My original point - that physically turning up to vote should be regarded as the norm - appears to have been derailed by talk of "need for ID".
Which as the current system is a bit of a red herring, since I wasn't suggested we "tighten up" the process of voting in person.
Mainly because in a system where you vote in person, any funny games with voter impersonation can only really deliver one, two, maybe three illegal votes before someone, somewhere would notice.
It also ups the bar needed if you wanted to carry out a large scale election fraud. You'd need a lot more people - meaning more money, more risk.
Now postal voting on the other hand. With it's scope to hoover up potentially hundreds of votes which can be filled in by one single person dramatically lowers the bar for fraudulent activity.
You can put the two methods on a line between "least likely to be corrupted" to "most likely to be corrupted". (If you extend that line a few miles down the road, you can put electronic voting and "guaranteed to be corrupted" at the end).
My point - if there is one - is that on that line, we should really try to keep our voting process much closer to the "least likely" end, rather than move it closer to the "more likely" end. Even at the cost of convenience to some people.
Bearing in mind the nature of this site, and well aware I'm probably lining myself up for a flaming, but it seems for every little victory women seem to achieve over decades - maybe centuries - it is astounding how many are willing to give it all up for nothing.
As some posters have noted it's invariably women that suffer disproportionately when things change in society. From benefit changes, changes in education, changes in employment, changes in healthcare. And yet there are not only women Tory voters - they even manage to dupe women into being Tory MPs.