[Politics] Voter Identification.

[Colonel Mustard]

I have no problem with the principle of showing ID —why would I? — though there were some anomalies that need ironing out eg accepting certain types of photo ID but not others that seemed equivalent.

In the May elections, the BBC monitored a couple of polling stations in Essex if i remember rightly. Can’t recall the exact figures but there were approximately 150 people who’d been turned away for not having ID, about 120 of whom returned later with the correct ID. There was consternation expressed about the 'disenfranchised' 30 voters who didn’t return. I remember wondering at the time whether those 30, or some of them at least, hadn’t returned because they were voting fraudulently — but this possibility wasn’t even considered by the report I heard. It was assumed they were all bona fide voters who’d been forced to forego their democratic right.

When I was a student, living in a house with 4 others, I remember us voting on behalf of 2 of the guys who were away (they’d asked us to). At least one of them was also registered at home as I remember him feeling pleased that he’d voted twice against Thatcher in the same election. So not only had we committed fraud but had double-voted. Of course no one felt that they were doing anything wrong. We were merely doing our bit to try to keep at bay the running dogs of capitalism. It was pretty benign stuff among consenting adults but it showed just how easy it was to vote fraudulently, and more than once, so on balance the need to show ID seems sensible to me.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Voter ID was designed solely with the intent to reduce voting. Voter fraud has never been a problem in the UK, the tories are simply following the voter suppression practiced by the republicans in the US.

If you were going to have to produce anything when voting then I'd say your polling card should be sufficient. That said our democracy has perfectly fairly without voter ID I'd like to think Labour will reverse this in government, I am not holding my breath though.

 

[beorhthelm]

page 12 of the report says 3% of those that did not vote, did not due to not having ID.

4% didn't vote because "no point voting", another 4% because no party represented their views, 6% because they forgot, 13% because they are fed up with politics.

seems like there might be more important problem with voting than ID.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Voter ID was designed solely with the intent to reduce voting. Voter fraud has never been a problem in the UK, the tories are simply following the voter suppression practiced by the republicans in the US.

If you were going to have to produce anything when voting then I'd say your polling card should be sufficient. That said our democracy has perfectly fairly without voter ID I'd like to think Labour will reverse this in government, I am not holding my breath though.

That’s the narrative of those opposed to it, and I understand why you want to think it — though I suspect you’ve no evidence for it. If you’re one of the small minority without photo ID why not simply vote by post? As with a lot of contentious issues it’s useful to look at what other countries do, and plenty of developed nations require ID. As for using polling cards, that’s exactly what I did back in 1979. Used my own in the morning and returned later in the day with my absent housemate's. Worked a treat,

 

[drew]

That’s the narrative of those opposed to it, and I understand why you want to think it — though I suspect you’ve no evidence for it. If you’re one of the small minority without photo ID why not simply vote by post? As with a lot of contentious issues it’s useful to look at what other countries do, and plenty of developed nations require ID. As for using polling cards, that’s exactly what I did back in 1979. Used my own in the morning and returned later in the day with my absent housemate's. Worked a treat,

Pretty certain that's the narrative of nearly every one apart from a minority of tories. The electoral commission are pretty independent and I don't believe they've ever called for it in order to combat voter fraud.

 

[Hotchilidog]

That’s the narrative of those opposed to it, and I understand why you want to think it — though I suspect you’ve no evidence for it. If you’re one of the small minority without photo ID why not simply vote by post? As with a lot of contentious issues it’s useful to look at what other countries do, and plenty of developed nations require ID. As for using polling cards, that’s exactly what I did back in 1979. Used my own in the morning and returned later in the day with my absent housemate's. Worked a treat,

If you look at the US the disenfranchisement is real, and it's not GOP voters getting excluded. The salient point here is that there is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud in the UK. Voter ID is the answer to a question that did not require an answer. It's adding a barrier to voting that wasn't previously there, it is unnecessary, the case has not been made for it.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Pretty certain that's the narrative of nearly every one apart from a minority of tories. The electoral commission are pretty independent and I don't believe they've ever called for it in order to combat voter fraud.

Well I’m not a Tory, that’s for sure, but I find it hard to explain why showing ID should be a bad thing when it’s so common elsewhere. When I lived abroad I voted in a local election (wasn’t allowed to vote in national) and had to produce ID. Didn’t seem like a big deal.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

If you look at the US the disenfranchisement is real, and it's not GOP voters getting excluded. The salient point here is that there is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud in the UK. Voter ID is the answer to a question that did not require an answer. It's adding a barrier to voting that wasn't previously there, it is unnecessary, the case has not been made for it.

I’m very sceptical about the US voting system in general (primaries and punching cards etc seem like madness), and much prefer to look at European models. A bit like healthcare provision. I’ve found European models very good compared with the broken NHS but opponents only ever want to use the US as the sole alternative. But that’s another issue. Forget the US.

You’re right that there is little evidence of widespread electoral fraud but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. What sort of evidence would you accept? And why does it have to be widespread to have anything done about it? I’ve done it myself. It’s very easy to do and unless you own up to it, it’s virtually undetectable. But we’re just rehashing the same old arguments. Look, it’s really simple. If you want to vote, just show some ID. If for some reason you refuse to have photo ID, use a postal vote. We’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

All that said, I’d much prefer we focused on the electoral system. FPTP is undemocratic IMO and a major cause of political apathy. I’m pissed off that Labour has refused to embrace PR in some form as part of a future manifesto.

 

[dsr-burnley]

If you look at the US the disenfranchisement is real, and it's not GOP voters getting excluded. The salient point here is that there is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud in the UK. Voter ID is the answer to a question that did not require an answer. It's adding a barrier to voting that wasn't previously there, it is unnecessary, the case has not been made for it.

To be fair, a lot of the absence of evidence is because they aren't looking for it. The people manning polling stations nowadays in our area were told (2010 or so) not to challenge people who come in to vote twice, or who fill in the paper for their wife (always that way round). Nor to report it or to take their number.

Of course, that was more or less made redundant by the expansion of the postal vote. Now that postal voting has been made so easy and with so few checks, it has the double whammy of making voter fraud much easier, and of abolishing the secret ballot. The last (IMO) being a bigger stinker than the former.

 

[beorhthelm]

If you look at the US the disenfranchisement is real, and it's not GOP voters getting excluded. The salient point here is that there is no evidence of widespread electoral fraud in the UK. Voter ID is the answer to a question that did not require an answer. It's adding a barrier to voting that wasn't previously there, it is unnecessary, the case has not been made for it.

is it really equivilent or relevent to UK though? according to the new Electoral Commission estimate, this affects 300k or 0.63% of the population. thats about 1/6th their previous estimate btw, showing the changes to include most forms of ID worked well. for that remaining 0.63% there are free voter certificates or postal votes. so where is the disenfranchisment? i reckon there are more eligable people not on the electrol roll than impacted by this. and the numbers show several million arent voting because the politicans dont engage with them, reflect their views or energise them to vote.

 

[Hotchilidog]

is it really equivilent or relevent to UK though? according to the new Electoral Commission estimate, this affects 300k or 0.63% of the population. thats about 1/10th their previous estimate btw, showing the changes to include most forms of ID worked well. for that remaining 0.63% there are free voter certificates or postal votes. so where is the disenfranchisment? i reckon there are more eligable people not on the electrol roll than impacted by this. and the numbers show several million arent voting because the politicans dont engage with them, reflect their views or energise them to vote.

So what? That does not address the issue that there is no evidence of wide scale fraud in UK elections.
I agree that disengagement is a big issue, but that is for politicians to address through arguments. The voter ID law is a regulatory barrier to some voters who previously were able to vote and will now not.

Just because it's ok and not a hindrance for most of us is not the point, it is for some and that for me is important. This legislation was not introduced with noble intentions and should be judged accordingly. There was no urgent need for this legislation at all. Just a desperate act to seek some slither of electoral advantage from a lame duck government that needs all the help it can get.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

So what? That does not address the issue that there is no evidence of wide scale fraud in UK elections.
I agree that disengagement is a big issue, but that is for politicians to address through arguments. The voter ID law is a regulatory barrier to some voters who previously were able to vote and will now not.

Just because it's ok and not a hindrance for most of us is not the point, it is for some and that for me is important. This legislation was not introduced with noble intentions and should be judged accordingly. There was no urgent need for this legislation at all. Just a desperate act to seek some slither of electoral advantage from a lame duck government that needs all the help it can get.

Again, what’s your evidence for the reason it was introduced? You refuse to address that and you’ve also not said what sort of evidence of 'there is little/no voter fraud' would satisfy you. If anecdotal evidence is acceptable I’ve submitted my confession above.

How many people are both keen to vote and unable to produce ID? Very few, and if they still prefer to have no ID they can vote by post. I just refuse to accept that the solution is worse than the problem, which seems to be your position.

 

[mikeyjh]

Well I’m not a Tory, that’s for sure, but I find it hard to explain why showing ID should be a bad thing when it’s so common elsewhere. When I lived abroad I voted in a local election (wasn’t allowed to vote in national) and had to produce ID. Didn’t seem like a big deal.

Maybe it is a big deal, maybe it isn't but if we're going to use 'not a big deal' as a threshold for importance then why on earth was this introduced? In 2022 there were 7 (seven) allegations of impersonation at a polling station. None of which resulted in any further action. That means there were 0 (zero) allegations of this illegality that deemed even worthy of further investigation. Other than to disenfranchise likely non Tory voters, what was the point?

 

[beorhthelm]

So what? That does not address the issue that there is no evidence of wide scale fraud in UK elections.
I agree that disengagement is a big issue, but that is for politicians to address through arguments. The voter ID law is a regulatory barrier to some voters who previously were able to vote and will now not.

Just because it's ok and not a hindrance for most of us is not the point, it is for some and that for me is important. This legislation was not introduced with noble intentions and should be judged accordingly. There was no urgent need for this legislation at all. Just a desperate act to seek some slither of electoral advantage from a lame duck government that needs all the help it can get.

well exactly, the comparions to US are not very relevent what happens or the motivations here.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Maybe it is a big deal, maybe it isn't but if we're going to use 'not a big deal' as a threshold for importance then why on earth was this introduced? In 2022 there were 7 (seven) allegations of impersonation at a polling station. None of which resulted in any further action. That means there were 0 (zero) allegations of this illegality that deemed even worthy of further investigation. Other than to disenfranchise likely non Tory voters, what was the point?

I'm starting to repeat myself so I won't say anything after this:

What it comes down to is that both sides of the argument are sincere and trying to improve our democracy, or fall into line with other European countries. (An article in the Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-justice/voter-id-laws-are-the-norm-in-europe) says: "Most European nations require identification to vote. A 2021 Crime Prevention Research Center study found that 46 out of 47 European countries require voters to provide some form of identification to vote — the United Kingdom was the lone exception."

For those against voter ID, this new law weakens our voting system by deterring people who don't have any ID. For those in favour of it, it strengthens our voting system by making fraud harder. Take your pick which is the bigger threat.

There have been very few prosecutions for voter fraud. Opponents say that this proves that very little fraud takes place. Supporters say that polling office staff are unlikely to spot someone voting twice, and if they did, they're unlikely to try to detain them while they call the police -- and that even if they did that, a prosecution is highly unlikely. If police refuse to respond to reports of shoplifting and burglary, what are the chances of them rushing to a polling station and opening an investigation leading to prosecution of someone allegedly voting using someone else's ID? Again, take your pick over which is the more likely explanation for a historical lack of prosecutions.

Where I do think we can improve the law is to make acceptable forms of ID fairer. I seem to recall it was OK for some people to use transport ID cards but not others. I'm guessing as well that some people simply have objections to having any sort of photo ID which is fair enough I guess, though as with all principled stands you tend to lose certain privileges in the process. In this case, the privilege of voting in person at a polling station. Solution? Use a postal vote. It's really not hard to manage this situation but people need to know in advance. So next time around we need to give it just as much publicity as last time.

Anyway, that's me done on this topic.

 

[mikeyjh]

I'm starting to repeat myself so I won't say anything after this:

What it comes down to is that both sides of the argument are sincere and trying to improve our democracy, or fall into line with other European countries. (An article in the Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-justice/voter-id-laws-are-the-norm-in-europe) says: "Most European nations require identification to vote. A 2021 Crime Prevention Research Center study found that 46 out of 47 European countries require voters to provide some form of identification to vote — the United Kingdom was the lone exception."

For those against voter ID, this new law weakens our voting system by deterring people who don't have any ID. For those in favour of it, it strengthens our voting system by making fraud harder. Take your pick which is the bigger threat.

There have been very few prosecutions for voter fraud. Opponents say that this proves that very little fraud takes place. Supporters say that polling office staff are unlikely to spot someone voting twice, and if they did, they're unlikely to try to detain them while they call the police -- and that even if they did that, a prosecution is highly unlikely. If police refuse to respond to reports of shoplifting and burglary, what are the chances of them rushing to a polling station and opening an investigation leading to prosecution of someone allegedly voting using someone else's ID? Again, take your pick over which is the more likely explanation for a historical lack of prosecutions.

Where I do think we can improve the law is to make acceptable forms of ID fairer. I seem to recall it was OK for some people to use transport ID cards but not others. I'm guessing as well that some people simply have objections to having any sort of photo ID which is fair enough I guess, though as with all principled stands you tend to lose certain privileges in the process. In this case, the privilege of voting in person at a polling station. Solution? Use a postal vote. It's really not hard to manage this situation but people need to know in advance. So next time around we need to give it just as much publicity as last time.

Anyway, that's me done on this topic.

People who were turned away in England's local elections because of lack of ID - 14,000, those known to be without ID - 300,000, cases of impersonation even investigated last year - 0 (zero). 2021, 1 conviction 1 caution, 2019 1 conviction 1 caution. That's not 'very few', it's basically zero. In the last 5 years of elections.

 

[Crawley Dingo]

So, you're political persusion is evidenced by a) your reference to the Guardian and b) You either chose to lie about the 4% figure to try to validate the governments vaccuous argument for introducing voter id in the first place or you're just too stupid to understand it?

No need to get precious about the guardian the way people on here go of against The Mail. The reasons for the 4% fall can be spun one way or the other, the article doesn't provide case studies "I couldn't vote because......" which tells me all I need to know.

 

[dsr-burnley]

People who were turned away in England's local elections because of lack of ID - 14,000, those known to be without ID - 300,000, cases of impersonation even investigated last year - 0 (zero). 2021, 1 conviction 1 caution, 2019 1 conviction 1 caution. That's not 'very few', it's basically zero. In the last 5 years of elections.

Yes, but if polling staff are told not to take action if they spot someone voting illegally, it will hardly be a surprise of polling station staff haven't been seen to take action against people voting illegally.

I agree that postal voting is a far more likely source of fraud, but the absence of information about personation and other illegal practices is not proof that they don't exist.

 

[drew]

Again, what’s your evidence for the reason it was introduced? You refuse to address that and you’ve also not said what sort of evidence of 'there is little/no voter fraud' would satisfy you. If anecdotal evidence is acceptable I’ve submitted my confession above.

How many people are both keen to vote and unable to produce ID? Very few, and if they still prefer to have no ID they can vote by post. I just refuse to accept that the solution is worse than the problem, which seems to be your position.

The tory party will have looked into it in detail. They would have info on the demographics of those that have id and those that don't. Surely the fact that they allow pensioners with a photo bus pass to use that but not young people that will also have a photo bus pass. They will know the propensity is for the old to vote tory and the young to vote labour. Not everyone has a passport but those that don't are likely to be the ones that can't afford to travel and therefore probably fall into the category of labour voters rather than tory. There will be those that can't afford to drive and therefore never bothered to get a driving licence. Again, the lack of money is likely that their propensity to vote will be for labour and not the tories. On the basis of these groups, it is clearly an attempt to disenfranchise part of the electorate.

I'd be for a free national id card and if we had that, I'd happily agree that voter id should be required but all the time the national id isn't mandatory, it shouldn't be forced on people at an election.

Also, your anecdotal evidence is just one case. The electoral commission have never claimed there is no voter fraud but that the problem is miniscule. As for DRS Burnley anecdotes, not only does that seem to be criminal, I would suggest that if they would happily waive people through who had the wrong id card or had no id card at all!!

 

[drew]

Yes, but if polling staff are told not to take action if they spot someone voting illegally, it will hardly be a surprise of polling station staff haven't been seen to take action against people voting illegally.

I agree that postal voting is a far more likely source of fraud, but the absence of information about personation and other illegal practices is not proof that they don't exist.

Would be interesting to know who actually told the polling staff not to take action and the reason why?