Arrangements don't get vote of approval...

I am still not convinced that the secrecy of the ballot has not been compromised by the new arrangement whereby each voter has to sign the document "attached" to the voting slip. (Mr Knight's inference in his words "will be detached").

He also fails to explain why this document will then be "filed away". For what possible purpose would the authorities require this document in the future? It is after all a matter of trust and, as none of the voters will be present when the votes are received at the Town Hall (maybe over several days), we have no way of knowing that the "signature" will not be linked to the vote cast.

It differs so fundamentally in this respect from the "old" trusted system where your vote was in your view from casting to placing in the black ballot box, sealed by the Presiding Officer with sealing wax, before being delivered by him personally to the Returning Officer. Furthermore, no signature was required to vouch for the veracity of your vote.

Under this "new" system, relying as it does on the Postal Service, (far from trusted by most people) your vote could end up in any one of a dozen places in the Town Hall on its travels to the "count" on the day of the election -- far too many possibilities for illegal tampering, no matter how secure the officials claim the system to be.

It matters not, as Mr Knight enlightens us in his letter, that previous postal voters are well versed in the process of signing their ballot forms, since they had a choice in electing to vote by post in preference to the Polling Station. Now, those of us not so familiar are NOT given a CHOICE -- this new system is mandatory.

I feel, as I am sure others will feel, disenfranchised by this new system, forced upon us without any consultation or chance to make representation. And who knows what human rights are being infringed, or what indeed the Court of European Justice might make of it should it be asked for a ruling on the matter.

Anthony J Boddy

Hulton Lane

Bolton