Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
MPH

ID required to vote- trial begins

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Really? In an imperfect system I'd much rather the guilty go free than the innocent punished. One of the hallmarks of tyranny is a system that doesn't look after the innocent in that way.

 

Regarding preventative measures, I'm all for people and government taking steps to dissuade people from crime (alarm systems, more visible police presence etc) but having actual legislation that acts and makes a civic right  more difficult to do based on the premise that a particular demographic might commit a crime...that's heading towards totalitarian territory IMO.

 

 

Oh come off it, all legal law abiding adults have a form of ID.

 

 

I think all this is just a disguise  that you're concerned there will be less labour votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

Oh come off it, all legal law abiding adults adults have a form of ID.

 

 

I think all this is just a disguise  that you're concerned there will be less labour votes.

Depends on what you're accepting as ID - the article mentions passports, driving licenses and utility bills (among others presumably). Utility bills rules out anyone not head of the household, or indeed people on PAYG meters. Not beyond the realms of possibility that someone might not drive or have a valid passport either.

 

Even just good old fashioned bureaucracy can screw it up: http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2408-how-i-navigated-through-life-without-ever-having-photo-i.d..html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MPH said:

 

 

Oh come off it, all legal law abiding adults have a form of ID.

 

 

I think all this is just a disguise  that you're concerned there will be less labour votes.

As The Doc says above, that's not always the case, and a clear corollary would be people getting turned away because of "wrong" ID.

 

Yes, I'm concerned about there being less Labour voters of this happens. I'm also concerned (as I spoke earlier) about there being less Tory voters if they did similar stuff to postal votes.

 

If we're getting personal, I might add that your own lack of concern about this means that you're happy with the idea of there being less Labour voters due to such a rigged system as well as there being less black or poor voters due to similar restrictions stateside. I wonder why?

 

But we don't really think that about each other and aren't going to go there...are we? :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/12/2016 at 17:50, Sharpe's Fox said:

Some states in America provide cheap ID to their populace. The only viable photo ID's in this country are valid passports and driving licences, a significant proportion of people have neither and that's especially the case in areas of deprivation the government are targeting with this scheme. If you're going to a food bank do you think you have the 70 odd quid to purchase a new passport? Frankly this isn't an attempt to combat voter fraud, a relatively minor issue in a electoral system plagued by inequalities, but a cynical attempt to disenfranchise a group of people who don't vote Tory.

No, they vote ukip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it true that it's mainly Labour who have gained from electoral fraud? Could it be argued that their attempt to stop has a political motive?

 

The argument that "poor people" can't drive nor have foreign holidays is condescending at best, it's also a huge assumption that they would vote Labour. 

 

One of the things I've read is that you'd be required to bring the polling card you were sent in the post whereas now it's not necessary. Is that really too much to ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Isn't it true that it's mainly Labour who have gained from electoral fraud? Could it be argued that their attempt to stop has a political motive?

 

The argument that "poor people" can't drive nor have foreign holidays is condescending at best, it's also a huge assumption that they would vote Labour. 

 

One of the things I've read is that you'd be required to bring the polling card you were sent in the post whereas now it's not necessary. Is that really too much to ask?

Given how the poorer and poorly educated voted in a recent referendum (and were derided for it). I'm suprised at the people now jumping to their defence, to be quite honest.

Are we absolutely sure they would understand a general election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Given how the poorer and poorly educated voted in a recent referendum (and were derided for it). I'm suprised at the people now jumping to their defence, to be quite honest.

Are we absolutely sure they would understand a general election?

Because some people think, regardless of how they vote, that everyone should be able to easily.

 

There's a marked difference between believing someone voted the wrong way and wanting them disenfranchised from voting at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Because some people think, regardless of how they vote, that everyone should be able to easily.

 

There's a marked difference between believing someone voted the wrong way and wanting them disenfranchised from voting at all.

It has been used as a stick to beat the leave voters though, that they are thick. That they didn't understand what they were voting for, I'm saying should we really be encouraging people 'that don't understand' things they vote for, to vote?

Having a bit of ID is hardly difficult, if they can't manage that, maybe the complexity of who should be running the country is also beyond their capabilities. Just a thought :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

should we really be encouraging people 'that don't understand' things they vote for, to vote?

Didn't stop the Leave campaign :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

That's my point! I think lol

I know i was merely jesting :P 

 

I guess some feel that may be a slippery slope to other processes that may alienate voters though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Emilio Lestavez said:

I know i was merely jesting :P 

 

I guess some feel that may be a slippery slope to other processes that may alienate voters though. 

I know I'm just poking a little fun. I have always said everyone should vote and would prefer it to be mandatory. It's important for everyone to be involved in democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/12/2016 at 14:46, leicsmac said:

Because some people think, regardless of how they vote, that everyone should be able to easily.

 

There's a marked difference between believing someone voted the wrong way and wanting them disenfranchised from voting at all.

Disenfranchised for proving you are the 'person' who is voting. Get a grip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Claridge said:

Disenfranchised for having to pay to prove you are the 'person' who is voting thus at least running the risk of excluding people from the democratic process. Get a grip

 

FYP. :D

 

I have no issue with showing ID at a voting station as long it is freely and equally available to everyone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP

Quite surprised anyone is opposed to this, alarm bells should have rang everywhere when we found out the former mayor of Tower Hamlets had obtained his office illegally and with the help of a campaign of religious intimidation.

 

From what I understand this comes from a cross party report headed by Eric Pickles that greater accountability, not just by introducing ID checks for personal voting but also more checks on postal voting and proxy voting, Northern Ireland has asked voters to show photographic ID since 2002 and the Electoral Commission’s investigation in 2014 found no evidence at all that this had effectively disenfranchised anyone.

 

The biggest reason we need to do this though is that perceptions matter, if citizens even suspect rot in things like this, trust between the governors and the governed breaks down, we get suspicious about them collecting information, collecting taxes and providing public services gets harder, the suspicion of corruption also encourages disengagement from politics and you get movements that most decent people abhor starting to do very well.

 

It will have it's critics, people like Ken Livingstone (someone who supported and still does Rahman) but their arguments are clearly political and they will fall apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...