Remember The Times reporting that Richard Mawrey, QC, had said that postal voting on demand was “lethal to the democratic process” and that the current system made “wholesale electoral fraud both easy and profitable” and accused politicians of failing to act after past scandals. He urged sweeping reforms to electoral law dealing with corruption."
Remember Newsnight's expose of Labour electoral fraud in Birmingham from October 2007, here are just some key phrases from the report - "Banana Republic", "told lies", "bribe their way into power", "city wide election fraud", "thousands of £s bribing voters", "£20 per postal vote", Asian drug addicts paid to impersonate voters in multiple polling stations - 25 times at £5 a go, "corrupt and illegal practices". So that's the same man found guilty in 2004 (although cleared on a procedural appeal) and up before the electoral court again in 2007.
Remember Alan Duncan's warning that "The greatest problem with all-postal ballots lies in the loss of confidence caused by the massive scope that exists for electoral malpractice. Under the traditional system, there was perhaps a minor chance that someone would be able to impersonate someone else, and exercise another person’s right to vote. Under all-postal voting, there is massive scope for fraud and undue influence. It is, at every turn, open to fiddles. So much can go amiss between the ballot paper being sent out by the returning officer and it coming back to him. Votes can be gathered up when lying on the doorstep or in flats."
As I wrote in March:
"Some of the Labour Party's supporters will fight very very dirty at the General Election, should Gordon Brown dare to allow us one and electoral fraud will be a live issue."
You might also want to keep an eye on Opt2Vote and their role in the upcoming General Election.
No comments:
Post a Comment