Good to see a member of the judiciary recognises this problem, even if political parties and the police don’t:

“Last year Mawrey repeated his warning that postal voting enabled electoral cheating on an “industrial scale”. …

…”Challenges should be governed by simpler, modern and less formal rules of procedure allowing judges to achieve justice in the case while having regard to the balance between access and certainty,” it proposes. …

” … In his 200-page judgment on Rahman, Mawrey pointed out that although the election court is a civil hearing, “the criminal standard of proof, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt” is applied. Candidates, unless “a mitigating factor is established”, are deemed responsible for the acts and omissions of their agents. …

“Dr Toby James, senior lecturer in politics at the University of East Anglia and author of Elite Statecraft and Election Administration, said the long delay between last May’s mayoral vote in the east London borough and the election court’s ruling this week highlighted the need for a more speedy resolution process in electoral disputes.

“Imagine what would happen after the general election in two weeks’ time when you have disputes arising from a couple of constituencies and very close party results,” he told the Guardian. “It’s a Victorian procedure. Election justice should be quicker and then we would see if there’s more signs of fraud.”

http://gu.com/p/47ztq