Postal voting: Thorsten Frei rejects calls for abolition
Translated from German, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Thorsten Frei, leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, rejected calls to abolish postal voting.
- Frei stated that postal voting ensures maximum participation for all citizens wishing to vote.
- The AfD had previously called for the abolition of postal voting, citing alleged irregularities in nursing homes.
Thorsten Frei, the leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, has firmly rejected calls to abolish postal voting, asserting that the current system ensures the broadest possible participation in elections. His comments came ahead of the first CDU/CSU presidium meeting following the political summer break.
The election rules are in place for good reasons. They ensure maximum participation for all those who wish to participate in elections.
Frei emphasized that the election rules are in place for good reasons and serve to enable "maximum participation for all those who wish to participate in elections." He sees no need for changes to the postal voting system, a stance he articulated at 53 years old.
The debate was reignited by AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla, who expressed doubts about the legality of postal voting just two weeks before the state election in Saxony-Anhalt. Chrupalla claimed to have heard from caregivers and relatives about instances in nursing homes where residents' ballots were allegedly influenced, stating such cases were "undisputed" for him.
That such cases exist is undisputed for me.
Chrupalla argued that postal voting, initially introduced as an exceptional measure, "should be abolished again" by the AfD. Frei's rebuttal directly counters this demand, defending the integrity and accessibility of the postal voting process.
postal voting, which was created as an exceptional situation, (...) should be abolished again.
Originally published by Die Zeit in German. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.