SIR,—Whilst I 'am grateful to Mr. Walter for his letter
in your issue of October 3, 1 am horrified to learn that the process of identification of ballot papers is more complete than I thought. The passage of this Act by a Labour Government in 1949 is incomprehensible after the struggle of their party for universal suffrage and the secret ballot. Without seeking to be over-dramatic, if we had had six Spitfires less or been without Winston Churchill in 1940, an identifiable ballot paper could have been a ticket to a Nazi gas chamber. In Fulton in 1946, Churchill himself, restating the essentials of democracy, referred to 'free unfettered elections with
Secret ballot.' Secrecy can only be absolute or nothing.
In the light of Mr. Walter's clear exposition, a Mail modification to the procedure would restore absolute secrecy and preserve the safeguard against plural voting. The serial number on the ballot Paper should be printed on a tear-off portion to he removed and lodged in a separate sealed box tn. the presence of the issuing officer. At any elec- tion the total of these slips should equal the total YOIes cast whilst mechanical counters on the em- bossing machines would provide a further check. As it is reasonable to assume that our population IS no longer illiterate, a requirement to sign the tear-off numbered portion of the ballot paper would be acceptable.
It is so easy in such matters to rely on the ad- mitted integrity of British officialdom, which was fair enough when we were the paramount world Power, but we have let a fundamental liberty go by default and I hope that your action in publishing letters on the subject may move the Government to re-examine it.
J. P. LISSIMORE
Previous page
