Voter Photo ID

[dsr-burnley]

12 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

It's bare-faced gerrymandering. Older people's travelcards are accepted but younger people's aren't.

 

They're not even trying to hide what they're doing.

Older people's travelcards are issued by a government agency with proof of age and I.D.  Young people's travel cards aren't.

 

They don't accept senior or disabled railcards either.  So does that mean they are discriminating against people who travel by train?

[Voll Blau]

13 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Older people's travelcards are issued by a government agency with proof of age and I.D.  Young people's travel cards aren't.

 

They don't accept senior or disabled railcards either.  So does that mean they are discriminating against people who travel by train?

60+ Oyster cards in London are accepted, 18+ ones aren't. They're both issued by the same agency.

[Parafox]

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Older people's travelcards are issued by a government agency with proof of age and I.D.  Young people's travel cards aren't.

 

They don't accept senior or disabled railcards either.  So does that mean they are discriminating against people who travel by train?

I didn't realise this but surely, a travel card has your name and your mugshot on it. Take that, along with voting card you've received because your of eligible age and there should be no problem.

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

I didn't realise this but surely, a travel card has your name and your mugshot on it. Take that, along with voting card you've received because your of eligible age and there should be no problem.

 

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Older people's travelcards are issued by a government agency with proof of age and I.D.  Young people's travel cards aren't.

 

They don't accept senior or disabled railcards either.  So does that mean they are discriminating against people who travel by train?

Nope, Oyster cards whatever your age are issued by tfl. 

[dsr-burnley]

5 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

60+ Oyster cards in London are accepted, 18+ ones aren't. They're both issued by the same agency.

I didn't know that, thanks.

 

I agree the whole thing will make no difference anyway, except that it will make the most obvious personation cases disappear (hopefully).  Taking policemen away from polling stations was a big mistake.

 

It's postal voting they should be going after.  That has a double whammy of being both easy to fix, and of abolishing the secret ballot which was a cause that should not have been given away.  How many employees, tenants, debtors, wives or husbands, are in effect losing their vote because someone with power over them can see who they are voting for?  They should make postal voting available only on personal application, if needed because the person concerned is away, or by personal visit from a returning office or his staff in the case of disability.  It should not be free for all.  The secret ballot, IMO, is that important, but the government doesn't care.

[Jon the Hat]

On 19/04/2023 at 04:45, Raj said:

If I was being sceptical of this Hovernment I would say they are trying to phase out the younger population who probably dont yet have a driving license and some not having a passport either.

These would probably be more likely NOT to vote tories so helping them deduct a whole portion of the voting public for Labour.

Aunty Doris and Uncle Pete who voted Brexit and will vote Tory will have a driving license and a passport for their annual pilgrimage to Benidorm!!

 

That's if I was being sceptical of this Government,  which obviously  I'm not!

In my experience pretty much every single 18 year old and above has photo ID because they need it to get served in the pub...

[Bellend Sebastian]

21 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

In my experience pretty much every single 18 year old and above has photo ID because they need it to get served in the pub...

Youngsters don't go to the pub much these days because they're so square*

 

 

 

*(Not as intent on self destruction like my generation seemed to be)

[Jon the Hat]

10 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Youngsters don't go to the pub much these days because they're so square*

 

*(Not as intent on self destruction like my generation seemed to be)

Yes there is that!  Still not that hard if you want to vote.  Overkill mind you, big brother etc etc.

[Raj]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

In my experience pretty much every single 18 year old and above has photo ID because they need it to get served in the pub...

Are the forms of ID they use on the governments official certified list?

 

[RowlattsFox]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

In my experience pretty much every single 18 year old and above has photo ID because they need it to get served in the pub...

I work with this age group and can assure you vast majority we come into contact with have no form of ID, let alone picture ID. 

 

Granted, these young people are unlikely to vote regardless. The ones likely to vote probably will have ID. 

[Facecloth]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

In my experience pretty much every single 18 year old and above has photo ID because they need it to get served in the pub...

It's not just 18 year olds though is it. It everyone and there are plenty of people who wouldn't get a second glance from a bartender or at a checkout when buying cigarettes or alcohol, that don't have any form of photo ID. They are the poorest in society, they have never driven, they have never been on holiday abroad, but they are 30, 40, 50 etc and they won't have the access to ID to vote.

[fox_up_north]

It's one of those things where we know why it's been brought in. I have a friend who works in elections and she said all it's doing is adding more work for no reason, as it is unlikely to impact on results anyway. The evidence they have suggests that both voter fraud and purposefully using ID to vote have almost no impact on results.

 

So this has just given already stretched councils more work to deal with, when they have a pretty robust system in place. 

[Voll Blau]

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I didn't know that, thanks.

 

I agree the whole thing will make no difference anyway, except that it will make the most obvious personation cases disappear (hopefully).  Taking policemen away from polling stations was a big mistake.

 

It's postal voting they should be going after.  That has a double whammy of being both easy to fix, and of abolishing the secret ballot which was a cause that should not have been given away.  How many employees, tenants, debtors, wives or husbands, are in effect losing their vote because someone with power over them can see who they are voting for?  They should make postal voting available only on personal application, if needed because the person concerned is away, or by personal visit from a returning office or his staff in the case of disability.  It should not be free for all.  The secret ballot, IMO, is that important, but the government doesn't care.

That's an interesting point on postal voting. As with the ID thing though, any policy you have on it needs to be evidence-based and I've never seen any evidence of this being widespread (although obviously the hypothetical scenarios you describe would sadly be unlikely to any evidence of the practice being brought forward).

 

I guess the other side of the coin is that anything that increases a populace's ability to cast their vote enhances the likelihood of a higher turnout, and making postal votes harder to apply for would deter more people from participating in democracy. I don't know whether the advantages of that deterring the odd wrong'un from fraudulently using someone else's vote outweighs the benefit that the policy brings to so many honest voters?

[HighPeakFox]

57 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

It's one of those things where we know why it's been brought in. I have a friend who works in elections and she said all it's doing is adding more work for no reason, as it is unlikely to impact on results anyway. The evidence they have suggests that both voter fraud and purposefully using ID to vote have almost no impact on results.

 

So this has just given already stretched councils more work to deal with, when they have a pretty robust system in place. 

You mean forcing an existing structure to breaking point? Say it isn't so... 

[Captain...]

It's a funny one, it shouldn't be that difficult for the majority of people to provide photo id. Although we don't live in a country, like Spain, where it is mandatory to have a photo id. Or at least it was when I lived there.

 

If they had actually implemented id cards as was proposed a while ago, it would be even less of an issue.

 

The fact that voter fraud seemingly isn't a big issue in this country it does beg the question why make everyone's job harder. If I was going to implement any policy it would be to give the voting stations the authority to ask for some form of id if anything seems a bit off and give them the power to refuse a voting card to anyone that doesn't provide one. They could also implement spot checks every 100 people.

 

We obviously don't want any voter fraud, but the archaic voting process already takes a lot of man power to maintain, why make it harder.

 

At least this is not being introduced for a General Election and any teething troubles will be resolved by next year.

[Parafox]

I must be missing something in all this.

 

In the past when I've voted, I've rocked up with my ballot card, been checked off against a list of eligible voters and gone through to the booth to cast my vote privately.

 

They already know who I am because they've checked.

 

So, if I take my photo ID I will still be able to vote in private and the Gov won't know who I voted for.

 

Is it a way of trying to prevent a certain demographic, i.e. the younger, potentially Labour voters, from voting.

 

As I have said before, if you have a ballot card because you're 18+ and eligible to vote, take the card and your railcard/bus pass, which has your photo on it, surely that could be a form of ID?

[HighPeakFox]

24 minutes ago, Parafox said:

Is it a way of trying to prevent a certain demographic, i.e. the younger, potentially Labour voters, from voting.

Yes.

[worth_the_wait]

9 hours ago, Captain... said:

It's a funny one, it shouldn't be that difficult for the majority of people to provide photo id.

Especially if you want to go to a City away match ...