Postal Voting - UK Style

I received some post yesterday, courtesy of the Labour Party, offering me the opportunity to request a postal vote. Obviously it's unfair to cast aspersions. After all, postal voting is perfectly legal. However, these days I almost instinctively equate postal voting with fraud. So my first thought was, "Surprise, surprise, Labour pushing the Biden method."

The fact that they use the coronavirus as a further reason to vote by post making my head shake in disapproval even more.

I'd like to believe that every postal vote is rigorously vetted, but it stands to reason that the more postal votes there are the harder it is to do this. Simply for practical reasons.

The form I was sent only requires a date of birth and a signature. Even the phone number and email boxes are 'optional'. Again, I would hope each application is thoroughly checked, but it doesn't take a genius to see how easy it would be to exploit such a system if things are a little lax or overstretched.

For example, I live in a household with three other adults. So four letters popped through the door yesterday. It wouldn't be difficult for one person to fill in all four and send them back.

Another thing I dislike about postal votes is the way it makes it easier for people to be leaned on in regard who they're voting for. For example, a dominant member of a household or community could easily press others into voting a particular way.

The beauty with the poll booth is that you enter on your own. So no one can see how you vote. A housewife may pay lip service to the politics of her domineering husband at home, but can vote according to her own judgement in the secrecy of the poll booth. Safe in the knowledge that it'll remain private. However, when you're filling in a form at home that's not always the case.

Likewise it's easier to pressure and bamboozle elderly people. Particularly those that are in care homes or that are dependent upon carers.

In the post-Brexit referendum days we started seeing some discussions about an upper age limit on voting. The argument being that we don't allow children to vote as they're not mentally developed enough, therefore the same should likewise apply to older people whose faculties are failing.

When it comes to voting in person though this argument is completely redundant. If someone is mentally capable enough to deliberately get out of bed on polling day and then head to the polling station to vote then they're clearly capable enough to make their own judgement when it comes to politics. Someone not in possession of their faculties wouldn't be capable of this, nor is it likely that they'd think to do so anyway.

So there's no need for any upper limit, as those that are incapable naturally stop voting when they become incapable.

With postal voting though this becomes far more problematic. As a carer or family member can fill in the form and process the application on behalf of a person who is in serious mental decline. It therefore stands to reason that this helper will also be in a position to guide or overly influence the older person's vote as well.

Like nudging a wealthy widow into signing an updated will and testament.

With people in care homes barely allowed to step outside this year it's all too easy to imagine how they'll be pressured into voting by post from this position of 'safety' as well.