-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
What protections do we have against electoral fraud?
- Thread starter harlequin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- elections electoral fraud
In Singapore, election fraud is done at its weakest point, not necessarily at election monitoring.
Eg. Bribing is easily done through HDB upgrade, no need to give out cash direct to buy voters.
Also, the government can draw and redraw election boundaries to suit itself, the GRC idea is good one. If the laws allow, no fraud right.
But if more opposition win GRC and with less access to HDB upgrade, may be it will come down to election day fraud. D
Eg. Bribing is easily done through HDB upgrade, no need to give out cash direct to buy voters.
Also, the government can draw and redraw election boundaries to suit itself, the GRC idea is good one. If the laws allow, no fraud right.
But if more opposition win GRC and with less access to HDB upgrade, may be it will come down to election day fraud.
D Ballot slips have serial numbers. People used to think that this is so that they can detect opposition voters, and for many years this was a tactic to scare people into voting for PAP. It's actually to prevent ballot box stuffing.
There are other measures like having observers at counting centres:
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/counting-agent-me/
Also the ballots are kept in a secure location for 6 months afterwards. I think the supreme court can order a recount.
As far as I can tell, electoral fraud does not take place, or like neddy said, if it does take place, there are other forms.
There are other measures like having observers at counting centres:
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/counting-agent-me/
Also the ballots are kept in a secure location for 6 months afterwards. I think the supreme court can order a recount.
As far as I can tell, electoral fraud does not take place, or like neddy said, if it does take place, there are other forms.
I happen to know how to use serial numbers to commit fraud, so I can say that it is not a good deterrent.
The most important thing is still have independent observers.
No big deal about using serial no to detect opposition, if there is no fear factor.
Singaporeans should reduce this fear as more accept opposition as fellow Singaporeans who are doing same/better jobs than the PAP.
In Australia, we know which seats are safe for the 2 major parties and which are the marginals.
Who vote for who in which polling station.
See the recent polls in Perth Australia for profiling by poll stations.
The polling station know the names of those who turn up.
http://www.elections.wa.gov.au/results/sg2013/la/MTL
Last edited:
By saying you do not want to wait another 5 years after 2016, what do you mean by that?
Do you mean you expect the PAP to be defeated as a government in 2016?
Thanks for the replies, especially the link to Alex's counting agent experience.
Yeah there's all kinds of technically legal, but rotten things the PAP can do, like gerrymandering, using upgrading as a carrot and stick, etc. They also get to write the book on what's legal, and give themselves wide latitude to interpret it.
(500 char limit, cont'd)
Yeah there's all kinds of technically legal, but rotten things the PAP can do, like gerrymandering, using upgrading as a carrot and stick, etc. They also get to write the book on what's legal, and give themselves wide latitude to interpret it.
(500 char limit, cont'd)
I was just reading the Parliamentary Elections Act. Item 2b) reads (emphasis mine) "...the definition of “election advertising” shall include doing so by prejudicing the electoral prospects at the election of other political parties, candidates or groups of candidates...". Prejudicing. Such a convenient and vague term. Which also appears in the Official Secrets Act, the Internal Security Act. And much more I'm guessing.
I think the way to deal with such assholery is to recognize it as such, and educate others about it so more people also recognize it as such. Get people to realize the important of their civil liberties. Any such acts in the past that aren't repealed, and any future such acts by the PAP should be recognized as big reasons to not vote for them.
"Investigating", detaining and dismissing people and seizing data is also major assholery. It created a climate of fear, and obstructed voter education. If the PAP's statements are vague ("No comment", "we're disappointed in your actions", etc), we should assume worse than baseline intentions and vote accordingly.
Here's a potential trick that's legal : The final decision on ambiguous votes lies with only one person, the counting table chief. Different chiefs may use different criteria, and there are only a few counting agents who can offer their views, but not directly affect the decision. Alex's blog post has more details. He didn't see any bias at his table in 2011, but comments from other people indicate a wide range of vote interpretations.
Voter education is important here. We need to teach the importance of voting with just one X inside one box, or no markings for no vote. Make your statements with fancy symbols and messages before voting day, and just make your choice on voting day. And if more people write about their counting experience, we can discourage biased interpretation.
Once the PAP are out of tricks in the legal book, their only options will be illegal ones. I hope no one, PAP or opposition, will ever do such things, but I can't put my trust in the PAP here, given their history of dirty tricks. We should be vigilant against it.
Here's a potential trick that's illegal : Whose eyes are on the ballot boxes when they're being transported to the counting stations? Seals on the ballot boxes may not be sufficient proof against tampering.
Here's a potential trick that's illegal : Whose eyes are on the ballot boxes when they're being transported to the counting stations? Seals on the ballot boxes may not be sufficient proof against tampering.
(Sorry about the multi posts. 500 char limit very annoying. Machiam breaking up illegal character gathering. This kind of thing limits conversation.)
Yes, or at least lose a lot more seats. Unless there's illegal vote tampering.
Yes, or at least lose a lot more seats. Unless there's illegal vote tampering.
the only protection we have against any government policies is the vote.
so use your vote to dump this rubbish govt and that should take care of any electoral fraud.
so use your vote to dump this rubbish govt and that should take care of any electoral fraud.
You're welcome about the link. This is a really dumb term. what election advertising is not about prejudicing the outcome? Is that not the whole purpose of election advertising?
Let's assume that elections are - if not totally fair, then at least fraud free for now. Unless occurences of fraud are reported, I'll just assume they don't take place. Let's concentrate on the outcomes of the election.
That would mean a lot of above the board campaigning work. What is this 500 character limit? Is it applicable to mobile devices? I'm typing this on a PC.
I think this is somewhat optimistic, and you might be raising your hopes unnecessarily.
On the voting and counting process, I don't believe S'pore has ever allowed independent election observers from overseas to be present at any election, nor has there been a clamour from the ground for such observers. The reason simply is that it has never really been an issue, or a major issue. (In fact, harlequin, you are the first person in a long while who has raised this as an issue. You are a lone voice in that regard.) Nor can I recall of any instance of such independent observers from overseas requesting to be present here to observe the process. But if people know of instances of such requests maybe they can post it on this thread.
The Carter Center Election Monitoring goes to countries where it deems disputes might emerge in elections. http://www.cartercenter.org/news/multimedia/PeacePrograms/ElectionMonitoring.html
Even the New York-based Human Rights Watch monitored the Malaysian 2008 GE.
None of the opposition parties have recently brought it up as an issue, so it's fairly safe to assume it isn't an issue. With all candidates being able to appoint counting/polling agents to scrutinize the whole process, it really shouldn't be an issue.
In fact, the issue that opposition parties have is with trying to convince people that the government cannot (at least, not without letting the whole world know) check who a particular person voted for. That's why they have been taking pains to educate everyone that our votes are really secret. E.g. http://wp.sg/your-vote-is-secret
Strangely enough, you don't see this being emphasized so strongly by the ruling party...
In fact, the issue that opposition parties have is with trying to convince people that the government cannot (at least, not without letting the whole world know) check who a particular person voted for. That's why they have been taking pains to educate everyone that our votes are really secret. E.g. http://wp.sg/your-vote-is-secret
Strangely enough, you don't see this being emphasized so strongly by the ruling party...
There is another tangential issue here. Why does the government want to find out who voted for what?
In the "good" old days, the government could figure out who the anti-establishment people were. If they numbered in the hundreds. Maybe you could fix a few hundred people, which is what they did. These days, the government cannot track down these people. Do you have the time and energy to fix thousands of people? No.
Basically the process of fixing the opposition is like playing whack a mole. The whole idea is to mobilise so many people to speak against the government that they just have to accept that it is a fact of life, that they can't do anything about without turning even more people against the PAP. That's why - in order to maintain whatever freedom you have, you actually have to use that freedom. If you don't use it, it will eventually be lost. And in order to protect your own freedom, you have to go around encouraging other people to use that freedom, so that you protect yourself.
In the "good" old days, the government could figure out who the anti-establishment people were. If they numbered in the hundreds. Maybe you could fix a few hundred people, which is what they did. These days, the government cannot track down these people. Do you have the time and energy to fix thousands of people? No.
Basically the process of fixing the opposition is like playing whack a mole. The whole idea is to mobilise so many people to speak against the government that they just have to accept that it is a fact of life, that they can't do anything about without turning even more people against the PAP. That's why - in order to maintain whatever freedom you have, you actually have to use that freedom. If you don't use it, it will eventually be lost. And in order to protect your own freedom, you have to go around encouraging other people to use that freedom, so that you protect yourself.
Similar threads
