MPH Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 Plans to demand proof of identity before voting in a bid to combat electoral fraud have been defended by ministers, amid criticism the move is a "sledgehammer to crack a nut". Electoral fraud: Pilot scheme for ID before voting defendedhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38440934 im struggling to see what the credible objections are here? Some states in the U.S demand photo ID to vote!
Sharpe's Fox Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 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.
Tuna Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 Seems like a waste of time and money, plus most voting fraud here is due to postal voting anyway.
MPH Posted 27 December 2016 Author Posted 27 December 2016 8 minutes ago, 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. Well not all trials are photo id trials... Quote Different local authorities will trial different types of ID, including driving licences, passports and utility bills. The creation of a new form of ID specifically for voting has been ruled out by ministers. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the adult population dont actually have any form of ID to prove who they are.... I mean.. everyone gets given a national insurance card dont they?
Sharpe's Fox Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 6 minutes ago, MPH said: Well not all trials are photo id trials... It would be interesting to know what percentage of the adult population dont actually have any form of ID to prove who they are.... I mean.. everyone gets given a national insurance card dont they? Not all utility bills are passed to the home dweller but to the landlord. Once again non-home owners are less likely to vote Tory. And yes at 16 you receive a NI card but I don't think they've never been accepted as valid ID. The article you linked made no mention of this changing.
leicsmac Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 Disenfranchisement attempt. Hammer it. Next debate.
MPH Posted 27 December 2016 Author Posted 27 December 2016 11 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: Not all utility bills are passed to the home dweller but to the landlord. Once again non-home owners are less likely to vote Tory. And yes at 16 you receive a NI card but I don't think they've never been accepted as valid ID. The article you linked made no mention of this changing. Even if you take out the National insurance Card, i dont know of a single adult in the UK who didnt have some sort of ID/ way of identifying them... And the article I linked mentioned this was a trial. Trials very rarely finish how they start... I suppose any form of genuine ID could be fair game for this...
Webbo Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Disenfranchisement attempt. Hammer it. Next debate. What would you do about electoral fraud?
MPH Posted 27 December 2016 Author Posted 27 December 2016 5 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Disenfranchisement attempt. Hammer it. Next debate. The trouble with this of course is the far right will use the angle that it could help prevent illegal immigrants from voting and there will be alot of people that would be all over it for that reason alone. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole immigration reason used for a lot of subjects to galvanise support for it..
leicsmac Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 Just now, Webbo said: What would you do about electoral fraud? Deal with it on a case by case basis as we do now. As said above, it's mainly a postal issue and the problems it causes are much less than would be caused by people not being able to vote or getting turned away because of no or "incorrect" ID. Such measures have already had an effect on voter numbers in deprived areas of the US, I see nothing different about how it would play out here.
leicsmac Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 4 minutes ago, MPH said: The trouble with this of course is the far right will use the angle that it could help prevent illegal immigrants from voting and there will be alot of people that would be all over it for that reason alone. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole immigration reason used for a lot of subjects to galvanise support for it.. Oh, I have no doubt the neo-fascists would try to push their own angle on it. I sincerely hope that they don't win this one for the reasons above, though. It's also a classic dog-whistle tactic.
Webbo Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 Just now, leicsmac said: Deal with it on a case by case basis as we do now. As said above, it's mainly a postal issue and the problems it causes are much less than would be caused by people not being able to vote or getting turned away because of no or "incorrect" ID. Such measures have already had an effect on voter numbers in deprived areas of the US, I see nothing different about how it would play out here. But the extension of postal voting was supposed to enfranchise people. If you take that away you are disenfranchising pensioners who are supposed to be more likely to vote tory.
MPH Posted 27 December 2016 Author Posted 27 December 2016 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Deal with it on a case by case basis as we do now. As said above, it's mainly a postal issue and the problems it causes are much less than would be caused by people not being able to vote or getting turned away because of no or "incorrect" ID. Such measures have already had an effect on voter numbers in deprived areas of the US, I see nothing different about how it would play out here. Wouldnt it make for a fairer system to try and PREVENT the fraud before it happens?. Not every fraud case is detected, of course, so we on only deal with the ones we find out about...
leicsmac Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 1 minute ago, Webbo said: But the extension of postal voting was supposed to enfranchise people. If you take that away you are disenfranchising pensioners who are supposed to be more likely to vote tory. I've got no issue with postal voting either. As I said, you deal with the system as it is, not replace it with something - either this or shelving postal voting - that's going to alienate one demographic or another.
leicsmac Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 Just now, MPH said: Wouldnt it make for a fairer system to try and PREVENT the fraud before it happens?. Not every fraud case is detected, of course, so we on only deal with the ones we find out about... Preventative justice of any kind almost invariably creates more problems than it solves. I'd much rather sort people out and judge them once we know they've done something bad, thanks.
MPH Posted 27 December 2016 Author Posted 27 December 2016 10 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Preventative justice of any kind almost invariably creates more problems than it solves. I'd much rather sort people out and judge them once we know they've done something bad, thanks. And what about the fraud cases that go undetected? Are you happy to just accept that it is ok to have that as part of a democratic election system?
Webbo Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 12 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I've got no issue with postal voting either. As I said, you deal with the system as it is, not replace it with something - either this or shelving postal voting - that's going to alienate one demographic or another. But you can't turn a blind eye to fraud either. There aren't any easy solutions. It's a trial, we'll see what happens. I don't think it helps when people try to invent some sort of conspiracy when all that's happening is somebody trying to solve a problem.
davieG Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 The last change where individuals have to register for polling rather than the "head of house" has seen a big reduction in registrations hardly an improvement especially as it doesn't stop one person doing all the registrations so is still open to fraud.
leicsmac Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 21 minutes ago, MPH said: And what about the fraud cases that go undetected? Are you happy to just accept that it is ok to have that as part of a democratic election system? Yep, just as I'm happy to accept it's ok that some guilty parties on the legal system go free so long as an innocent party isn't convicted. 19 minutes ago, Webbo said: But you can't turn a blind eye to fraud either. There aren't any easy solutions. It's a trial, we'll see what happens. I don't think it helps when people try to invent some sort of conspiracy when all that's happening is somebody trying to solve a problem. Seen it too many times Webs. Most notably stateside. Do agree there isn't really an easy solution though.
MPH Posted 27 December 2016 Author Posted 27 December 2016 1 minute ago, leicsmac said: Yep, just as I'm happy to accept it's ok that some guilty parties on the legal system go free so long as an innocent party isn't convicted. Seen it too many times Webs. Most notably stateside. Do agree there isn't really an easy solution though. oh thats a terrible reply! Why would you not want to prevent crime if you could?
leicsmac Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 35 minutes ago, MPH said: oh thats a terrible reply! Why would you not want to prevent crime if you could? 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.
Barky Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 Issue free electoral ID cards like they do in Northern Ireland, problem solved
Spiritwalker Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 I genuinely have never heard of any cases of voter fraud at the ballot box in this country. Does anyone know of any examples where results were questioned or fraud was suspected?
Webbo Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 7 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said: I genuinely have never heard of any cases of voter fraud at the ballot box in this country. Does anyone know of any examples where results were questioned or fraud was suspected? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648 Quote Voting fraud: ballots were double-cast or cast from false addresses
Spiritwalker Posted 27 December 2016 Posted 27 December 2016 Thanks. Although there seems seems to be a long list of issues with this election one of which was postal voting fraud which wouldn't be solved with ID's
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.