[Politics] Is a Photo ID requirement for Voting a Good Idea?

[Coldeanseagull]

Much like the right to protest, our privacy is something we notice more when it’s taken away. Throughout history, seemingly innocent information about people has been used to persecute them during moments of crisis. You may trust your current government to look for criminals and not do anything dishonest with your data. But what if it changed and shifted dramatically to the left or the right? In these situations, authorities could gather data to find and crackdown on groups they disagree with. They could use the information to target journalists, persecute activists and discriminate against minorities.

7 reasons why ‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ is the wrong response to mass surveillance

When we launched #UnfollowMe , our campaign to end governments’ use of mass surveillance, the Amnesty Facebook and Twitter feeds were swamped. A lot of people told us: “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”. The reasoning goes that if you’ve done nothing wrong, it doesn’t...

www.amnesty.org

Yeah, god forbid if the reds got in power again...I'd be persecuted...sorry, discriminated against

 

[Coldeanseagull]

I have some issues with national ID but can see some advantages.

However, getting them through in the Trojan horse of “solving electoral fraud”, which is simply not a problem, is utterly contemptible.

We need to get the Tory’s out of power ad investigate all their various frauds and scandals. Most of them should be in prison.

Yeah, all opposing politicians are as honest as the day is long, aren't they?

 

[southstandandy]

Personally Yes.

At the last General Election I turned up at 9am to vote only be turned away as I had apparently already voted!

I spent the next hour with a couple of the organisers proving my identity and eventually being allowed to vote, but clearly as I'm on the electoral register somebody had been in earlier claiming to be me and effectively used my name to vote. Otherwise without a proper check such occurences make a mockery of the voting system and fraud can happen. Apparently only 30 such incidents occured on the day where I voted, but multiply that over 1000's of other voting stations and the numbers could certainly be influenced.

 

[The Clamp]

Yeah, all opposing politicians are as honest as the day is long, aren't they?

When did I say they were?

However. I’ve never known any other politicians in my lifetime who have been as corrupt as the recent and current government. It’s unprecedented.

 

[papachris]

I have no objection to ID cards but this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The least the government can do is be honest (ha ha ha) about it.

The ID card system used not just about voting. Along with smart ID it is used for endless stuff over here. Like booking your doctor's appointment online, logging into your online banking, logging into any government site for public use, signing for payments etc. It certainly makes life very simple

 

[Bozza]

That’s not a very logical argument imo as the value of it would depend on it being possible to prove a negative.

The government saying photo ID voting will reduce/stop election fraud is based on a fallacious argument. Again, it is not possible to prove the existence of something if there is no evidence of its existence.

We know there is no evidence of election fraud, or very little indeed, so until it can be proven otherwise, it would seem more rational to conclude with a high level of confidence that there is no fraudulent voting going on, (or at least NOT enough to merit the introduction photoID voting), than to say ‘fraud exists, despite the lack of evidence pointing to the contrary and PhotoIDs are required to address it’!

I'm not making any argument. I agree that electoral fraud is likely very low and plays no part in influencing our election results.

However, I don't *KNOW* that.

So, when I see people stating things like "electoral fraud is very low", I'm curious as to how they actually know that. I think this thread has gone on for long enough for us to determine that no-one does actually know that, which is fine.

What's also fine is my son believing that I don't take chocolate from his tin.

 

[The Clamp]

The ID card system used not just about voting. Along with smart ID it is used for endless stuff over here. Like booking your doctor's appointment online, logging into your online banking, logging into any government site for public use, signing for payments etc. It certainly makes life very simple

Was it introduced to “combat voter fraud”?

 

[The Clamp]

I'm not making any argument. I agree that electoral fraud is likely very low and plays no part in influencing our election results.

However, I don't *KNOW* that.

So, when I see people stating things like "electoral fraud is very low", I'm curious as to how they actually know that. I think this thread has gone on for long enough for us to determine that no-one does actually know that, which is fine.

What's also fine is my son believing that I don't take chocolate from his tin.

We do know;

Electoral fraud data

View electoral fraud data

www.electoralcommission.org.uk

In 2021, 350 cases of suspected electoral fraud were investigated. 0 were convicted. 1 person was cautioned.

“Overview​

In 2018, there was no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.
Of the 266 cases that were investigated by the police, one led to a conviction, and two suspects accepted police cautions.
In 2017, there was one conviction and eight suspects accepted police cautions”.

Other years are covered in the link.

It appears that it is very low. Very low indeed.

 

[papachris]

Was it introduced to “combat voter fraud”?

I don't believe so. It's just a whole system that's set up. Showing it at the polling station is just one use of it. But it can be used for online voting in any case

 

[The Clamp]

I don't believe so. It's just a whole system that's set up. Showing it at the polling station is just one use of it. But it can be used for online voting in any case

Cheers.

I don’t have an issue with it in theory. What I have a big problem with is the Tory government lying to us again. Telling us it’s to combat the electoral fraud problem. A problem that a few posts ago I proved doesn’t exist.

But yeah, I think it would be rather helpful for the majority of us in our everyday lives.

None of this “choose one proof of ID from list A, or two from list B with supporting proof of address, or four from list C accompanied by your left eyeball and your grandmother’s exhumed corpse plus a utility bill and a Dr’s note dated in the last 4 minutes”.

The Tory government aren’t interested in making our lives easier. What they are very interested in however, is disenfranchising those likely to vote against them.

 

[Bozza]

We do know;

Electoral fraud data

View electoral fraud data

www.electoralcommission.org.uk

In 2021, 350 cases of suspected electoral fraud were investigated. 0 were convicted. 1 person was cautioned.

“Overview​

In 2018, there was no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.
Of the 266 cases that were investigated by the police, one led to a conviction, and two suspects accepted police cautions.
In 2017, there was one conviction and eight suspects accepted police cautions”.

Other years are covered in the link.

It appears that it is very low. Very low indeed.

I'm not going to keep saying the same thing that I and others have said on the earlier pages of this thread, if you don't want to read them or try to understand them.

Any reports can only detail *detected* electoral fraud.

As I keep saying I agree it's likely low and our election results are entirely legitimate. But I can't possibly know that.

If, as I suspect, no motorists were caught breaking the speed limit of the A24 this morning, does it mean that no-one sped on the A24 this morning? (Hint: I saw someone doing, at a guess. 60mph in a 40)

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm not making any argument. I agree that electoral fraud is likely very low and plays no part in influencing our election results.

However, I don't *KNOW* that.

So, when I see people stating things like "electoral fraud is very low", I'm curious as to how they actually know that. I think this thread has gone on for long enough for us to determine that no-one does actually know that, which is fine.

What's also fine is my son believing that I don't take chocolate from his tin.

the argument seems to go, if there's not a lot of incidents reported, its not happening much. like saying there's only a handful of drivers speeding down the A23 because only n tickets have been issued.

oh, snap!

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I voted three times in one election just to prove how easy it was.

All I had to do was rock up at a polling station, say my name (my mates names) state their address and say I hadn't previously voted.

Piece of piss.

 

[drew]

Let's be honest, this is not about voter fraud, it is about disenfranchisement. Tories saw Trump trying to do similar in the states and in their desperate state, they'll try anything.

 

[The Clamp]

I'm not going to keep saying the same thing that I and others have said on the earlier pages of this thread, if you don't want to read them or try to understand them.

Any reports can only detail *detected* electoral fraud.

As I keep saying I agree it's likely low and our election results are entirely legitimate. But I can't possibly know that.

If, as I suspect, no motorists were caught breaking the speed limit of the A24 this morning, does it mean that no-one sped on the A24 this morning? (Hint: I saw someone doing, at a guess. 60mph in a 40)

I have understood perfectly.

Of course not all fraud will be detected. The figures issued will however give us a good idea of overall fraud. We can safely say we don’t have a large fraud problem.

Just as the amount of drivers caught speeding will give us a good indication of the actual figure.

I think you’re nit-picking. If you don’t wish to acknowledge the figures, I think it’s you that is unwilling to understand.

 

[Zeberdi]

After the national collective thumbs down the electorate gave to the idea of a Jeremy Corbyn-led government, I think we can trust the legitimacy of our elections.

Agreed as far as ‘we the electorate’ are concerned but I think the people are led by their leaders - up to date, afaik, no British politician has ever blamed their loss at the ballot box on election fraud, but if they ever do (as in the States/Brazil,) then it’s a dog whistle to their supporters.

I'm not making any argument. I agree that electoral fraud is likely very low and plays no part in influencing our election results

No I totally understand that you are not arguing for or against photoIDs - the ‘argument’ I was referring to was
this:

I just don't think anyone can say "electoral fraud isn't much of a problem" with any confidence at all. They may well be absolutely correct, but there's no way of knowing, is there?)

I think we can - maybe ‘argument’ too strong - agree on a ‘difference of opinion’ perhaps

 

[Bozza]

I have understood perfectly.

Of course not all fraud will be detected. The figures issued will however give us a good idea of overall fraud. We can safely say we don’t have a large fraud problem.

Just as the amount of drivers caught speeding will give us a good indication of the actual figure.

I think you’re nit-picking. If you don’t wish to acknowledge the figures, I think it’s you that is unwilling to understand.

No motorists were caught speeding on the A24 this morning.

Therefore no-one sped on the A24 this morning.

Do you agree with this?

 

[Bozza]

I think we can - maybe ‘argument’ too strong - agree on a ‘difference of opinion’ perhaps

Where's the difference of opinion when I agree that electoral fraud in the UK is likely to be very low and not impacting our election results?

I was merely interested how anyone could know that with "on my first born's life" level of certainty. And no-one seems to. Which puts them where I am.

 

[Zeberdi]

No motorists were caught speeding on the A24 this morning.

Therefore no-one sped on the A24 this morning.

Do you agree with this?

you just proved a point about the difference between causation and correlation - of course one wouldn’t agree with that which is also unscientific - that's a different logistical conundrum though.

Ours is:

No motorists were caught speeding on the A24 this morning

Therefore there is no evidence to show that motorists were speeding.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Where's the difference of opinion when I agree that electoral fraud in the UK is likely to be very low and not impacting our election results?

I was merely interested how anyone could know that with "on my first born's life" level of certainty. And no-one seems to. Which puts them where I am.

That's a rather disingenuous position though. Elections in this country are monitored and no evidence of widespread or indeed any statistically noticeable fraud has been discovered.

The motivation for this legislation is not electoral integrity, it is a vehicle to reduce the size of a sector of the electorate that does not vote conservative.

The mere suggestion that our elections are unsafe, without ANY supporting evidence is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge as we have seen in the USA and Brazil.

Of course the irony is that in the UK the FPTP system we have already disproportionately benefits the Tories.