To be applauded, but why file this under privacy?

Simon, the reason - if you read Clark's piece - is that postal voting opens one up to losing the status of a secret ballot. Hence the argument that postal voting compromises privacy. That is why I tagged it thus.

You are not alone.
Check out the difficulties we're having in Texas, trying to determine of Obama or Clinton got the most caucus votes.
We have to figure it out by March 29th. This link is from the Associated Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iiLpWMaIEe0T0buAOcXm-Eb7DIQQD8VBG4M80

Various groups lobby for caucuses, winner-take-all, proportional delegate allotment, etc., based on their perceived strengths and weaknesses. We will do anything to avoid simple majority rule.

This cycle at least the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are stark.

The Democrats have a weird approach to the whole process - with "Superdelegates", proportional State contests (open to all sorts of abuse), and no delegates at all for Michigan and Florida.

I only wish that the differences between the Conservative and Labour parties in Britain were as clear - but sadly both have been caught up in postal vote fraud recently.

Conservatives in the United States denounce John McCain as a milk sop moderate - but he would be far too Conservative for "David Cameron's Conservatives".

The massive surge in postal voting is a transparently cynical ploy by Labour to cement its hold on Moslem-dominated marginal wards. Previously, the chattels that pass for women in a conservative Moslem household did not vote, as that would mean leaving the house and possibly disobeying the patriarch by voting for the wrong guy. Now, their votes can be coerced from them without any of that rigmarole. Makes it all so much tidier.