The kids will not get a day off school

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:09 +0100, "M.Pitt" <[email protected]> wrote:

| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
|
| > The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
| > the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
| > in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
| > early, vote often".
|
| I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm that
| another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself must be
| traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes, and indeed
| who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.

If one follows the instructions given, the person verifying your identity
will not know how you vote.

| I know that this is already possible with a polling booth system, but that
| system is paper based and would require too many resources to be a usefull
| tool. Given that all votes are postal, I suspect that computers will figure
| in the validation procedure and perhaps even the count. This means the
| information can be analyzed v.v fast. Hence it becomes a powerful and
| useable tool.

They may run the names and addresses of the identity verifiers against the
electoral roll, but not a lot else. There are probably some rules on
what they can do but I have not found them ATM.
|
| Paranoid, not I, well not much!
|
| > Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
| > voting.
|
| Lets get some Politicians worth a vote.

Stand yourself then ;-)

Dave F

 

[King Queen]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Our postal votes for Calderdale Council and European parliament plopped
>through the letter box today, and Clare's comment was "The kids will not
>get a day off school" because her infants school was always used as a
>polling station.
>
>The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
>the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
>in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
>early, vote often".
>
>Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
>voting.

There's a suggestion that it is a fairly transparent form of vote
rigging.

Postal votes seem to get a better turn out than "traditional" votes,
and the Labour government have put in postal votes in the traditional
Labour-supporting north of the country, and left traditional polling
stations in the south.

Wouldn't surprise me if this is intentional
--
King Queen - Remove .lartsspammers to reply. http://www.kingqueen.org.uk
"Advertising is the rattling of a stick in a swill bucket" George Orwell

 

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:55:12 +0100, King Queen
<[email protected]> wrote:

| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >Our postal votes for Calderdale Council and European parliament plopped
| >through the letter box today, and Clare's comment was "The kids will not
| >get a day off school" because her infants school was always used as a
| >polling station.
| >
| >The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
| >the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
| >in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
| >early, vote often".
| >
| >Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
| >voting.
|
| There's a suggestion that it is a fairly transparent form of vote
| rigging.
|
| Postal votes seem to get a better turn out than "traditional" votes,
| and the Labour government have put in postal votes in the traditional
| Labour-supporting north of the country, and left traditional polling
| stations in the south.
|
| Wouldn't surprise me if this is intentional

On the other hand, the Polling Station system could be said to rig the vote
in the Conservative's direction, because they are better at getting voters
to a polling station.

Not sure about Lib Dems

Dave F

 

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:09 +0100, "M.Pitt" <[email protected]> wrote:

| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
|
| > The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
| > the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
| > in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
| > early, vote often".
|
| I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm that
| another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself must be
| traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes, and indeed
| who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.

If one follows the instructions given, the person verifying your identity
will not know how you vote.

| I know that this is already possible with a polling booth system, but that
| system is paper based and would require too many resources to be a usefull
| tool. Given that all votes are postal, I suspect that computers will figure
| in the validation procedure and perhaps even the count. This means the
| information can be analyzed v.v fast. Hence it becomes a powerful and
| useable tool.

They may run the names and addresses of the identity verifiers against the
electoral roll, but not a lot else. There are probably some rules on
what they can do but I have not found them ATM.
|
| Paranoid, not I, well not much!
|
| > Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
| > voting.
|
| Lets get some Politicians worth a vote.

Stand yourself then ;-)

Dave F

 

[King Queen]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Our postal votes for Calderdale Council and European parliament plopped
>through the letter box today, and Clare's comment was "The kids will not
>get a day off school" because her infants school was always used as a
>polling station.
>
>The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
>the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
>in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
>early, vote often".
>
>Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
>voting.

There's a suggestion that it is a fairly transparent form of vote
rigging.

Postal votes seem to get a better turn out than "traditional" votes,
and the Labour government have put in postal votes in the traditional
Labour-supporting north of the country, and left traditional polling
stations in the south.

Wouldn't surprise me if this is intentional
--
King Queen - Remove .lartsspammers to reply. http://www.kingqueen.org.uk
"Advertising is the rattling of a stick in a swill bucket" George Orwell

 

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:55:12 +0100, King Queen
<[email protected]> wrote:

| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >Our postal votes for Calderdale Council and European parliament plopped
| >through the letter box today, and Clare's comment was "The kids will not
| >get a day off school" because her infants school was always used as a
| >polling station.
| >
| >The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
| >the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
| >in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
| >early, vote often".
| >
| >Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
| >voting.
|
| There's a suggestion that it is a fairly transparent form of vote
| rigging.
|
| Postal votes seem to get a better turn out than "traditional" votes,
| and the Labour government have put in postal votes in the traditional
| Labour-supporting north of the country, and left traditional polling
| stations in the south.
|
| Wouldn't surprise me if this is intentional

On the other hand, the Polling Station system could be said to rig the vote
in the Conservative's direction, because they are better at getting voters
to a polling station.

Not sure about Lib Dems

Dave F

 

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:09 +0100, "M.Pitt" <[email protected]> wrote:

| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
|
| > The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
| > the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
| > in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
| > early, vote often".
|
| I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm that
| another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself must be
| traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes, and indeed
| who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.

If one follows the instructions given, the person verifying your identity
will not know how you vote.

| I know that this is already possible with a polling booth system, but that
| system is paper based and would require too many resources to be a usefull
| tool. Given that all votes are postal, I suspect that computers will figure
| in the validation procedure and perhaps even the count. This means the
| information can be analyzed v.v fast. Hence it becomes a powerful and
| useable tool.

They may run the names and addresses of the identity verifiers against the
electoral roll, but not a lot else. There are probably some rules on
what they can do but I have not found them ATM.
|
| Paranoid, not I, well not much!
|
| > Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
| > voting.
|
| Lets get some Politicians worth a vote.

Stand yourself then ;-)

Dave F

 

[King Queen]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Our postal votes for Calderdale Council and European parliament plopped
>through the letter box today, and Clare's comment was "The kids will not
>get a day off school" because her infants school was always used as a
>polling station.
>
>The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
>the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
>in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
>early, vote often".
>
>Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
>voting.

There's a suggestion that it is a fairly transparent form of vote
rigging.

Postal votes seem to get a better turn out than "traditional" votes,
and the Labour government have put in postal votes in the traditional
Labour-supporting north of the country, and left traditional polling
stations in the south.

Wouldn't surprise me if this is intentional
--
King Queen - Remove .lartsspammers to reply. http://www.kingqueen.org.uk
"Advertising is the rattling of a stick in a swill bucket" George Orwell

 

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:55:12 +0100, King Queen
<[email protected]> wrote:

| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| >Our postal votes for Calderdale Council and European parliament plopped
| >through the letter box today, and Clare's comment was "The kids will not
| >get a day off school" because her infants school was always used as a
| >polling station.
| >
| >The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
| >the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
| >in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
| >early, vote often".
| >
| >Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
| >voting.
|
| There's a suggestion that it is a fairly transparent form of vote
| rigging.
|
| Postal votes seem to get a better turn out than "traditional" votes,
| and the Labour government have put in postal votes in the traditional
| Labour-supporting north of the country, and left traditional polling
| stations in the south.
|
| Wouldn't surprise me if this is intentional

On the other hand, the Polling Station system could be said to rig the vote
in the Conservative's direction, because they are better at getting voters
to a polling station.

Not sure about Lib Dems

Dave F

 

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:09 +0100, "M.Pitt" <[email protected]> wrote:

| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
|
| > The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
| > the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
| > in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
| > early, vote often".
|
| I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm that
| another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself must be
| traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes, and indeed
| who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.

If one follows the instructions given, the person verifying your identity
will not know how you vote.

| I know that this is already possible with a polling booth system, but that
| system is paper based and would require too many resources to be a usefull
| tool. Given that all votes are postal, I suspect that computers will figure
| in the validation procedure and perhaps even the count. This means the
| information can be analyzed v.v fast. Hence it becomes a powerful and
| useable tool.

They may run the names and addresses of the identity verifiers against the
electoral roll, but not a lot else. There are probably some rules on
what they can do but I have not found them ATM.
|
| Paranoid, not I, well not much!
|
| > Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
| > voting.
|
| Lets get some Politicians worth a vote.

Stand yourself then ;-)

Dave F

 

[Mike Swift]

In article <[email protected]>, M.Pitt
<[email protected]> writes
>I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm
>that another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself
>must be traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes,
>and indeed who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.

Indeed, and are they really going to check every ballot paper to see if
the signature is genuine, are they b*ll*cks, and what about a household
with a dominant head, give me your ballot papers or else, two, three or
more votes for their preferred party.

The whole thing is ill thought out, rushed and and IMHO anti democratic.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
'46 M Y++ L+ U KQ+ c B+ P99S P00S p+ Sh++ S(BAR) R(HD5)

 

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:15:06 +0100, Mike Swift <[email protected]>
wrote:

| In article <[email protected]>, M.Pitt
| <[email protected]> writes
| >I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm
| >that another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself
| >must be traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes,
| >and indeed who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.
|
| Indeed, and are they really going to check every ballot paper to see if
| the signature is genuine, are they b*ll*cks, and what about a household
| with a dominant head, give me your ballot papers or else, two, three or
| more votes for their preferred party.

You have less faith in people than I have.

No it is a *trial*. They have already run a small pilot when, if I were
running it I would check 1000-2000 random papers. This time they will
probably check 10,000 to find the error rate.

The real problem is is it less than the Polling Booth error rate.

All polliing systems have problems.

Dave F

 

[M.Pitt]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:15:06 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:09 +0100, "M.Pitt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
>|
>|
>|> The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
>|> the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
>|> in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
>|> early, vote often".
>|
>| I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm that
>| another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself must be
>| traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes, and indeed
>| who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.
>
> If one follows the instructions given, the person verifying your identity
> will not know how you vote.

Had a little root around, I see how the vote and ID verifyer are seperated
before posting, but the vote paper and the verifyer must have a common id
number or mark, otherwise the one would not verify the other.

Given this fact then

>| I know that this is already possible with a polling booth system, but that
>| system is paper based and would require too many resources to be a usefull
>| tool. Given that all votes are postal, I suspect that computers will figure
>| in the validation procedure and perhaps even the count. This means the
>| information can be analyzed v.v fast. Hence it becomes a powerful and
>| useable tool.
>
> They may run the names and addresses of the identity verifiers against the
> electoral roll, but not a lot else. There are probably some rules on
> what they can do but I have not found them ATM.
>|
>| Paranoid, not I, well not much!
>|
>|> Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
>|> voting.
>|
>| Lets get some Politicians worth a vote.
>
> Stand yourself then ;-)

As I said, lets get some politicians worth a vote.
..

 

[Mike Swift]

In article <[email protected]>, M.Pitt
<[email protected]> writes
>I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm
>that another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself
>must be traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes,
>and indeed who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.

Indeed, and are they really going to check every ballot paper to see if
the signature is genuine, are they b*ll*cks, and what about a household
with a dominant head, give me your ballot papers or else, two, three or
more votes for their preferred party.

The whole thing is ill thought out, rushed and and IMHO anti democratic.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
'46 M Y++ L+ U KQ+ c B+ P99S P00S p+ Sh++ S(BAR) R(HD5)

 

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:15:06 +0100, Mike Swift <[email protected]>
wrote:

| In article <[email protected]>, M.Pitt
| <[email protected]> writes
| >I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm
| >that another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself
| >must be traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes,
| >and indeed who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.
|
| Indeed, and are they really going to check every ballot paper to see if
| the signature is genuine, are they b*ll*cks, and what about a household
| with a dominant head, give me your ballot papers or else, two, three or
| more votes for their preferred party.

You have less faith in people than I have.

No it is a *trial*. They have already run a small pilot when, if I were
running it I would check 1000-2000 random papers. This time they will
probably check 10,000 to find the error rate.

The real problem is is it less than the Polling Booth error rate.

All polliing systems have problems.

Dave F

 

[M.Pitt]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:15:06 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:09 +0100, "M.Pitt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
>|
>|
>|> The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
>|> the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
>|> in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
>|> early, vote often".
>|
>| I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm that
>| another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself must be
>| traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes, and indeed
>| who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.
>
> If one follows the instructions given, the person verifying your identity
> will not know how you vote.

Had a little root around, I see how the vote and ID verifyer are seperated
before posting, but the vote paper and the verifyer must have a common id
number or mark, otherwise the one would not verify the other.

Given this fact then

>| I know that this is already possible with a polling booth system, but that
>| system is paper based and would require too many resources to be a usefull
>| tool. Given that all votes are postal, I suspect that computers will figure
>| in the validation procedure and perhaps even the count. This means the
>| information can be analyzed v.v fast. Hence it becomes a powerful and
>| useable tool.
>
> They may run the names and addresses of the identity verifiers against the
> electoral roll, but not a lot else. There are probably some rules on
> what they can do but I have not found them ATM.
>|
>| Paranoid, not I, well not much!
>|
>|> Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
>|> voting.
>|
>| Lets get some Politicians worth a vote.
>
> Stand yourself then ;-)

As I said, lets get some politicians worth a vote.
..

 

[Mike Swift]

In article <[email protected]>, M.Pitt
<[email protected]> writes
>I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm
>that another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself
>must be traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes,
>and indeed who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.

Indeed, and are they really going to check every ballot paper to see if
the signature is genuine, are they b*ll*cks, and what about a household
with a dominant head, give me your ballot papers or else, two, three or
more votes for their preferred party.

The whole thing is ill thought out, rushed and and IMHO anti democratic.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
'46 M Y++ L+ U KQ+ c B+ P99S P00S p+ Sh++ S(BAR) R(HD5)

 

[Dave Fawthrop]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:15:06 +0100, Mike Swift <[email protected]>
wrote:

| In article <[email protected]>, M.Pitt
| <[email protected]> writes
| >I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm
| >that another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself
| >must be traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes,
| >and indeed who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.
|
| Indeed, and are they really going to check every ballot paper to see if
| the signature is genuine, are they b*ll*cks, and what about a household
| with a dominant head, give me your ballot papers or else, two, three or
| more votes for their preferred party.

You have less faith in people than I have.

No it is a *trial*. They have already run a small pilot when, if I were
running it I would check 1000-2000 random papers. This time they will
probably check 10,000 to find the error rate.

The real problem is is it less than the Polling Booth error rate.

All polliing systems have problems.

Dave F

 

[M.Pitt]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 15:15:06 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2004 14:45:09 +0100, "M.Pitt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>| On Thu, 27 May 2004 12:35:05 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote:
>|
>|
>|> The system is dead easy, just get any other voter to sign that you are who
>|> the vote was addressed to. IMO just as secure as Polling Stations which
>|> in Northern Ireland result in lots of Personation, and the saying, "Vote
>|> early, vote often".
>|
>| I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm that
>| another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself must be
>| traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes, and indeed
>| who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.
>
> If one follows the instructions given, the person verifying your identity
> will not know how you vote.

Had a little root around, I see how the vote and ID verifyer are seperated
before posting, but the vote paper and the verifyer must have a common id
number or mark, otherwise the one would not verify the other.

Given this fact then

>| I know that this is already possible with a polling booth system, but that
>| system is paper based and would require too many resources to be a usefull
>| tool. Given that all votes are postal, I suspect that computers will figure
>| in the validation procedure and perhaps even the count. This means the
>| information can be analyzed v.v fast. Hence it becomes a powerful and
>| useable tool.
>
> They may run the names and addresses of the identity verifiers against the
> electoral roll, but not a lot else. There are probably some rules on
> what they can do but I have not found them ATM.
>|
>| Paranoid, not I, well not much!
>|
>|> Let us hope that the experimental postal voting increases the numbers
>|> voting.
>|
>| Lets get some Politicians worth a vote.
>
> Stand yourself then ;-)

As I said, lets get some politicians worth a vote.
..

 

[Mike Swift]

In article <[email protected]>, M.Pitt
<[email protected]> writes
>I could be missing the point here but WTH, if a voter has to confirm
>that another voter is who they are supposed to be, then the vote itself
>must be traceable? If so then the powers that be can track who votes,
>and indeed who they voted for. Hardly a secret ballot.

Indeed, and are they really going to check every ballot paper to see if
the signature is genuine, are they b*ll*cks, and what about a household
with a dominant head, give me your ballot papers or else, two, three or
more votes for their preferred party.

The whole thing is ill thought out, rushed and and IMHO anti democratic.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
'46 M Y++ L+ U KQ+ c B+ P99S P00S p+ Sh++ S(BAR) R(HD5)