One of this Government’s proud achievements has been helping to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq – where elections were policed by imprinting a finger of every voter with indelible ink. Yet at home it has corrupted an electoral system that the world once looked up to. Ministers were warned as long ago as May 2000 about the lack of security in postal votes. Yet they ploughed on, claiming that postal voting would reinvigorate the electoral system by encouraging more to vote.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayMarch 20th, 2008 |
 5 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
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.