Postal Ballots On Demand: The Democratic Alternative
The use of postal ballots on
demand - that is without conditions such as absence or
disability - has been promoted in Britain since the
Representation of the People Act 2000. This effectively
repealed the 1872 Ballot Act by removing the safeguard
against electoral fraud and intimidation that votes be
officially witnessed as cast in secret at a polling
station. It is however self evident to common sense that
postal voting is more vulnerable to fraud than voting in
person. Electoral fraud since these reforms has greatly
increased. Sir Alistair Graham, chairman of the
Parliamentary Committee on Standards in Public Life, was
dismissed in 2007 following his accusation that the
Government is obsessed with electoral modernisation at the
expense of secure voting. Andy Hayman, Assistant
Commissioner for Scotland Yard's special prosecutions unit
has stated: "It is the view of the unit that widespread use
of postal votes has opened up a whole new area to be
exploited by the fraudster and the opportunity has been
taken." Given such facts, the Conservative Party - which,
along with the Liberal Democrats, failed to oppose the
introduction of these practices - has stated on its website
that: "Questions must be asked why Labour Ministers are
sitting on their hands, and whether they are failing to
clamp down on postal fraud for partisan reasons."
The Campaign to Defend the Right to a Secret Ballot (CDRSB)
was the first organisation to oppose the use of postal
ballots on demand. In 2006 we organised a conference on
electoral standards at the UN in New York. The conference
report and briefing presented to the Community of
Democratic Nations can be viewed on www.sortition.com. The
report examines whether these electoral reforms - now
enacted in several countries - were introduced not only to
address the problem of falling voter turnout, but also for
factional reasons, and proposes alternative means to
increase political participation. Problems of secret
factionalism have always been a feature of democracy in its
modern form. The most serious allegations in this regard
show how decisive such influences may be. The CIA does not
openly uphold them, but since the 'murky' world of
intelligence is an intrinsically uncertain field of
knowledge such reticence may be influenced by diplomacy.
In 1963 KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn made claims which
western intelligence has still not resolved. The
publication of 'Spy Wars' in 2007 by Tennent H. Bagley, an
intelligence officer involved directly in this affair,
underlines the continuing state of turmoil in the CIA
concerning this problem. As the Washington Times review of
the book states, 'this is a hotter topic among agency
veterans than even the recent autobiography of former CIA
Director George Tenet.' Golitsyn claimed communism has been
committed to a long term strategy of deception since
Khrushchev and Mao Tse Tung agreed upon this course shortly
before the 1960 meeting of the world communist movement -
its last, openly Marxist, united gathering. Soviet bloc
collapse, he maintains, is a deception aimed to facilitate,
by stealth, European integration under soft left auspices
in a global alliance opposing the USA. Fifth column
infiltration of parties and state agencies serve this
purpose, coordinated with terrorism. The testimony by the
poisoned Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko - essentially
that the KGB runs Al Qaeda - underlines the prescience of
Golitsyn's claims. His advocates maintain
'islamobolshevism' was created during the Soviet occupation
of Afghanistan. By penetrating the Afghan mujahadeen
organisations opposing Soviet rule with communists, killing
the genuinely Muslim leaders of these groups and then
replacing them with their own agents, the KGB has
transformed the holy war against Soviet occupation into a
holy war against the west, it is alleged. Given such
possibilities democratic strategy is best informed by
analysis of the conflict between radicalism and
conservatism in its relation to totalitarianism.