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

[nicko31]

My concern with this whole thing isn't requiring photo ID per se, as I'm not against requiring photo ID to vote as a principle as long as it is done right. That means obtaining said ID is a) easy and b) equally easy for everyone.

The problem I have with what the Tories are bringing in currently is that it doesn't pass both of the above tests. They've designed a system that, on the surface, looks to make it easier for the majority Tory-voting demographic (older, retired) to already have the required ID and/or obtain the ID than it is for the majority Labour-voting demographics (younger, students). Allowing 60+ travel cards to count but excluding the practically identical cards for students (as an example) simply does not pass the test for me - IMO there's no other "valid assumption" to make than that decision was driven by voter suppression. I can't see any actual valid reason for allowing a 60+ travel concession card but excluding the near-identical student versions.

They know pretty much no one under 25 votes for them, so they are banking on students and young not being organised enough to apply for ID.

Incredible the HOL let this one pass through, epic fail from the UK press in not giving it more coverage

 

[Zeberdi]

I'm sitting on the sofa right now. My dog is on the other sofa asleep. If I close my eyes and wait 30 seconds is my dog still on the other sofa? Well, I have high confidence he is, but I don't actually know that until I open my eyes.

I think the issue is that you are unnecessarily turning the thread into a binfest of existential nit-picking and now whether Schroeder your dog is still there when you close your eyes?! Really

It’s simple, if you have a very high confidence in the integrity of our elections and you have a high confidence that there is no widespread fraudulent behaviour because you agree there is no evidence to say there is, do you think introducing photoID for voting is a good idea?

(‘The only thing ‘certain’ in life are death and taxes’)

 

[Peteinblack]

They know pretty much no one under 25 votes for them, so they are banking on students and young not being organised enough to apply for ID.

Incredible the HOL let this one pass through, epic fail from the UK press in not giving it more coverage

Given that most of our press is rabidly Tory, I'd say this was less a 'fail' by the media than a deliberate tactic to keep the public unaware of this latest Tory wheeze to rig general elections in their favour

 

[JBizzle]

My problem isn't necessarily that you have to bring ID, it's the fact that some forms of ID are valid for an 80 year old, but not an 18 year old. To me that shows that it genuinely is electioneering rather than cutting down on voter fraud

 

[Bozza]

I think the issue is that you are unnecessarily turning the thread into a binfest of existential nit-picking and now whether Schroeder your dog is still there when you close your eyes?! Really

It’s simple, if you have a very high confidence in the integrity of our elections and you have a high confidence that there is no widespread fraudulent behaviour because you agree there is no evidence to say there is, do you think introducing photoID for voting is a good idea?

(‘The only thing ‘certain’ in life are death and taxes’)

Nit-picking? Again, yes - I've explicitly said at least twice on this thread that I've been pedantic. Did you miss that? Do I need to quote it back for you?

I simply asked those who said they *KNOW* there is not a problem with wide-scale election fraud in this country, how they know. In return, I was quoted back statistics from websites as if I don't have access to Google, or don't know how to use it.

Since then - stealing chocolate from treat tins, speeding on the A24, whether my son is at school and is my dog still on the sofa have just been random nonsense examples I've used to try and illustrate the difference between high confidence and 100% surety.

I'm not entirely sure why you're asking me a question I've already answered consistently three or four times now. You can scroll up to find that answer.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Sigh.

People aren’t opposed to them for ease of identification. They are opposed to the Tory’s introducing them to disenfranchise people that are unlikely to vote Tory. And that they are lying about electoral fraud. Which is not an issue.

Is it that hard a concept to grasp?

Bit rude, yes, grasped the concept, my point was wouldn't the previously suggested National ID Card sort this and many other issues, but when suggested many opposed it. I do agree that the Tories are clutching at straws with their justification for it.

 

[rippleman]

Bit rude, yes, grasped the concept, my point was wouldn't the previously suggested National ID Card sort this and many other issues, but when suggested many opposed it. I do agree that the Tories are clutching at straws with their justification for it.

The National ID card wouldn't disincentivise the young from voting and that is the reason why the Tories are introducing this measure.

Personally, I would have no problem carrying a National ID card provided everybody did and acquiring said card did not prove any drain on my time or my purse.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I'm not sure how you could misunderstand, as I've explicitly said I'm not advocating for photo ID for voting. Look, here it is:



As I've tried to explain numerous times, essentially I've not been talking about voting and photo ID at all on this thread. I've been talking about the difference between having high confidence in something, ie 99.999999% sure, and being absolutely certain of something, ie 100% sure.

In this case, I'll say again, I have high confidence that wide scale voting fraud does NOT exist in the UK and the UK election process has high integrity. I've said it enough times, but you seem to somehow have missed that repeatedly.

I'm sitting on the sofa right now. My dog is on the other sofa asleep. If I close my eyes and wait 30 seconds is my dog still on the other sofa? Well, I have high confidence he is, but I don't actually know that until I open my eyes.

My money is on the dog being in the sons treat jar.

 

[The Clamp]

Bit rude, yes, grasped the concept, my point was wouldn't the previously suggested National ID Card sort this and many other issues, but when suggested many opposed it. I do agree that the Tories are clutching at straws with their justification for it.

Apologies, it was a bit rude. Sorry.

 

[Bodian]

I'm not sure how you could misunderstand, as I've explicitly said I'm not advocating for photo ID for voting. Look, here it is:



As I've tried to explain numerous times, essentially I've not been talking about voting and photo ID at all on this thread. I've been talking about the difference between having high confidence in something, ie 99.999999% sure, and being absolutely certain of something, ie 100% sure.

In this case, I'll say again, I have high confidence that wide scale voting fraud does NOT exist in the UK and the UK election process has high integrity. I've said it enough times, but you seem to somehow have missed that repeatedly.

I'm sitting on the sofa right now. My dog is on the other sofa asleep. If I close my eyes and wait 30 seconds is my dog still on the other sofa? Well, I have high confidence he is, but I don't actually know that until I open my eyes.

Fair enough - thanks. I got a bit lost in the number of exchanges!

 

[Audax]

Incredible the HOL let this one pass through, epic fail from the UK press in not giving it more coverage

Don't get me started on the HOL. Let's just say "not fit for purpose" and leave it at that. Actually, no, I can't: the HOL lacks proper teeth. It can cause problems and difficulties for the government, but from what I've seen it can't actually *block* a government with a decent majority from doing whatever the heck it wants. Scrap it and replace it with an elected upper house (elected via proportional rep) that *does* have the power to block bad legislation going through (unless the government holds a clear majority in both houses, in which case they should have a clear democratic mandate).

On the second - I agree. Bad then you're talking about a UK press that is largely dominated by right-wing ownership who are happy to let anything that props up their preferred government slide. And then a large chunk of what remains is generally too scared of the government (BBC, Channel 4) to risk running with it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

given its a free ID, i exepct the student body will be eagerly getting them if they dont have other form.

You'd think that, wouldn't you.

 

[nicko31]

You'd think that, wouldn't you.

Not all young people are students though. The whole thing is just friggin sinister. Winning isn't enough, you have to win forever

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not all young people are students though. The whole thing is just friggin sinister. Winning isn't enough, you have to win forever

Precisely. If students are unlikely to register to vote with photo ID, then what about other people aged between 18 and 21 who 'chose' to not engage with higher education? It is a western democracy phenomenon that three things figure prominently when it comes to putting people off voting: making it pointless because so many people are already comfortable (Vancouver was like that when I lived there), making people perceive that it is pointless (because 'politicians are all the same, innit'), and making it more difficult. It seems to me that the Tories have been trying (and succeeding) with all three of these tactics*, now they have become shit. This leaves the field clear for their highly motivated 'pig in a blue rosette is fine by me' core constituency to 'steal' the vote.

*I mean, with respect to my first criterion, the tories are succeeding in making some people think they are better off ('more nurses, more doctors, highest growth in Europe', and other lies from the Johnson book of lies).

 

[beorhthelm]

Not all young people are students though. The whole thing is just friggin sinister. Winning isn't enough, you have to win forever

its amusing really. has to be the worst strategy ever to win an election, imposing a restriction with such a low bar.

the group most likely to be asked for ID are going to have accredited ID. if not in further eduction, drinking, vaping, tattoos, cert 18 films, lottery or scratch cards, all need ID to prove you're 18. i get the objection bus passes aren't included, a brief search turns up the PASS card is offered by dozen organisations (some for free). it's as if someone thought this would cover just about everyone*. master strategist at Tory HQ foiled again. meanwhile, Home Office chuckling as everyone gets used to national ID (which so many seem to be content with now).

* and for those missed, there's the option of getting ID when registering to vote. registration is probably a higher bar, many forgetting to.