Election integrity is the difference between democracy and a one-party state. Every citizen should be bending over backwards to make sure our elections dont have sources of fraud.
UK has universal mail-in-voting for any reason.
Some US states also have universal mail-in-voting, and have done for some time.
The counterpoint to "make sure elections don't have sources of fraud" is that you need to strike a balance - the right to vote is sacrosanct (and in some cases was hard won) so any laws that pretend to be about election integrity, but are in fact a way to suppress voting in certain demographics are arguably more dangerous than the exceedingly low levels of fraud that elections have.
There isn't really a debate here. Anyone complaining about voter fraud is uninformed or purposefully making a bad faith argument in order to justify voter disenfranchisement.
You probably mean you're not aware of any voter fraud.
The whole objective of fraud is to have it not be discovered, so it's possible fraud has in fact been occurring and it has not yet been discovered (and/or nobody in a position to do so is interested in discovering it).
> Richardson said the suspicious ballots broke down into several categories: 46 voters appeared to vote in Oregon and another state; six individuals listed as deceased voted; and two voters registered in Oregon voted twice.
From: https://www.opb.org/news/article/voter-fraud-oregon-secretar...
If you have better evidence, not conjecture, please say so.
I don't think so. The objective of fraud is to misrepresent. Finding out about it is incidental to that objective. Although not all fraud relates to identity, it's obvious that fraud is used to leverage all sorts of slippery side effects that often benefit an individual - eg https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-59069662
Voter fraud is high-risk, low-reward behavior in a developed nation-state.
I hear this "mail in vote fraud" line all the time but I think what it really is, is that making it more convenient to securely vote means that people who might not have been able to vote before get to, and that scares people who like that it's hard to vote.
The sheer scale of an operation to cast that many fraudulent ballots has such an infantessimally small chance of not being discovered (e.g. "Sir/Madam our records show you've already cast a ballot. You'll have to fill in this provisional one and come in with ID to verify")
A number of countries, with competent government leaders and institutions, use it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting
We have, however, imported a voter ID law from the US which was recently passed by the Johnson government, despite no voter impersonation occurring in Tower Hamlets (or anywhere else really). Previously, no ID was required.
I disapprove strongly of that patriarchal practice; but (1) I doubt it has much effect on outcomes, (2) mandatory in-person voting wouldn't prevent it (the patriarch can still instruct his family members).
I also disapprove of early voting. I believe that to cast a vote legitimately, you have to pay some attention to the hustings and the arguments. That is not a barricade I will die defending, though - the tide is against me.
AFAIAA, the UK has not imported a voter ID law from the US. There was a trial at the last election, in a handful of constituencies, and there is mandatory photographic ID for voting in Northern Ireland. A voter ID law was proposed in the Queen's Speech, but no legislation has been tabled or debated.
For the most part, voters receive a poll card in the post, which they don't have to produce at the polling station. You can just turn up, state your name and address, and cast a ballot. Your name is then crossed-out in the voter register, so that the same name-and-address can't vote more than once.
https://lawandreligionuk.com/2016/08/30/undue-spiritual-infl...
I thought you were going on about voting while under the influence of spirits.
Edit: Election integrity is important. So is access to voting. It seems completely obvious to me (and millions of others, it seems) that the so-called election integrity measures taken by places like Florida and Texas are blatant attempts to restrict access to legitimate voting for the kinds of people that tend to vote Democrat.