[Politics] Voter Identification.

[Bry Nylon]

Personally I feel that wandering into a Village Hall - simply being asked my name, not having to have any ID, not even having to show my polling card, is an antiquated system and open to abuse.

If that system was operated in Africa the world would be shouting voter fraud.

They certainly would and with some justification too. My village hall is 7000 miles from Africa.

 

[kevo]

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any significant level of voter fraud in this country. This is simply a way for the Tories to disenfranchise poorer sections of the community who may not necessarily have passports or driving licences.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Would you say the same to all Italians, Germans, French, Greeks, etc. who all have to have ID to enable them to vote?

BTW Photo ID is required (along with your membership card) when attending/voting at Labour Party meetings - perhaps it is the Labour Party who is 'cleansing an underclass from engaging in democracy'

A quick check on wikipedia suggests that Germany doesn't require photo ID to vote unless specifically requested by the polling station.

I'd also suggest that in all those countries, the number of people prevented from voting due to not having the correct ID at the polling station for any reason (including just forgetting their wallet when they left the house), vastly exceeds the number of fraudulent votes prevented. And that if you were inclined to go to the trouble of impersonating somebody else and voting instead of them, or falsely registering somebody on the roll, then you could also just produce a fake ID to present at the polling station.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any significant level of voter fraud in this country. This is simply a way for the Tories to disenfranchise poorer sections of the community who may not necessarily have passports or driving licences.

In Northern Ireland you need ID to vote. You also need ID to turn some to some Labour party meetings. Are Labour disenfranchising poor people with this policy?

These are the acceptable forms of ID in NI - they do not need to be in date.

A UK, Irish or EEA driving licence (photographic part) (provisional accepted)
A UK, Irish or EU passport
An Electoral Identity Card
A Translink Senior SmartPass
A Translink 60+ SmartPass
A Translink War Disabled SmartPass
A Translink Blind Person’s SmartPass

These documents are listed in legislation and no other forms of identity can be accepted.

An Electoral Card is free of charge.

Again - why would the Conservatives want to disenfranchise the poor - who overwhelmingly voted Tory in 2019? (C2DE)

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

In Northern Ireland you need ID to vote. You also need ID to turn some to some Labour party meetings. Are Labour disenfranchising poor people with this policy?

These are the acceptable forms of ID in NI - they do not need to be in date.

A UK, Irish or EEA driving licence (photographic part) (provisional accepted)
A UK, Irish or EU passport
An Electoral Identity Card
A Translink Senior SmartPass
A Translink 60+ SmartPass
A Translink War Disabled SmartPass
A Translink Blind Person’s SmartPass

These documents are listed in legislation and no other forms of identity can be accepted.

An Electoral Card is free of charge.

Again - why would the Conservatives want to disenfranchise the poor - who overwhelmingly voted Tory in 2019? (C2DE)

View attachment 134001

I'd expect it's less to do with whether people are poor as such, and more that people without ID are more likely to be from ethnic minorities - who are much more likely to vote labour than conservative.

The Labour party is entitled to prevent people who aren't members from attending/voting at their meetings, that isn't comparable to an general or local election where everybody should be allowed to vote.

And again, this is an obviously flawed solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist outside a tiny number of local cases.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I'd expect it's less to do with whether people are poor as such, and more that people without ID are more likely to be from ethnic minorities - who are much more likely to vote labour than conservative.

The Labour party is entitled to prevent people who aren't members from attending/voting at their meetings, that isn't comparable to an general or local election where everybody should be allowed to vote.

And again, this is an obviously flawed solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist outside a tiny number of local cases.

That kind of looks like you have just switched tack ie if it’s not the poor it must be ethnic minorities. The premise of your argument is that the wicked Tories must be trying to exclude someone and we will keep guessing until we find out who.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

That kind of looks like you have just switched tack ie if it’s not the poor it must be ethnic minorities. The premise of your argument is that the wicked Tories must be trying to exclude someone and we will keep guessing until we find out who.

I've never made the argument that it's to prevent poor people from voting. Nor do I view the Conservatives in general as intrinsically evil.

 

[birthofanorange]

Until such time that voter fraud is proven to be an issue (in this country), it's much ado about nothing and is simply unnecessary.
Why push for something that solves nothing, unless there are different reasons for doing so? If so, what could they be?

 

[The Clamp]

If I didn't know any better I'd suggest maybe the OP has realised virtually everyone is disagreeing with him and is now trying to get it into the Bear Pit in the hope it'll die off and save his embarrassment.

I doubt he has enough insight to realise he’s being an embarrassment.
He simply cannot make any point without adding an insult. It’s boring and I have chosen not to bother engaging with him further. Which pretty much means avoiding the bear pit as he posts endlessly on there. All vitriolic hatred and thinly veiled bigotry. He’s a bit of a mess really.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I've never made the argument that it's to prevent poor people from voting. Nor do I view the Conservatives in general as intrinsically evil.

Fair enough, sorry that’s me making an assumption because plenty of others have made that point. Mental note to be less lazy about reading back over threads ! By the way I’m not saying that exclusion isn’t a motivation on this issue. I just don’t know. Like others I have watched the antics of Donald Trump regarding electoral rolls and am not naive enough to think it can’t happen here. It’s just that there are ideas being floated even on this thread to try to allay fears.

 

[beorhthelm]

Until such time that voter fraud is proven to be an issue (in this country), it's much ado about nothing and is simply unnecessary.
Why push for something that solves nothing, unless there are different reasons for doing so? If so, what could they be?

national ID by the backdoor. someone clever in the Home Office has seeded voter ID as an angle they can seed to Conservatives, to get their national ID through. who disagrees with having a formal ID for everyday use, access to services, banks, benefits etc?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any significant level of voter fraud in this country. This is simply a way for the Tories to disenfranchise poorer sections of the community who may not necessarily have passports or driving licences.

You do realise that the Labour Party wanted to introduce ID cards under Blair? Only when we had the Tory/LibDem coalition was the idea scrapped.


In 2003, Blunkett announced that the Government intended to introduce a "British national identity card" linked to a national identity database, the National Identity Register. The proposals were included in the November 2003 Queen's Speech, despite doubts over the ability of the scheme to prevent terrorism. Feedback from the consultation exercise indicated that the term "entitlement card" was superficially softer and warmer, but less familiar and "weaselly", and consequently the euphemism was dropped in favour of "identity card".[16]

 

[birthofanorange]

national ID by the backdoor. someone clever in the Home Office has seeded voter ID as an angle they can seed to Conservatives, to get their national ID through. who disagrees with having a formal ID for everyday use, access to services, banks, benefits etc?

How strange that they couldn't just be upfront about it, if that's the idea behind it - I'm sure it would prove most popular, for some, anyway.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Until 1918 no UK government had been elected with a single vote from a woman, it didn't make it right.

To be honest I consider "not caring" to be a significantly better argument than most of the specific objections given.

I agree with your first point but don't quite follow your second. Do you mean not caring about how we elect our leaders is the best objection to PR?

May I offer two more? The first is democracy in Italy, and its 'stability and lack of corruption'. The second is that with PR we'd have had Farrage spouting his bollocks from a lofty MP's perch. FPTP keeps most things that are more than two standard deviations from the mean where they belong.

I appreciate that PR simply 'feels' fairer, but I hate it

 

[zefarelly]

chips, like dogs.

I'm sure Priti Vacant has it on her to do list.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

I agree with your first point but don't quite follow your second. Do you mean not caring about how we elect our leaders is the best objection to PR?

May I offer two more? The first is democracy in Italy, and its 'stability and lack of corruption'. The second is that with PR we'd have had Farrage spouting his bollocks from a lofty MP's perch. FPTP keeps most things that are more than two standard deviations from the mean where they belong.

I appreciate that PR simply 'feels' fairer, but I hate it

I was referring to you saying that you're comfortable with the idea of a party achieving a majority in parliament with only around 40% of the vote. Personally I'm fairly happy with 40% of votes translating to about 50% of seats. It's when a party gets under 40% but still wins a clear majority, or conversely gets +20% of votes but less than 10% of seats that it becomes a problem on a national level.

I expect plenty of people in other countries look at the outcomes our system produces and say "thank god we don't have that". There are countries with effective governments elected by PR, there are countries with awful governments elected by any system. There are long term reasons separate from the electoral system why Italy tends to suffer from corruption.

The system I'm in favour of is the Single Transferable Vote, which (I can't emphasis enough) is NOT a PR system. The results normally approximate proportionality if constituencies have more than 6 seats or so, but results are not tied to the party vote share. All votes are cast for individual candidates, and the number of votes required to be elected is relatively high so it would remain unlikely that the extreme parties would ever receive more than a few seats.

I would much rather keep FPTP than adopt a party list system, which I hate with a passion.

 

[zefarelly]

I was referring to you saying that you're comfortable with the idea of a party achieving a majority in parliament with only around 40% of the vote. Personally I'm fairly happy with 40% of votes translating to about 50% of seats. It's when a party gets under 40% but still wins a clear majority, or conversely gets +20% of votes but less than 10% of seats that it becomes a problem on a national level.

I expect plenty of people in other countries look at the outcomes our system produces and say "thank god we don't have that". There are countries with effective governments elected by PR, there are countries with awful governments elected by any system. There are long term reasons separate from the electoral system why Italy tends to suffer from corruption.

The system I'm in favour of is the Single Transferable Vote, which (I can't emphasis enough) is NOT a PR system. The results normally approximate proportionality if constituencies have more than 6 seats or so, but results are not tied to the party vote share. All votes are cast for individual candidates, and the number of votes required to be elected is relatively high so it would remain unlikely that the extreme parties would ever receive more than a few seats.

I would much rather keep FPTP than adopt a party list system, which I hate with a passion.

whatever the system, it would be nice to have one that fairly represents the people. All of them.

 

[m@goo]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9272615/Voters-need-photo-ID-polling-stations-2023.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/14074623/voter-id-2023-new-law/


Quality sources

I did ask for "evidence" not virtual toilet paper

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I was referring to you saying that you're comfortable with the idea of a party achieving a majority in parliament with only around 40% of the vote. Personally I'm fairly happy with 40% of votes translating to about 50% of seats. It's when a party gets under 40% but still wins a clear majority, or conversely gets +20% of votes but less than 10% of seats that it becomes a problem on a national level.

I expect plenty of people in other countries look at the outcomes our system produces and say "thank god we don't have that". There are countries with effective governments elected by PR, there are countries with awful governments elected by any system. There are long term reasons separate from the electoral system why Italy tends to suffer from corruption.

The system I'm in favour of is the Single Transferable Vote, which (I can't emphasis enough) is NOT a PR system. The results normally approximate proportionality if constituencies have more than 6 seats or so, but results are not tied to the party vote share. All votes are cast for individual candidates, and the number of votes required to be elected is relatively high so it would remain unlikely that the extreme parties would ever receive more than a few seats.

I would much rather keep FPTP than adopt a party list system, which I hate with a passion.

Excellent. Thanks for your reply. Ah, yes, the ranking of candidates in multi-seat constituencies. I like that. Direct voting for local MPs but with it clear and obvious that the people selected will reflect the rank order preference of local voters. And at the end of the day the government will still be formed by the party with the majority of seats (or a coaltion, which wouldn't feel like a kick in the teeth to those of us who 'didn't vote for a coalition' because of the candidate ranking mking voting feel different fowm what it feels like presently).

Having looked up the detail on Wikipedia I see what I imagine is the reason why this has not been adopted; there are multiple different ways of casting the votes (e.g., rank all candidates or only those you like, rank by party or individual candidate?) and transferring the vote (I won't list the possibilities and the caveats for this) and, no doubt, those who want FPTP replaced have differing views on which system they prefer. And of course there are others who favour crude PR, party lists and all.

I guess change will require all those opposed to FPTP to come together around one system and sell it, or FPTP will always appear to be the single most popular system.

Meanwhile, of course, the turkeys (HMG and HMLO - aka HMG optimistically in waiting) won't be voting for Christmas (electoral reform).

 

[A1X]

Single Transferrable Vote of course is already used in the UK as the Scots use it for their local elections (I think also for Holyrood, but definitely locals)