Ballot security worse than Kenya

Steven Swinford & ,}

OFFICIAL choosing monitors from the building universe have warned that the British choosing by casting votes complement is less secure than their own and presumably the infancy exposed to crime in the world.

Observers from Kenya and war-torn Sierra Leone, who outlayed the past week in Britain, pronounced the firmness of the ubiquitous choosing was at risk since it was formed on certitude rather than correct temperament checks.

They questioned the legitimacy of the outcome after thousands of electorate were incited afar from swarming polling stations. The observers were additionally repelled by allegations that the electoral hurl was being filled out with spook voters.Ababu Namwamba, an MP in Kenya, said: The allegations of rascal and of electorate being incited afar bluster the firmness of the vote, generally in extrinsic constituencies where possibilities have a infancy of less than 1,000.

The series of seats the Tories indispensable for an comprehensive infancy is not that high this could have done the difference. One claimant told me that the British complement is presumably the infancy corruptible in the total world.

Marie Marilyn Jalloh, an MP from Sierra Leone, said: There has to be disbelief over the legitimacy of the result. Where people have been disenfranchised or cases of rascal are found there should be an additional vote. In my nation this would be really controversial.

Your complement is a recipe for corruption; it was a large shock when I saw you didnt need any marker to vote. In Sierra Leone you need an temperament label and additionally to give your fingerprint. Here you need nothing. In this respect, the own complement is some-more secure than yours.

Lisa Hanna, an MP from Jamaica who won Miss World in 1993, said: I was repelled by the miss of checks.

Namwamba, Jalloh and Hanna are piece of an 11-strong regard group from Commonwealth countries together with Bangladesh, Malaysia and Nigeria.