|
Post by fretslider on May 9, 2010 13:11:38 GMT
What? You didn't know?
Oh yes, we had official election monitors alright, from.... the developing world.
Its no surprise to me to learn that the election monitors have warned that the British voting system is less secure than their own and possibly the most vulnerable to corruption in the world. Observers from Kenya and war-torn Sierra Leone, who spent the past week in Britain, said the integrity of the general election was at risk because it was based on trust rather than proper identity checks.
They questioned the legitimacy of the result after thousands of voters were turned away from crowded polling stations. The observers were also shocked by allegations that the electoral roll was being filled out with “ghost” voters. Ababu Namwamba, an MP in Kenya, said: “The allegations of fraud and of voters being turned away threaten the integrity of the vote, especially in marginal constituencies where candidates have a majority of less than 1,000.
Marie Marilyn Jalloh, an MP from Sierra Leone, said: “There has to be doubt over the legitimacy of the result. Where people have been disenfranchised or cases of fraud are found there should be another vote. In my country this would be very controversial. “Your system is a recipe for corruption; it was a massive shock when I saw you didn’t need any identification to vote. In Sierra Leone you need an identity card and also to give your fingerprint. Here you need nothing. In this respect, our own system is more secure than yours.”
Lisa Hanna, an MP from Jamaica who won Miss World in 1993, said: “I was shocked by the lack of checks.” Namwamba, Jalloh and Hanna are part of an 11-strong observation team from Commonwealth countries including Bangladesh, Malaysia and Nigeria.
How absolutely embarassing is this? A voting system that is put in the shade by the third world. It's believable simply because it's unbelievable. Postal voting fraud and ghost registrations are rife, and my guess is a lot of these fraudulent votes go Labour's way. Why else would they open it up to easy voting fraud?
Now that we've had our say; nobody really knows what it was that we said or how legitimately we said it, either.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on May 9, 2010 13:20:40 GMT
DSo what the heck happens from here? Who is in charge? I've tried to follow it......and while the US system can be confusing.......this one is completely crazy!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 9, 2010 13:35:07 GMT
DSo what the heck happens from here? Who is in charge? I've tried to follow it......and while the US system can be confusing.......this one is completely crazy! Well they tend to make it up as they go along. By convention if no party has an overall majority, Gordon Brown will remain in power unless or until he chooses to resign. The constitutional convention is for the prime minister to resign if he or she can no longer command the confidence of the House of Commons. Labour is not the biggest party after the general election so Brown will be under moral pressure to resign. We're not much the wiser ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 9, 2010 13:48:28 GMT
It seems that most sensible people are now in favour of PR at UK General Elections.
The exclusion of small parties in our system is horrific.
In Scotland, the Lib Dems got 19% of the popular vote, and they got 11 seats. The SNP got 20% and got 6 seats. Fair???
However, we have to accept that once we do have PR these kind of coalition deals will become the norm (just as they are after Scottish General Elections.)
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 9, 2010 17:33:27 GMT
if we had pr we could and should put in safe guards...along the german lines...where anyone or party with less than 5% of the vote is automaticly not in the running
"""Mr Brown flew back to London from his constituency in Scotland, indicating that he had not given hope of carrying on in government. In a defiant email to Labour Party workers thanking them for their efforts in the campaign, Mr Brown said he was determined to fight on to secure his policies for economic recovery. "My resolve has not, and will not, change. I pledged to do everything in my power to fight for the people of this country - to secure the recovery, to protect their livelihoods and to continue to fight for a future fair for all," he said."""
so he is determined to fight on..err he hasnt got a majority of mp,s and the cons have...and he hasnt a majority of votes inspite of altering the boundries of the constituencies yet again some of us said it would be hard to dislodge this odious creature...its becomming clear its going to be difficult..but of course not impossible
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 9, 2010 17:34:16 GMT
DSo what the heck happens from here? Who is in charge? I've tried to follow it......and while the US system can be confusing.......this one is completely crazy! labour is in charge for the time being untill the queen sends for weither or cameron to form a new government
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 9, 2010 17:35:59 GMT
DSo what the heck happens from here? Who is in charge? I've tried to follow it......and while the US system can be confusing.......this one is completely crazy! Well they tend to make it up as they go along. By convention if no party has an overall majority, Gordon Brown will remain in power unless or until he chooses to resign. cameron has a majority over brown ..but not a majority overall the other parties combined
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 9, 2010 17:41:27 GMT
far from being embarrasing i think our system shows how once TRUST played a great part in our electoral system...how ever i think we have to wake up to the fact that we can no longer act on TRUST...those days are long gone and will never ever return...sadly... funny..the issue of trust wasnt raised during the eu elections....but then people were not turned away and there were enough ballot papers...didnt seem to be an issue with fraud..false adresses and false identities etc
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on May 9, 2010 18:38:07 GMT
Those observers who commented adversely on the lack of security in our voting system are absolutely right. The massive extension to the postal voting system (introduced by New labour for their own supposed benefit) is a national scandal. Want a postal vote? Simply apply (by post); get a form, fill it in, and away you go.
It IS possible to carry out some checks, but that would involve every application being vetted, and with hundreds of thousands applying, how many do you suppose were actually checked? A tiny fraction, if any! All but the disabled should be required to vote in person, and should also be required to prove who they are; by production of a driving licence, passport, or utilities bill.
Why not?
|
|