Re: [election-services] Verdict on UK postal ballots.

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

John,

Good report - and sensible recommendations.

Would it make sense for the OASIS EML TC to make
a formal submission to the commission - focusing on
use of electronic technologies and EML to improve
security of voting?

In the TLV approach I had already outlined an
approach where postal ballots included a access code,
and required voters to telephone a call center on
voting day, verify their information, use their access code
and then obtain a ballot-code that they write on their
postal ballot prior to mailing it.

The postal ballots could then be scanned into EML 440
XML - and then reconciled directly to the electoral
roll, etc.

This provides multiple layers of additional security
to the process.   It also provides a foundation and
precursor that can then be used later to implement
internet or other computer based remote voting
using the full suite of OASIS EML 4.0.

If this sounds acceptable we could draft a brief
white paper describing this operationally, and
then submit it.

Thoughts?

DW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Borras, John" <John.Borras@legsb.gov.uk>
To: <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 6:41 AM
Subject: RE: [election-services] Verdict on UK postal ballots.


Hot off the press is a new report from our Electoral Commission about
Securing the Vote which deals with postal voting amongst other aspects, see
http://www.electoralcommission.co.uk/.
John


-----Original Message-----
From: Borras, John
Sent: 20 May 2005 10:45
To: 'David Webber (XML)'; election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [election-services] Verdict on UK postal ballots.


As usual sensationalism comes into play.  Our Electoral Commission accepts
there are weaknesses in the current postal vote system and will be laying
new legislation in this session of Parliament to tighten things up.  The
outcome of the recent General Election produced no challenges to my
knowledge to the results because of postal voting, so was this all a storm
in a teacup?

And of course the insecurity of the current manual system never gets
questioned!

John

-----Original Message-----
From: David Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 15 May 2005 05:26
To: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [election-services] Verdict on UK postal ballots.


FYI,

DW

> --
>
> Judge condemns postal vote system / Sandra Laville
>
> Judge condemns postal vote system
>
> Fraud level worthy of 'banana republic'
>
> Sandra Laville
>
>
> A senior judge made a scathing attack on the postal voting system on
Monday, condemning the government for complacency in the face of fraud that
would disgrace a "banana republic".
> Richard Mawrey QC, presiding over a special election court in Birmingham,
warned that there were no realistic systems in place to detect or prevent
postal voting fraud at the general election. "Until there are, fraud will
continue unabated," he said.
> He found six Labour councillors in Birmingham guilty of carrying out
"massive, systematic and organised" postal voting fraud to win two wards
during last June's elections for the city council. Declaring the results
void, he barred the men from standing again in a byelection expected on May
12.
> After the judgment the national Labour party suspended the six men. A
spokesman said they would be subject to a "vigorous disciplinary process".
Criminal charges against them are expected. Police said their inquiries were
continuing.
> But Mr Mawrey, a deputy high court judge who in four weeks of evidence
heard that thousands of postal votes were stolen in order to be changed or
filled in by Labour supporters, said the fraud was not the actions of a "few
hotheads". It was carried out with the full knowledge and cooperation of the
local Labour party and "extensively prevailed" throughout the city, where
applications for postal votes soared from 28,000 to 70,000 last year. It was
focused on areas with a large Muslim population who could no longer be
trusted to vote for the party because of unhappiness over the Iraq war.
> The case was brought after complaints from electors in the Bordesley Green
and Aston wards of Birmingham city council that their votes had been stolen.
Evidence compiled by the Liberal Democrats, who were defeated in Aston, and
the People's Justice party, which lost in Bordesley Green, formed the basis
of the hearing.
> In his judgment Mr Mawrey condemned the government for refusing to change
the postal voting system in advance of the general election because it
believed that systems to prevent fraud were "clearly working".
> "Anybody who has sat through the case and listened to evidence of
electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this
surprising," Mr Mawrey said.
> "[It] indicates a state not simply of complacency, but of denial. The
systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly.
The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud."
> In a damning judgment that ran to 192 pages, he said the system for
registering postal vote applications was "hopelessly insecure". There was no
way of checking whether the person who had applied for the vote was the
legitimate voter.
> Postal ballots were sent out in ordinary mail and were clearly
identifiable. "Short of writing 'STEAL ME' on the envelopes, it is hard to
see what more could be done to ensure their coming into the wrong hands," he
said.
> Record numbers of electors are applying for postal votes for the May
general election. A survey last month by the Guardian of 55 councils
covering 135 constituencies revealed applications to vote by post had risen
in all cases, tripling in some places.
>
>
> The Guardian Weekly 2005-04-08, page 12
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php


"The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this
email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily
represent the opinion of the Local e-Government Standards Body. All sent and
received email from the Local e-Government Standards Body is automatically
scanned for the presence of computer viruses and security issues."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php