Re~Stirred Forum

On the face of it we have CCTV everywhere so why not polling stations? We have a real issue with personation and this would at least allow prosecution after the fact.

CCTV in polling booths would be something worth getting wound up about!

It is only about trying to make sure that the right people ask for their own ballot papers rather than people wandering around a number of pollling stations casting a vote in each.

So where the evidence that this is happening then John?

The whole point is that it is difficult to find the evidence because of the way things happen. Listen to my speech.

So this could be completely imaginary then?

Did not the Kremlin install web cams at all Russian polling stations in their last elections?

If the problem is with people impersonating other voters and stealing votes, then isn't the simplest, cheapest and most effective solution to require voters to present photo ID and proof of address before they are issued with a ballot paper? Anyone who does not hold a passport/ driving license/ public sector work ID [Eg nhs/ police/ council/ military etc] or a oap bus pass could be issued with special photo ID for elections but this would probably be very few people.

Agree, I am flabbergasted that they do not ask for proof of ID...its absurd.

In terms of evidence we have found a few examples this year where we know that the voters did not cast their own votes. However, we cannot find who cast their votes.

If there is a polling station where the evidence shows that crimes have occurred I would see the introductions of extra safeguards as being a protection of democracy rather than an infringement of liberty.

The potential for voters to feel that our voting system is unfair due to being open to fraud must be dealt with in a reasonable and proportionate way.

Any politician that puts forward ideas to enhance the integrity of our voting system gets my support. You have a chequered history in Birmingham of voting irregularity.

I am not sure about CCTV as you have also a recent history of trying to spy on certain parts of the community e.g. Project Champion in Birmingham.

Maybe low tech solutions such as using a dye on the index finger after one has voted, this would only need to be visible under ultra violet to avoid having to wander around with a coloured finger thus alowing others outside the polling station to see that you have voted and clashing with ones clothes when having an evening meal out at a restaurant on election day.

In the polling station you would put your digit under the light so that polling staff could see if you have voted.

Or we can all register our index finger, finger print at our local police station and verify our identity. At the polling station finger print scanning equipment could be used and linked to the police data base to confirm identity. Thus you could only vote once and no one could pretend to be you, unless they chopped your finger off and turned up at the polling station with it.

Yes impersonation is an issue, but I have more concerns with postal ballots. I read recently in places the number voting this way was 20%. Alas each political party can quietly find reasons not to ensure action is taken.

Hmmm... if only we had some way of identifying people.
Perhaps we could all carry a card with a photo, name and address on it, but what would you call such a thing. Or maybe store some biometric information in a large database.

Here’s my favourite biometric device

http://www.AnuScan.com/

You could fit one in each voting booth.

Albeit belatedly, a couple of years ago, at the back end of the Brown government, all the local parties in Birmingham made representations to government to restrict postal votes.

Ordinary innocent people have nothing to fear.
The cctv could also catch paedovoter's and extreme terrorpaedo's attempting to disrupt democracy .

Actually voting fraud is a big problem and some thing really does need to be done to stop it and it's a good thing that this is opened up for debate.

Arthur.

Or indeed voters receive inappropriate assistance, bribes, harassment to vote in certain ways as has been reported to me and the candidates I have assisted many times in inner city wards...

Although this wouldn't stop someone stealing someone else's vote, it would be extremely effective in stopping the same person voting multiple times [making stealing votes pointless, unless you don't have one yourself]. This is a cheap, practical and effective solution.

I don't understand how CCTV cameras would help. It would only be any use in helping convict those involved after the event - but how often would you know that a vote had been stolen? Plenty of people would get away with it, simply by voting on behalf of people they knew weren't going to turn up to vote themselves later.

Prevention is far better than detection after the fact...

A real, legal expert on elections wrote in May 2012:

Link:http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/05/individual-electoral-registration-is-not-the-answer-to-electoral-fraud/

I did mention this sort of issue in my speech yesterday.

Not THE answer, certainly, but a partial answer. After all, if you're registering 12 people in a one-bed flat, it becomes a bit more difficult when you need to create an individual legend for each of them.

Does anyone have a guesstimate as to which political party benefits most from fraudulent voting, or is it equally distributed through all political parties?

My recollection from Northern Ireland, before the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, was that all the main parties indulged, especially in the rural seats where majorities could be wafer thin.

When the 'banana republic' judgement was made in B'ham, now a few years ago, I do recall a discussion with observers of the scene that everything depended on having an organisation and a strong element of blindness amongst the community. A few years later it was clear that one or two Post Office Sorting Office managers were "hot" on the issue, whilst others in the same constituency adopted a "Nelson" approach.

Plus it took time for the local police to acknowledge the importance of a democratic vote and deploy a mix of local officers and others with cultural & language skills to deter improper activity around polling stations.

Having a police officer wandering around does not deter personation. It cannot without someone actually raising an allegation.

The issue with NI AIUI is that it changed from personating your own voters (the informal proxy) to personating anyone and that stirred people into wanting change.

My own view is that personation is wrong.

CCTVs in polling stations is a ridiculous proposal. The cost and infrastructure implications make it a complete non-starter.
Many polling stations are church halls, community centres etc and would currently have no IT networks to hook on to. The school halls would be slightly easier, but even then there it would seem unlikely that there network ports in the dining hall.
Connecting them via 3G is poor quality, slow, dependant on a strong signal and the bandwidth required for streaming video is too much.

Taking still photos would be an option, but people would refuse. I would. The cost of cameras and the cost of comparing photos of everyone that votes at very polling station with everyone else that has voted at every other polling station would be horrendous. People who want to prevent themselves being recognised would have to go to very little trouble to hide their faces.
Would people (not necessarily women) in Burqas be asked to remove them?
The end result would be just as much personation, but fewer people voting.

All in all, John Hemming has come up with a stupid idea that is never going to happen, but he has managed to get his name in the press.

The man is doing a good job in addressing what is a serious issue and threat to our democracy, it is good to explore and potentially eliminate or expand on all suggestions of how to combat and deal with the problem.

Lovely.

Discouraging people from voting and leaving open the option to cheat the system IS a threat to our democracy.

So now we've ruled out this stupid idea we can move on to ideas that might actually be feasible.

John Hemming is using a bit of shrewd and slightly mucky political tactics Margaret. He knows he is likely to face a difficult election in 2015 or whenever. Not only are the LDs unpopular, the deal they've done with the Tories over constituencies has seen his seat reorganised against him. So he's reduced to throwing mud at Labour, taking actions which keep the issue of electoral fraud in the air. Which is what this absurd proposal is really about. Stupid on the surface, it's clever tactics underneath. Wait around and he'll find another initiative like this.

This is not an issue I have just raised. I drafted, for example, the Aston election petition in 2004.

I have a copy of the judgment which includes para 707: