[Politics] Voter Identification.

[heathgate]

It’s been explained by me and many others on here. I’m not sure why you are taking such an aggressive tone. I don’t care for your attitude but I’m happy to explain.

I am not against ID cards. I think they would be a positive if they are universally attainable. They work well in other countries and I think they would work well here.


If Tory’s want to introduce national ID cards, they have my support

If, as many suspect. they want to introduce compulsory voter ID; showing a passport or driving license at the polling station? Then no, I am dead against that because it potentially disenfranchises groups of the electorate such as disabled people, poorer people and people of ethnic backgrounds who statistically are less likely to have these form of identification. These are groups less likely to vote Tory. Which is an advantage to the Tory’s. Following so far?


We don’t have a voter fraud problem in this country. Simple as that. It is a non existent problem.

And while other countries have ID systems in place, they are only required to produce ID at a polling station if they don it have their polling card. So, not what you claim at all. And I’ve explained that one in here before, too.

I’ve explained all this several times on this thread but you are clearly too angry to concentrate. Work on your manners, you were clearly dragged up.

Still no evidence against the proposal.... ethnicity or economic circumstances are no bar to photo ID.... if a sector of society are unwilling or unable to obtain an ID document, I would hazard a guess in a lot of cases, they are also unable or unwilling to register to vote in the first place.

Non story dragged up to replace the failed wallpaper story.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[The Clamp]

Still no evidence against the proposal.... ethnicity or economic circumstances are no bar to photo ID.... if a sector of society are unwilling or unable to obtain an ID document, I would hazard a guess in a lot of cases, they are also unable or unwilling to register to vote in the first place.

Non story dragged up to replace the failed wallpaper story.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

You are simply incorrect. What evidence do you have that those who can’t obtain ID are unwilling to vote. Or unable? What utter nonsense. And the aggression doesn’t help you.
I’ve explained my point of view, you can do with it what you like. It’s correct but I don’t have to prove anything. If you want to debate with adults, drop the attitude, lad. It’s vulgar and does you no favours.

 

[heathgate]

You are simply incorrect. What evidence do you have that those who can’t obtain ID are unwilling to vote. Or unable? What utter nonsense. And the aggression doesn’t help you.
I’ve explained my point of view, you can do with it what you like. It’s correct but I don’t have to prove anything. If you want to debate with adults, drop the attitude, lad. It’s vulgar and does you no favours.

Are you just a bit fragile, aggression?... another non story,... please provide evidence that they are active voters.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[The Clamp]

Are you just a bit fragile, aggression?... another non story,... please provide evidence that they are active voters.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

You claimed they aren’t active, you prove it. Anyway, I’m getting the idea you are a wind-up account, you don’t often see your tone and brand of rudeness outside the Bearpit so I’ll leave you to it. There plenty of others on here making the same points as me, try your routine on one of them, darling.

 

[heathgate]

You claimed they aren’t active, you prove it. Anyway, I’m getting the idea you are a wind-up account, you don’t often see your tone and brand of rudeness outside the Bearpit so I’ll leave you to it. There plenty of others on here making the same points as me, try your routine on one of them, darling.

Yep... fragile.... ttfn

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[studio150]

Still no evidence that, they are also unable or unwilling to register to vote in the first place.

We'll wait

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

We can certainly agree on your last sentence. I don’t think it is a serious suggestion by certain people but rather a bitter response to losing an election/vote. It never does their cause any good to be insulting the majority but they never seem to learn.
By logical conundrum I just meant your premise was wrong as the German system requires more ID than needed currently in the UK. That does make it a bit of a conundrum and difficult not to get tied up in the logic. I’ve just googled the phrase I used and I appear to have made it up to convey my meaning, sorry.
Lastly, I can equally ask you for proof that requiring voter ID would prevent people from voting legitimately. Photo ID is required in many countries around the world and there do not seem to be campaigns against their democratic credentials. If you are right then there should be proof of that causal link to voter suppression in countries like Germany.

My slightly fatuous comment to somebody else aside...

I've not looked at European countries, since I can't read German (or French, Italian, Spanish... This was never an issue when I went travelling around Europe a few years ago, but has somehow become one in an argument on a football forum about voter ID requirements).

I have found the summary of a report published by the GAO in America in 2015, the crucial part of which states:

"GAO's analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states' voter ID requirements. GAO found that turnout among eligible and registered voters declined more in Kansas and Tennessee than it declined in comparison states—by an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee—and the results were consistent across the different data sources and voter populations used in the analysis."

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-634

I daresay other studies are available.

If, for the sake of conversation, we assume that the equivalent drop-off in Britain would be 1% (it makes the maths easier), then that equates to around 300,000 votes across the country.

Taking a fairly brutal cost/benefit view of this, to justify bringing in Voter ID we would want to show that we are preventing more false votes than we are preventing legitimate being cast. On that basis, there would have to be reasonable cause to believe that around 150,000 fraudulent votes were cast in the last election, that would have been prevented by introducing voter ID.

As has been noted previously on the thread, there were 595 alleged cases of electoral fraud in the UK in 2019, resulting in 4 convictions (over all elections, the General Election accounts for 164 of these).

https://www.electoralcommission.org...lectoral-fraud-data/2019-electoral-fraud-data

Even if we compare the higher number of allegations, that is nowhere near the number we can roughly guess might be needed to justify increasing the voter ID requirements.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

My slightly fatuous comment to somebody else aside...

I've not looked at European countries, since I can't read German (or French, Italian, Spanish... This was never an issue when I went travelling around Europe a few years ago, but has somehow become one in an argument on a football forum about voter ID requirements).

I have found the summary of a report published by the GAO in America in 2015, the crucial part of which states:

"GAO's analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in the comparison states were attributable to changes in those two states' voter ID requirements. GAO found that turnout among eligible and registered voters declined more in Kansas and Tennessee than it declined in comparison states—by an estimated 1.9 to 2.2 percentage points more in Kansas and 2.2 to 3.2 percentage points more in Tennessee—and the results were consistent across the different data sources and voter populations used in the analysis."

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-14-634

I daresay other studies are available.

If, for the sake of conversation, we assume that the equivalent drop-off in Britain would be 1% (it makes the maths easier), then that equates to around 300,000 votes across the country.

Taking a fairly brutal cost/benefit view of this, to justify bringing in Voter ID we would want to show that we are preventing more false votes than we are preventing legitimate being cast. On that basis, there would have to be reasonable cause to believe that around 150,000 fraudulent votes were cast in the last election, that would have been prevented by introducing voter ID.

As has been noted previously on the thread, there were 595 alleged cases of electoral fraud in the UK in 2019, resulting in 4 convictions (over all elections, the General Election accounts for 164 of these).

https://www.electoralcommission.org...lectoral-fraud-data/2019-electoral-fraud-data

Even if we compare the higher number of allegations, that is nowhere near the number we can roughly guess might be needed to justify increasing the voter ID requirements.

Thank you for taking the trouble to find that article. It does provide some evidence for your point. I say ‘some’ because one study is never enough to draw conclusions. There would need to be other studies and in particular ones that might smooth out any America specific results. If you are making the point that such studies should accompany any change then we are in complete agreement. Of course, if this is really just a phased in national ID scheme (to test voter response ?) then it will happen anyway.

 

[studio150]

Trump calls on US to follow UK lead with voter ID plans.

Any endorsement from Trump must tell you that the idea from Johnson is a bad one.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

I haven't used an ID card in my adult life aside from ID for pubs. How many people regularly use them?

Did you not have to show photo ID to get into The Amex last night?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

It's just another barrier that is totally uneccessary. Passports are expensive and many people don't drive. What you say sounds 'reasonable', but we all know this is being enacted in bad faith. Not as bad as the States but it's the thin edge of wedge for me. The government know that the people who are unlikely to have photo ID will be the poor and the marginalised, hardly fertile ground for the Tory party.

Our elections work perfectly fine, they are conducted in fair manner. There is no problem to solve here.

The government has to make the case for this measure by demonstrating that our electoral system has been subvert by nefarious means. They have categorically not done that.

You had to have photo ID to get into The Amex last night.............

 

[Baker lite]

you had to have photo id to get into the amex last night.............

outrageous..

 

[Mr deez]

I think people under estimate how easy/ common it would be for people to have no photo ID... I mean, I only have one which is my passport and there will be plenty out there without a passport for financial reasons. That's why this is wrong, it is specifically disadvantageous to the less well off sections of the community.

 

[southstandandy]

Good thing.

When I went to vote in the General Election somebody had already voted using my name when I went in at lunchtime. I certainly hadn't voted earlier at all and it appears somebody gave my name and address (which is in the phone book) and voted fraudulently. Took me over half an hour to get adjudication to let me vote but it still means another ballot paper got put in unscrupulously.

 

[rippleman]

I think people under estimate how easy/ common it would be for people to have no photo ID... I mean, I only have one which is my passport and there will be plenty out there without a passport for financial reasons. That's why this is wrong, it is specifically disadvantageous to the less well off sections of the community.

I have no photo id. I have never driven and my passport expired about 20 years ago. I have no plans to go abroad so why would I spend money to get a new passport just so I can vote (or go back to the Amex for that matter. If Barber persists with this nonsense next season then I won't be going back unless he is prepared to reimburse the cost of a new passport)

 

[Hotchilidog]

You had to have photo ID to get into The Amex last night.............

I know I took my passport which is ridiculous overkill. I was attending a football match, not trying to get into Fort Knox.

I understand this is a league mandate not a club one, so I am hoping that this requirement will be lifted for next season should restrictions be lifted in June or July

 

[A1X]

You had to have photo ID to get into The Amex last night.............

I know I took my passport which is ridiculous overkill. I was attending a football match, not trying to get into Fort Knox.

I understand this is a league mandate not a club one, so I am hoping that this requirement will be lifted for next season should restrictions be lifted in June or July

My gut feel is it's in place for 2-3 games at the start of the season, then everyone realises it's a total logistical nightmare to do this for 30,000 fans (or 80,000 at other grounds) and it's dropped. A few grounds being half-empty at kick-off because everyone's still queueing outside won't do the PL's image much good.

 

[Hotchilidog]

My gut feel is it's in place for 2-3 games at the start of the season, then everyone realises it's a total logistical nightmare to do this for 30,000 fans (or 80,000 at other grounds) and it's dropped. A few grounds being half-empty at kick-off because everyone's still queueing outside won't do the PL's image much good.

I do not have to produce photo id to do anything other get on a plane or get into Glastonbury and then my mug is on the ticket.

If this outlasts Covid restrictions it's another piece of discrimination against football fans and they would have to come up with a very convincing argument to retain it.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

I think people under estimate how easy/ common it would be for people to have no photo ID... I mean, I only have one which is my passport and there will be plenty out there without a passport for financial reasons. That's why this is wrong, it is specifically disadvantageous to the less well off sections of the community.

This is what was happening in New York with a lot of black people being held in stop and search operations and unable to prove their ID. So they brought in a system with a photo ID card which was free (with optional sign up - not compulsory) for everybody including homeless and regardless of immigration status. Good example of what can be done with a bit of thought

 

[Mr deez]

This is what was happening in New York with a lot of black people being held in stop and search operations and unable to prove their ID. So they brought in a system with a photo ID card which was free (with optional sign up - not compulsory) for everybody including homeless and regardless of immigration status. Good example of what can be done with a bit of thought

True but that won't happen here as it's beneficial for this government to exclude the poor. Voter fraud isn't a widespread problem here at all so it's fair to question what the real objective is here.