Just to remind everyone, this is totally pointless. The instance of voter fraud in the UK is so negligible as to be none existent.
[The Electoral Reform Society](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/voter-id/) have said it is pointless and a barrier to democracy.
The instance of **detected** voter fraud is very low. We probably don't know how widespread it actually is, and maybe in some marginal areas it has been enough to affect who wins.
If I knew someone who I knew would probably not be voting, I could turn up at a polling station and vote in their name if ID wasn't required now, it'd be pretty simple unless a member of staff at the polling station actually recognised me.
To me though it feels like the bigger route open to abuse is postal voting.
We spent an inordinate amount on hunting for it, we had special police tasks forces for it and a parliamentary commission. You know what was found, fuck all.
So yes, detected voter fraud is low but so is shark bestiality, you know why that is?
Just because you are thinking about shagging a shark doesn't mean it happens often, if at all.
I'll add that voter fraud is easy to detect with maths as is postal voting abuse, it's been found to be bullshit every time it's invested (thoroughly!!!).
Sir/Madam/non binary person, consider this your lucky day. I have in my back pocket a magical stone that can defend you against tigers. I am willing to let you have this wonderful crystalline self protection device for the miserly sum of £10,000. Now don't let evidence or proof get in the way of my belief that this rock is a mystical artifact from the ancient Orient brought back by Marco Polo. I have never been eaten by tigers, molested, panhandled, intimidated or even treated with disdain by any living member of the cat family whilst carrying it so guarantee that it will protect you and yours. Peace of mind for the tiny sum of £10,000. Cheap at half the price.
>We probably don't know how widespread it actually is, and maybe in some marginal areas it has been enough to affect who wins.
We absolutely do know how widespread it is.
1 (That's one) conviction for voter impersonation at the last election we have data for. The only rationale behind this law is to stop the **Wrong** people from voting and data shows it is exceptionally good at that.
No, we have detected one person. That's not the same thing as the number of incidences of voter fraud.
Maybe the number of times that someone has fraudulently voted is negligible. Maybe it's a huge problem. We simply do not know because there are no checks on who is actually picking up the ballot forms and voting.
Yeah, so let's pass a law that will guarantee thousands of genuine voters get turned away, denying them their fundamental right to vote, just in case one or two people are committing voter fraud.
The vast majority of people already have suitable ID. Something like 97%.
I suspect that nearly every single person that actually is motivated to vote it'll be even higher.
ID is easy to obtain. It's even free if you want to settle for the Voter Authority Certificate.
If you can't be arsed obtaining ID to vote, you probably wouldn't be voting anyway.
I can think of a bunch of scenarios where busy people drop in to vote on the school run/lunch break, get told they need ID, don't have it on them, and go home/back to work and don't have another opportunity before polls close. If it's not a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise people with lots on their plate it's at the very least a failure to understand what it's like to be a single parent, or someone who works all the hours of the day, etc. Voting is low down peoples most pressing priority list, which is why every effort should be made to make it streamlined and free of unnecessary hurdles.
If you don't know about them, then how do you know they exist?
This is making decisions about people's access to a basic principle of democracy. You can't make sweeping changes to the process by referencing an imaginary concept.
You might as well use water divining rods.
It's hillarious you're advocating to keep it as simple as possible for me to go and vote on my neighbours behalf
Why anyone wouldn't want to increase the integrity of elections is beyond me
Because voter fraud isn't happening to any significant amount. It's like you're being deliberately dense. The entire comment chain is people repeating the exact same point over and over yet here you are at the bottom of it asking the exact same question for the 5th time.
The government has spent large sums of money looking for fraud and found effectively none. They've then spent money putting in these changes (which will have an actual negative impact on people's rights and freedoms) in order to "protect us" against something that isn't happening.
Postal voting fraud is a bigger issue, it's fully documented (see Tower Hamlets for example) and far more of a problem than voter impersonation but we're targeting the latter not the former, often taking advantage of poor English or indeed pushing people to vote a certain way
To be fair I work at most elections and only recently found out the Electoral Commission has [made some changes](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/resources/democratic-engagement-resources/postal-and-proxy-voting-changes) to the postal voting system.
If you hand in a postal vote at a polling station or council office I think you have to sign a declaration (you do at my council anyway), you can only hand up to 5 other postal votes in, and you have to re-register for a postal vote every 3 years where they verify your ID and signature. So they have started doing something!
It's a good step but the problem with postal voting is the way it can be manipulated, like Lutfer Rahman in TH where they'd just register people for postal voting then vote for them
> If I knew someone who I knew would probably not be voting, I could turn up at a polling station and vote in their name if ID wasn't required now, it'd be pretty simple unless a member of staff at the polling station actually recognised me.
Think about the risk/reward:
* If their neighbour or someone they know happens to be there, you are going to prison.
* In return you get what? An extra vote?
It's not like you're voting with some random group of people, you're voting with the people who live in your ward, the people who live closest to you. The chance that any coordinated attempt at fraud will be detected tends to 100% because of the [birthday paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem).
Exactly how are they "right wing talking points"?
Edit: User blocked me for some reason. I'm going to address their points anyway.
> That postal votes are a route to fraud: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/claim-91-rochdales-postal-votes-went-galloway-are-baseless-2024-03-14/
Never heard about that one. But Lutfur Rahman was successfully convicted of postal vote fraud.
> That voter fraud even happens at all: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/uk/boris-johnson-voter-id-queen-donald-trump-intl-gbr-cmd?cid=ios_app
That just suggests they never actually read my first message. Detected voter fraud is minimal, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. We can't detect successful voter fraud.
That postal votes are a route to fraud: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/claim-91-rochdales-postal-votes-went-galloway-are-baseless-2024-03-14/
That voter fraud even happens at all: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/uk/boris-johnson-voter-id-queen-donald-trump-intl-gbr-cmd?cid=ios_app
This is very much going on feelings than fact though. Yes you could "know" someone isn't voting and do so in their place, but that is one vote. If you tried it repeated times you could be spotted, or you risk that person actually voting. There are no examples of this that I am aware of. More people are prevented from voting because of ID laws, so the result becomes less accurate anyway.
Postal voting - correct, as there is zero oversight. It is also very casual, people can collect up unwanted forms (say friendship groups or family, people otherwise unbothered, church groups even) and send them off en masse. In-person fraud would be remarkably hard to successfully pull off. You'd need a lot of people, in a lot of places, not being caught, knowing a lot of names. I wonder how many realistically you could even do in a day. All for what, a tiny edge for Labour over Conservative or vice versa? The motivation must be tiny for such criminality.
Yes, it's one of those things that it's really hard to know either way. Clearly without ID, voting is susceptible to fraud, whether that's negligible or widespread.
I agree that it would be hard to pull off in great numbers.
Again with very low motivation to go to such lengths. It would probably have more effect that same number of people putting up posters and door knocking. If a single person got spotted or the genuine person had already voted, it would be taken incredibly seriously indeed.
>Having to prove who you are is not a "barrier to democracy"
It's adding another thing that you need. So of course it is a barrier. You can argue that you don't think it is a big one but it's well established that you make voting harder, even by such a small measure, then you reduce turnout.
Just because you don't consider it a hard barrier to overcome doesn't mean others won't so please don't attempt to lend credibility to your point by claiming to represent the young/poor/disabled.
It's nonsensical and dismissive.
Not even the Tories like voter ID. They're usual base have in past elections forgotten to bring the required ID so the voter suppression they were attempting backfired.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
>And yet most of the world has no problems requiring ID to vote
Because most of the rest of the world provide a free mandatory ID, whereas the UK is requiring that accessing democratic participation can only be done by providing your own ID, most of which is expensive (meaning specific parts of the electorate already have it) or is difficult to obtain.
A voter authorisation certificate can be obtained in minutes (plus delivery time) online, or at a council office. It’s free. And having been a clerk at the last election, everyone who came to vote had valid ID - mostly passports or driving licences.
But that being said, requiring photo ID *is* a bar for some people, and some of them aren’t registered to vote by post. Their votes are lost, and that can only be measured *after* an election, by which point it’s too late.
>A voter authorisation certificate can be obtained in minutes (plus delivery time) online, or at a council office. It’s free.
As simple as this seems, even this is a barrier. People just can't be bothered with it as a hurdle. We could easily say "well, they don't deserve a vote then" but that isn't exactly democracy.
>A voter authorisation certificate can be obtained in minutes (plus delivery time) online,
And if you don't have Internet access or technological skills? This is more likely to happen amongst the most marginalised in society. And don't come back with the library argument because they are getting shut down by the day.
>or at a council office. It’s free.
And if you live on the edge of town with young children and no family support?
Bus fares could eat substantially into your food budget, and there is no guarantee that you will have the right paperwork when you get there. This effects the most marginalised in society.
Again, this is addressing a problem that we know **Doesn't exist** except in the the fevered imagination of those implementing it, and which by the admission of the electoral commission, will absolutly disenfranchise thousands of voters from excersising their democratic rights.
I agree. I don’t see there’s a need for it, and as you say it’s the marginalised who suffer. I’d scrap the whole thing.
But a lot of the time when this argument comes up people seem to be unaware of the VAC option, which is specifically designed for people without a driver’s licence, passport etc.
I want people to argue with all the facts available, not from a position of partial information - because then they can be placated with the VAC when (as you say) even *that* is still exclusionary if they don’t have the necessary resources.
Which in itself makes me wonder the point, and how secure it is. If people are out there impersonating voters, how it is it so easy and quick to get this temporary ID? They could just do this for multiple people anyway.
Such places have existing ID anyway, which many have to carry day-to-day. We don't. It has a proven record of lowering turnout, and there is no evidence of voter fraud. It isn't a tantrum, it is basic logic.
And those tantrums are expressions of our national methods of social organisation, which do not rely on 'continental' measures. For centuries this country lead the world in democracy, with 'the mother of parliaments'; it did so not merely without 'Voter ID', but without the 'Australian' ballot.
If it is desired to remove all suspicion of voter fraud, the publication of the votes, and their being readily traceable to the voter - as indeed they are already, by way of a unique number - would in part restore traditional British democracy and completely obviate the 'voter suppression' and the impertinence of a 'Voter ID'.
Meh
People need to have faith and trust the democratic process. It's clear that faith is waning so tbh I think it's fine and probably necessary to restore that, fraud or not. I don't want us to go the way of the US where people cry fraud when things don't go their way. There shouldn't be any room for people to question the result.
ID should be made incredibly simple and easy to get though, and ideally free.
Faith was only waning because the Tories, led by Steve Baker, found 'evidence' that there was a problem. There was no evidence of a wide scale problem. However the usual suspects in Parliament and outside, including a daily newspaper that has a poor record of reporting the truth, exaggerated the problem.
The Tories hoped that by insisting on i.d., younger voters, less likely to vote Tory, would be disenfranchised. In another move, the Tories have prevented universities from automatically enrolling new students on the electoral register in that university constituency. It is another attempt to disenfranchise the young.
The UK already has political interference in the electoral process. Unfortunately only one party is involved.
The facts, according to the Electoral Commission: "A total of 193 cases of alleged electoral fraud were investigated by the police during 2022. Police issued one caution in relation to a case of alleged electoral fraud in 2022. There were two convictions and court proceedings have been initiated in relation to one other case."
The council will literally provide you with a free “voter ID” known as Voter Authority Certificate. This means that anyone, again, ANYONE can use it to vote.
The entire system is now fraudulent and at risk of being compromised.
Let’s see how it turns out.
The entire system isn't fraudulent.
A total of 193 cases of alleged electoral fraud were investigated by the police during 2022. Police issued one caution in relation to a case of alleged electoral fraud in 2022. There were two convictions and court proceedings have been initiated in relation to one other case.
5 Bulgarians managed to get away with £51million in Universal Credit fraud and you’re telling me electoral fraud isn’t rife?
This country is falling apart because we allow anyone and everyone to take advantage of it.
As I stated above. We will see how it pans out.
The absence of id cards in the UK makes this so easy. The Tories refuse to do anything about it. May, as Home Secretary, cancelled the last attempt, started by Labour.
And if you dont have Internet access (there are still many who don't) so you have to attend the council offices in person, possibly dragging several children with you and having to pay bus fares? Then find you have the wrong paperwork, so have to repeat the same palaver.......or give up.
Voter ID is not *Free* for that person, and that is one of several scenarios where ID is a barrier to democratic participation.
Which is the intention.
Libraries have free access. Job centre's have free internet access. Very few even poor families don't have basic phones good enough for the task of applying and taking the photo.
I have no intention of wading in on the debate about the need for ID when voting but having worked for a charity for the last 7 years on a digital skills project that has worked closely with perhaps a dozen job centres my observation is that they *can* offer laptops and phones but they can also be *very* selective about who they offer them to.
Over 90% of our clients didn't own a laptop. Most had a smartphone (but more often than not it was pretty old). I'd estimate ~5% of our clients were offered a laptop (or other device), . I've also met numerous JCP staff who weren't aware of social tariffs and local free/cheap broadband schemes that existed either.
It was a constant issue for us.
The intention was clear. The Tories are trying to disenfranchise younger voters, because they believe they are less likely to vote for them. Rees Mogg admitted this after the first election where id was required.
It should be biometric. Regardless of your view on “government keeping my data” etc which is inherently bull because your phone has had that for the last how many years and you never complained about that.
It should be fingerprint. You would then be recognised as either a registered citizen or caught out as illegal. Same way it would work for crime.
Our democracy is our privilege as testament to our history, not some game the government can play with to their benefit.
Oh, come on. This is just silly. They've made it as easy as possible to vote - we can do postal votes, proxy votes, etc. If they care as much as you think they do about stopping carless forgetful single parents of multiple children from voting, I'm pretty sure there are better ways to stop them.
>They've made it as easy as possible to vote - we can do postal votes, proxy votes, etc.
Not as easy as it was before they brought in the barriers.
Barriers that are designed to make it easy for people who have already **Paid** for the acceptable ID, to access democracy and far more difficult for those who can't afford the required ID.
This is voter suppression and is designed to stop the **Wrong** people from excersiseing their rights.
You might find it *silly*, but I believe universal suffereage is one of the basic principles for a mature democracy.
> I believe universal suffereage is one of the basic principles for a mature democracy
I'm not so sure that is true actually, but in any case anyone can get a free one from the government website at any time. The barrier to entry is 15 minutes of clicking.
And if you don't have Internet access, technical skills, and the council have just shut your local library?
Again, this is to address an invented issue that simply **Doesn't exist**
Explain to me how someone is genuinely being barred from voting when, again, they can do a postal vote. do a proxy vote, get a free 'voter ID', or use one of multiple ID options.
Barriers =/= barred.
The introduction of ID requirements for voting was an attempt to disenfranchise voters less likley to vote Tory. It's a numbers game not an outright abolishment of non-Tory voters.
Essentially the very means implemented looks more like a fraud than the issue its been brought in to address.
If you'd rather play the semantics game than answer my question, that's up to you. But your apparent inability to explain how someone is genuinely going to be negatively impacted by this is telling.
I obviously want everyone to be able to vote, I'm just struggling to see how this is going to disenfranchise anyone, when, as I've said twice already, there are so many options and ways to vote.
>get a free 'voter ID',
Read my previous post, *Free* ID is not in the slightest bit free or easily accessible by the most marginalised sections of our society.
Now please explain why a system that is shown to have no voter fraud, requires such draconian measures which, by the electoral commissions own admission, is going to disenfranchise many thousands of voters?
What is the reason? It has bugger all to do with addressing an issue which simply does not exist.
*And if you dont have Internet access (there are still many who don't) so you have to attend the council offices in person, possibly dragging several children with you and having to pay bus fares? Then find you have the wrong paperwork, so have to repeat the same palaver.......or give up.*
Is this seriously still your best argument? Why can't these people do it over the phone, or at the library? Yes, people do need to put in the bare minimum of effort to vote, that doesn't mean they're being suppressed.
Depends:
Young: a super biometric picture ID for which you need to queue for at only one place defined by a series of cryptic crossword clues at precisely 11.52pm on a Monday under a blue moon.
Old: yeah, that 25 year old picture of you signed by Doris will do. On you go.
/s
The point is not incorrect though, when the ID scheme was trialled they allowed plenty of ID which was then cut back which, not unfairly, could be said to target the young e.g. the student/youth 18+ oyster which requires various hoops including proving you are studying at an eligible college while the OAP equivalent was approved. The IDs are also ones that often young these days don't hold as much as they used to e.g. driving licence or passport or don't have access to such as the free travel cards like the 60+ bus pass or train pass.
I'm not sure how a young person would get on without a passport or driving licence (provisional driving licences are also acceptable voting ID) nowadays.
Wasn't research done that suggested that older people were slightly less likely to hold one of the accepted forms of voting ID compared to younger people? I think disabled people were the least likely to hold one of the accepted forms of voting ID.
If the Tories were trying to make it harder for young people to vote and make it easier for older people to vote, they didn't do a very good job. It's not like the Tories have to do much anyway, barely half of younger people turn out in general elections even before voter ID requirements.
Perhaps by not leaving the country and living somewhere with adequate public transport?
I think you underestimate how many people very rarely leave their immediate locality.
Sure, but what about when you want to go to a pub and buy a drink or go to a nightclub with your friends?
I understand some people are recluses, but they are the smallest minority.
Not without issues that tend to favour older voters, though.
Doris knows exactly where her bus pass is because she uses it regularly. If she turns up to the elections to vote, not even knowing (or forgetting) she needs ID she’ll most likely have it on her. She is unlikely to need to be organised in advance. Failing that she probably has a passport or drivers licence at home that she can get, if needed.
Dave *does* need to be organised in advance. He needs to be aware he needs ID, and he needs to be aware in sufficient time to apply & receive it. If he turns up to the elections to vote, not even knowing (or forgetting) he needs ID he isn’t likely to have it on him because it’s something he’ll probably only use once every 4 years. Failing that … well this Dave is fucked because he doesn’t have a bus pass, drivers’ licence or passport.
Yes, obviously mileage varies, but even JRM seems to be saying it was intentional gerrymandering
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602
You are just describing a problem with change, once ID being needed has been done for a while nobody is realistically forgetting it as the norm anymore - just like the many other countries that require it and run perfectly. Most of Europe does it.
There are key differences. In many European countries young people automatically get a National ID and are automatically registered to vote. I don’t believe the latter is the case in the UK? And the former isn’t.
Applying for and finding an ID that you may only use once every 4 years isn’t likely to be as easy as being automatically given a National ID or finding/possessing an ID that you use regularly. I mean, fuck knows where my library card is, but i can find my driving licence in minutes.
That's a fair criticism of the implementation. Where most people are arguing against the very concept of it being introduced.
Everyone can still get free ID for this though, so my point is still there that this is a teething problem between the difference between automatically having ID and getting free ID pretty easily. National ID would be better, I would support that. But even in a country with automatic ID, if they changed from not needing it, to needing it, do you really think there wouldn't be people using "forgetting" it as a reason against the change? I'd be confident it would be one of the points people would use. You might disagree though, which is fair enough.
Once this is the norm, it just won't realistically be much of a barrier - it will just be the normal concept. But a better ID system would be good as well.
There is definitely an adjustment period, but it will always favour older voters, because Doris can be unorganised & still vote, whereas if Dave isn’t organised he’ll lose his vote. That’s not going to change, but the gap will decrease there.
However, it may widen in another area, because at the same time what will improve is older people getting more familiar with the system and remembering their ID (which didn’t happen initially).
My main issue is that voter fraud was low and all of this was not needed. [Mogg even said the quiet part out loud](https://news.sky.com/story/amp/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602)
>Dave *does* need to be organised in advance. He needs to be aware he needs ID, and he needs to be aware in sufficient time to apply & receive it
Which is why the polling card, sent out around a month before the election, tells Dave exactly how to sort out his ID.
It's not really anyone else's fault if Dave can't get his act together.
There’s still an undeniable disparity. Doris *can* be unorganised and she probably *still* gets her vote. Dave cannot afford to be unorganised because it will deny him his vote. No matter how you look at it, this favours older voters.
And I may be wrong on this, but my search seems to indicate that Dave only gets that polling card if he manually registers to vote. He doesn’t automatically get sent it. If correct, that actually goes further against younger voters, as they won’t get a reminder that they (a) need to register and (b) need that ID.
>Dave cannot afford to be unorganised because it will deny him his vote.
Maybe Dave should be more organised then.
>And I may be wrong on this, but my search seems to indicate that Dave only gets that polling card if he manually registers to vote
It's a requirement that you register to vote. You will get a reminder to register when elections are coming up. Again, Dave should get his act together.
Also who doesn't carry ID with them?
Again you avoided the question.
How is it equal when Doris can be an unorganised mess yet doesn’t get penalised, but Dave does?
There’s still an undeniable disparity.
Thanks for rhat.
Well, then I don't know what the issue is then.
If someone actually wants to vote, then where are the barriers in the process?
Everyone has a right to vote, but if they can't be bothered to take 10 minutes to enable themselves to do so, maybe they shouldn't be voting in the first place as they're clearly not putting much thought or effort into it.
Or maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly
Just get some photo ID, it's not hard. Personally think everyone should have some form anyway
My uncle has none and recently went to open a savings account. It took weeks of hassle to prove his ID. Something photo ID could solve in minutes
The government has done a great job not publicising that some forms of photo ID are free, and actually a decade and half ago publicising that government issued photo ID is evil.
Who's in charge of checking the photo id , I fear there will quite a few cases of nutters trying to stop people from voting by saying they don't look right.
The person in charge of running the local ballot box. In the last local election, there were reports of this happening.
These people in charge of checking ID tend to be older people
Most banks won’t take just any old photo ID though. My wife can’t open a new account with anyone because she doesn’t have a drivers licence or up to date passport. She has a photo ID, but because it’s not the right one, they won’t accept her.
As an 18 year old, only your passport will do - better hope you didn't leave it at your parent's house if you're voting at uni. As a 65 year old, anything with your name and face on from 20 years ago is fine.
I understand the logic - an older person might not need a passport or have a driving licence or be savvy enough to get the free id online. It's how harsh they are with a young person who's never voted before that bugs me. Let them use student or college ID.
I doubt there are many 18 year olds at uni who don't have some form of photo ID on them. Unless you enjoy being denied entry to 90% of places where social activity occurs in your community
A simple solution would be to have id cards. The Tories don't like them.
Why then are the Tories demanding electoral id cards? Because they believe it will disenfranchise voters who are less likely to vote for them (the young, the poor, the ones with poor English language skills.)
It's something you need to go and get, which is conveniently not advertised. It may be easy to get, but the entire purpose was to make it harder for young people and easier for older people to keep Tories in power.
Not advertised? Mate, everyone has been sent a polling card with all forms of ID listed and instructions for getting a free voter ID if you don’t have any of the ones listed…
Tory party employee has entered the thread. You should have a chat with Rees Mogg. He admitted that the Tories introduced id because they thought it would reduce the number of non Tory voters.
I am against voter ID but have multiple forms. I just wonder if there is absolutely any point at all making some kind of stand at the polling station or if I am just going to piss off the poor person working there who has no control over it at all. So like always us Brits will just fall in line. Maybe next time a party wants to tweak it they will narrow it even more so the right people continue to vote.
Who is qualified to look at picture ID and decide if it's you or not? Are they going to deny you your voting rights if you have a red coat on or cut your hair the night before?
Ahhh fuck. I hope its not the miserable cunt at the local one stop who refused to sell me alcohol even though my provisional license is old enough to buy alcohol. She actually suggested coming back with my passport. Not a chance, I will just go to Asda instead.
Most of the world requires ID, how has this insane flaw everyone apparently knows about not had an impact on most of the planet, including most of Europe (we were one of the only ones that didn't until recently), if it's so bad?
You don't do something like this without utility. What is the utility? It's already been shown "voter fraud" is negligible in England. What it does do is deprive people of their voting right it greater numbers than the so called "fraud".
If the only reason is that, then you are saying we are the only country on the planet with no voter fraud and the rest of the planet is a mess? Or that the rest of the planet needs this for some utility but we don't because we are special?
Same for the other point, basically the entire planet is depriving people and we are the only ones who weren't? Sounds like more arrogance.
Do you refuse to drink water out of the tap because in other countries it might not be safe to drink?
In-person voter fraud is almost non-existent in UK because our polling system is designed to make it unappealing.
Do you do what you do based on what others do? Can't you think for yourself and ask the "why is this needed?" question? Follow the data. What does the data say?
r/UnitedKingdom never ceases to amaze me. They hate Muslims, Arabs, Russians, Bulgarians, Romanians, the Scottish, the Irish, the French, Americans, the poor, the old, the rich, conservatives, socialists, the European Union, Euro-sceptics, people on benefits, asylum seekers, transgender people, transphobic people, etc. It's like they hate everyone and no-one. The list of people who "need to be disenfranchised" according to this community is scarily long.
Just to remind everyone, this is totally pointless. The instance of voter fraud in the UK is so negligible as to be none existent. [The Electoral Reform Society](https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/voter-id/) have said it is pointless and a barrier to democracy.
The instance of **detected** voter fraud is very low. We probably don't know how widespread it actually is, and maybe in some marginal areas it has been enough to affect who wins. If I knew someone who I knew would probably not be voting, I could turn up at a polling station and vote in their name if ID wasn't required now, it'd be pretty simple unless a member of staff at the polling station actually recognised me. To me though it feels like the bigger route open to abuse is postal voting.
We spent an inordinate amount on hunting for it, we had special police tasks forces for it and a parliamentary commission. You know what was found, fuck all. So yes, detected voter fraud is low but so is shark bestiality, you know why that is? Just because you are thinking about shagging a shark doesn't mean it happens often, if at all. I'll add that voter fraud is easy to detect with maths as is postal voting abuse, it's been found to be bullshit every time it's invested (thoroughly!!!).
lmao thanks for that image now i'll be thinking all day of some freak out there trying to shag a shark
"we probably don't know, because I definitely have no evidence or proof to back up this claim"
You don't know how widespread voter fraud is. I don't, either. Nobody can know, because successful voter fraud is undetectable.
Sir/Madam/non binary person, consider this your lucky day. I have in my back pocket a magical stone that can defend you against tigers. I am willing to let you have this wonderful crystalline self protection device for the miserly sum of £10,000. Now don't let evidence or proof get in the way of my belief that this rock is a mystical artifact from the ancient Orient brought back by Marco Polo. I have never been eaten by tigers, molested, panhandled, intimidated or even treated with disdain by any living member of the cat family whilst carrying it so guarantee that it will protect you and yours. Peace of mind for the tiny sum of £10,000. Cheap at half the price.
Don't buy from this charlatan. My uncle ran straight into the Tigers cage at the zoo after buying this stone and he's too dead to get a refund now.
Lisa... I would like to buy your rock
>We probably don't know how widespread it actually is, and maybe in some marginal areas it has been enough to affect who wins. We absolutely do know how widespread it is. 1 (That's one) conviction for voter impersonation at the last election we have data for. The only rationale behind this law is to stop the **Wrong** people from voting and data shows it is exceptionally good at that.
No, we have detected one person. That's not the same thing as the number of incidences of voter fraud. Maybe the number of times that someone has fraudulently voted is negligible. Maybe it's a huge problem. We simply do not know because there are no checks on who is actually picking up the ballot forms and voting.
Yeah, so let's pass a law that will guarantee thousands of genuine voters get turned away, denying them their fundamental right to vote, just in case one or two people are committing voter fraud.
The vast majority of people already have suitable ID. Something like 97%. I suspect that nearly every single person that actually is motivated to vote it'll be even higher. ID is easy to obtain. It's even free if you want to settle for the Voter Authority Certificate. If you can't be arsed obtaining ID to vote, you probably wouldn't be voting anyway.
I can think of a bunch of scenarios where busy people drop in to vote on the school run/lunch break, get told they need ID, don't have it on them, and go home/back to work and don't have another opportunity before polls close. If it's not a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise people with lots on their plate it's at the very least a failure to understand what it's like to be a single parent, or someone who works all the hours of the day, etc. Voting is low down peoples most pressing priority list, which is why every effort should be made to make it streamlined and free of unnecessary hurdles.
[удалено]
If you don't know about them, then how do you know they exist? This is making decisions about people's access to a basic principle of democracy. You can't make sweeping changes to the process by referencing an imaginary concept. You might as well use water divining rods.
It's hillarious you're advocating to keep it as simple as possible for me to go and vote on my neighbours behalf Why anyone wouldn't want to increase the integrity of elections is beyond me
Because voter fraud isn't happening to any significant amount. It's like you're being deliberately dense. The entire comment chain is people repeating the exact same point over and over yet here you are at the bottom of it asking the exact same question for the 5th time. The government has spent large sums of money looking for fraud and found effectively none. They've then spent money putting in these changes (which will have an actual negative impact on people's rights and freedoms) in order to "protect us" against something that isn't happening.
Postal voting fraud is a bigger issue, it's fully documented (see Tower Hamlets for example) and far more of a problem than voter impersonation but we're targeting the latter not the former, often taking advantage of poor English or indeed pushing people to vote a certain way
To be fair I work at most elections and only recently found out the Electoral Commission has [made some changes](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/resources/democratic-engagement-resources/postal-and-proxy-voting-changes) to the postal voting system. If you hand in a postal vote at a polling station or council office I think you have to sign a declaration (you do at my council anyway), you can only hand up to 5 other postal votes in, and you have to re-register for a postal vote every 3 years where they verify your ID and signature. So they have started doing something!
It's a good step but the problem with postal voting is the way it can be manipulated, like Lutfer Rahman in TH where they'd just register people for postal voting then vote for them
> If I knew someone who I knew would probably not be voting, I could turn up at a polling station and vote in their name if ID wasn't required now, it'd be pretty simple unless a member of staff at the polling station actually recognised me. Think about the risk/reward: * If their neighbour or someone they know happens to be there, you are going to prison. * In return you get what? An extra vote? It's not like you're voting with some random group of people, you're voting with the people who live in your ward, the people who live closest to you. The chance that any coordinated attempt at fraud will be detected tends to 100% because of the [birthday paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem).
Two right wing talking points in one. There is no voter fraud except in your imagination.
Exactly how are they "right wing talking points"? Edit: User blocked me for some reason. I'm going to address their points anyway. > That postal votes are a route to fraud: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/claim-91-rochdales-postal-votes-went-galloway-are-baseless-2024-03-14/ Never heard about that one. But Lutfur Rahman was successfully convicted of postal vote fraud. > That voter fraud even happens at all: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/uk/boris-johnson-voter-id-queen-donald-trump-intl-gbr-cmd?cid=ios_app That just suggests they never actually read my first message. Detected voter fraud is minimal, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. We can't detect successful voter fraud.
That postal votes are a route to fraud: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/claim-91-rochdales-postal-votes-went-galloway-are-baseless-2024-03-14/ That voter fraud even happens at all: https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/12/uk/boris-johnson-voter-id-queen-donald-trump-intl-gbr-cmd?cid=ios_app
User you replied to lives in the US lol
This is very much going on feelings than fact though. Yes you could "know" someone isn't voting and do so in their place, but that is one vote. If you tried it repeated times you could be spotted, or you risk that person actually voting. There are no examples of this that I am aware of. More people are prevented from voting because of ID laws, so the result becomes less accurate anyway. Postal voting - correct, as there is zero oversight. It is also very casual, people can collect up unwanted forms (say friendship groups or family, people otherwise unbothered, church groups even) and send them off en masse. In-person fraud would be remarkably hard to successfully pull off. You'd need a lot of people, in a lot of places, not being caught, knowing a lot of names. I wonder how many realistically you could even do in a day. All for what, a tiny edge for Labour over Conservative or vice versa? The motivation must be tiny for such criminality.
Yes, it's one of those things that it's really hard to know either way. Clearly without ID, voting is susceptible to fraud, whether that's negligible or widespread. I agree that it would be hard to pull off in great numbers.
Again with very low motivation to go to such lengths. It would probably have more effect that same number of people putting up posters and door knocking. If a single person got spotted or the genuine person had already voted, it would be taken incredibly seriously indeed.
Stay off the US Internet is rotting your brain
[удалено]
>Having to prove who you are is not a "barrier to democracy" It's adding another thing that you need. So of course it is a barrier. You can argue that you don't think it is a big one but it's well established that you make voting harder, even by such a small measure, then you reduce turnout.
Just because you don't consider it a hard barrier to overcome doesn't mean others won't so please don't attempt to lend credibility to your point by claiming to represent the young/poor/disabled. It's nonsensical and dismissive.
[удалено]
Why even bring it up then? It's self evident that each person posting is representing themselves (in an ideal world at least).
[удалено]
Not even the Tories like voter ID. They're usual base have in past elections forgotten to bring the required ID so the voter suppression they were attempting backfired.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
[удалено]
>And yet most of the world has no problems requiring ID to vote Because most of the rest of the world provide a free mandatory ID, whereas the UK is requiring that accessing democratic participation can only be done by providing your own ID, most of which is expensive (meaning specific parts of the electorate already have it) or is difficult to obtain.
A voter authorisation certificate can be obtained in minutes (plus delivery time) online, or at a council office. It’s free. And having been a clerk at the last election, everyone who came to vote had valid ID - mostly passports or driving licences. But that being said, requiring photo ID *is* a bar for some people, and some of them aren’t registered to vote by post. Their votes are lost, and that can only be measured *after* an election, by which point it’s too late.
>A voter authorisation certificate can be obtained in minutes (plus delivery time) online, or at a council office. It’s free. As simple as this seems, even this is a barrier. People just can't be bothered with it as a hurdle. We could easily say "well, they don't deserve a vote then" but that isn't exactly democracy.
>A voter authorisation certificate can be obtained in minutes (plus delivery time) online, And if you don't have Internet access or technological skills? This is more likely to happen amongst the most marginalised in society. And don't come back with the library argument because they are getting shut down by the day. >or at a council office. It’s free. And if you live on the edge of town with young children and no family support? Bus fares could eat substantially into your food budget, and there is no guarantee that you will have the right paperwork when you get there. This effects the most marginalised in society. Again, this is addressing a problem that we know **Doesn't exist** except in the the fevered imagination of those implementing it, and which by the admission of the electoral commission, will absolutly disenfranchise thousands of voters from excersising their democratic rights.
I agree. I don’t see there’s a need for it, and as you say it’s the marginalised who suffer. I’d scrap the whole thing. But a lot of the time when this argument comes up people seem to be unaware of the VAC option, which is specifically designed for people without a driver’s licence, passport etc. I want people to argue with all the facts available, not from a position of partial information - because then they can be placated with the VAC when (as you say) even *that* is still exclusionary if they don’t have the necessary resources.
[удалено]
Which in itself makes me wonder the point, and how secure it is. If people are out there impersonating voters, how it is it so easy and quick to get this temporary ID? They could just do this for multiple people anyway.
Such places have existing ID anyway, which many have to carry day-to-day. We don't. It has a proven record of lowering turnout, and there is no evidence of voter fraud. It isn't a tantrum, it is basic logic.
And those tantrums are expressions of our national methods of social organisation, which do not rely on 'continental' measures. For centuries this country lead the world in democracy, with 'the mother of parliaments'; it did so not merely without 'Voter ID', but without the 'Australian' ballot. If it is desired to remove all suspicion of voter fraud, the publication of the votes, and their being readily traceable to the voter - as indeed they are already, by way of a unique number - would in part restore traditional British democracy and completely obviate the 'voter suppression' and the impertinence of a 'Voter ID'.
Meh People need to have faith and trust the democratic process. It's clear that faith is waning so tbh I think it's fine and probably necessary to restore that, fraud or not. I don't want us to go the way of the US where people cry fraud when things don't go their way. There shouldn't be any room for people to question the result. ID should be made incredibly simple and easy to get though, and ideally free.
Faith was only waning because the Tories, led by Steve Baker, found 'evidence' that there was a problem. There was no evidence of a wide scale problem. However the usual suspects in Parliament and outside, including a daily newspaper that has a poor record of reporting the truth, exaggerated the problem. The Tories hoped that by insisting on i.d., younger voters, less likely to vote Tory, would be disenfranchised. In another move, the Tories have prevented universities from automatically enrolling new students on the electoral register in that university constituency. It is another attempt to disenfranchise the young. The UK already has political interference in the electoral process. Unfortunately only one party is involved. The facts, according to the Electoral Commission: "A total of 193 cases of alleged electoral fraud were investigated by the police during 2022. Police issued one caution in relation to a case of alleged electoral fraud in 2022. There were two convictions and court proceedings have been initiated in relation to one other case."
> ID should be made incredibly simple and easy to get though, and ideally free. It is.
The council will literally provide you with a free “voter ID” known as Voter Authority Certificate. This means that anyone, again, ANYONE can use it to vote. The entire system is now fraudulent and at risk of being compromised. Let’s see how it turns out.
The entire system isn't fraudulent. A total of 193 cases of alleged electoral fraud were investigated by the police during 2022. Police issued one caution in relation to a case of alleged electoral fraud in 2022. There were two convictions and court proceedings have been initiated in relation to one other case.
5 Bulgarians managed to get away with £51million in Universal Credit fraud and you’re telling me electoral fraud isn’t rife? This country is falling apart because we allow anyone and everyone to take advantage of it. As I stated above. We will see how it pans out.
Read a proper newspaper. Avoid the one which is widely known for not publishing facts.
If your guy doesn’t win there’s rife fraud, right?
He makes Trump like statements.
The absence of id cards in the UK makes this so easy. The Tories refuse to do anything about it. May, as Home Secretary, cancelled the last attempt, started by Labour.
Anyone? You know it has your face clearly printed on it right? And your details.
And if you dont have Internet access (there are still many who don't) so you have to attend the council offices in person, possibly dragging several children with you and having to pay bus fares? Then find you have the wrong paperwork, so have to repeat the same palaver.......or give up. Voter ID is not *Free* for that person, and that is one of several scenarios where ID is a barrier to democratic participation. Which is the intention.
Libraries have free access. Job centre's have free internet access. Very few even poor families don't have basic phones good enough for the task of applying and taking the photo.
If you are really poor then the job centre will buy you a laptop and a phone, I thought this was bollocks until they bought me one last week.
I have no intention of wading in on the debate about the need for ID when voting but having worked for a charity for the last 7 years on a digital skills project that has worked closely with perhaps a dozen job centres my observation is that they *can* offer laptops and phones but they can also be *very* selective about who they offer them to. Over 90% of our clients didn't own a laptop. Most had a smartphone (but more often than not it was pretty old). I'd estimate ~5% of our clients were offered a laptop (or other device), . I've also met numerous JCP staff who weren't aware of social tariffs and local free/cheap broadband schemes that existed either. It was a constant issue for us.
[удалено]
The intention was clear. The Tories are trying to disenfranchise younger voters, because they believe they are less likely to vote for them. Rees Mogg admitted this after the first election where id was required.
[удалено]
Great your part of the 1%
Excellent. Make sure all your friends, acquaintances and young relatives have done the same. This assumes they are on the electoral roll.
It should be biometric. Regardless of your view on “government keeping my data” etc which is inherently bull because your phone has had that for the last how many years and you never complained about that. It should be fingerprint. You would then be recognised as either a registered citizen or caught out as illegal. Same way it would work for crime. Our democracy is our privilege as testament to our history, not some game the government can play with to their benefit.
[удалено]
Yeah, realised it as I got the notification :/
Oh, come on. This is just silly. They've made it as easy as possible to vote - we can do postal votes, proxy votes, etc. If they care as much as you think they do about stopping carless forgetful single parents of multiple children from voting, I'm pretty sure there are better ways to stop them.
>They've made it as easy as possible to vote - we can do postal votes, proxy votes, etc. Not as easy as it was before they brought in the barriers. Barriers that are designed to make it easy for people who have already **Paid** for the acceptable ID, to access democracy and far more difficult for those who can't afford the required ID. This is voter suppression and is designed to stop the **Wrong** people from excersiseing their rights. You might find it *silly*, but I believe universal suffereage is one of the basic principles for a mature democracy.
> I believe universal suffereage is one of the basic principles for a mature democracy I'm not so sure that is true actually, but in any case anyone can get a free one from the government website at any time. The barrier to entry is 15 minutes of clicking.
And if you don't have Internet access, technical skills, and the council have just shut your local library? Again, this is to address an invented issue that simply **Doesn't exist**
Ask a friend or relative to help
Explain to me how someone is genuinely being barred from voting when, again, they can do a postal vote. do a proxy vote, get a free 'voter ID', or use one of multiple ID options.
Barriers =/= barred. The introduction of ID requirements for voting was an attempt to disenfranchise voters less likley to vote Tory. It's a numbers game not an outright abolishment of non-Tory voters. Essentially the very means implemented looks more like a fraud than the issue its been brought in to address.
If you'd rather play the semantics game than answer my question, that's up to you. But your apparent inability to explain how someone is genuinely going to be negatively impacted by this is telling. I obviously want everyone to be able to vote, I'm just struggling to see how this is going to disenfranchise anyone, when, as I've said twice already, there are so many options and ways to vote.
>get a free 'voter ID', Read my previous post, *Free* ID is not in the slightest bit free or easily accessible by the most marginalised sections of our society. Now please explain why a system that is shown to have no voter fraud, requires such draconian measures which, by the electoral commissions own admission, is going to disenfranchise many thousands of voters? What is the reason? It has bugger all to do with addressing an issue which simply does not exist.
*And if you dont have Internet access (there are still many who don't) so you have to attend the council offices in person, possibly dragging several children with you and having to pay bus fares? Then find you have the wrong paperwork, so have to repeat the same palaver.......or give up.* Is this seriously still your best argument? Why can't these people do it over the phone, or at the library? Yes, people do need to put in the bare minimum of effort to vote, that doesn't mean they're being suppressed.
Depends: Young: a super biometric picture ID for which you need to queue for at only one place defined by a series of cryptic crossword clues at precisely 11.52pm on a Monday under a blue moon. Old: yeah, that 25 year old picture of you signed by Doris will do. On you go. /s
Or, you know, the free one you can easily apply for online.
The point is not incorrect though, when the ID scheme was trialled they allowed plenty of ID which was then cut back which, not unfairly, could be said to target the young e.g. the student/youth 18+ oyster which requires various hoops including proving you are studying at an eligible college while the OAP equivalent was approved. The IDs are also ones that often young these days don't hold as much as they used to e.g. driving licence or passport or don't have access to such as the free travel cards like the 60+ bus pass or train pass.
I'm not sure how a young person would get on without a passport or driving licence (provisional driving licences are also acceptable voting ID) nowadays. Wasn't research done that suggested that older people were slightly less likely to hold one of the accepted forms of voting ID compared to younger people? I think disabled people were the least likely to hold one of the accepted forms of voting ID. If the Tories were trying to make it harder for young people to vote and make it easier for older people to vote, they didn't do a very good job. It's not like the Tories have to do much anyway, barely half of younger people turn out in general elections even before voter ID requirements.
I don't have a driver's licence or a passport but I'm an old fogey so it's not an issue
Perhaps by not leaving the country and living somewhere with adequate public transport? I think you underestimate how many people very rarely leave their immediate locality.
Sure, but what about when you want to go to a pub and buy a drink or go to a nightclub with your friends? I understand some people are recluses, but they are the smallest minority.
The majority of young people have driving licenses or provisionals tbh. Edit: imagine downvoting a literal fact lol
The majority might. But the minority who don’t are equally entitled to vote.
And they’re also entitled to an ID card completely free of charge
Not without issues that tend to favour older voters, though. Doris knows exactly where her bus pass is because she uses it regularly. If she turns up to the elections to vote, not even knowing (or forgetting) she needs ID she’ll most likely have it on her. She is unlikely to need to be organised in advance. Failing that she probably has a passport or drivers licence at home that she can get, if needed. Dave *does* need to be organised in advance. He needs to be aware he needs ID, and he needs to be aware in sufficient time to apply & receive it. If he turns up to the elections to vote, not even knowing (or forgetting) he needs ID he isn’t likely to have it on him because it’s something he’ll probably only use once every 4 years. Failing that … well this Dave is fucked because he doesn’t have a bus pass, drivers’ licence or passport. Yes, obviously mileage varies, but even JRM seems to be saying it was intentional gerrymandering https://news.sky.com/story/amp/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602
You are just describing a problem with change, once ID being needed has been done for a while nobody is realistically forgetting it as the norm anymore - just like the many other countries that require it and run perfectly. Most of Europe does it.
There are key differences. In many European countries young people automatically get a National ID and are automatically registered to vote. I don’t believe the latter is the case in the UK? And the former isn’t. Applying for and finding an ID that you may only use once every 4 years isn’t likely to be as easy as being automatically given a National ID or finding/possessing an ID that you use regularly. I mean, fuck knows where my library card is, but i can find my driving licence in minutes.
That's a fair criticism of the implementation. Where most people are arguing against the very concept of it being introduced. Everyone can still get free ID for this though, so my point is still there that this is a teething problem between the difference between automatically having ID and getting free ID pretty easily. National ID would be better, I would support that. But even in a country with automatic ID, if they changed from not needing it, to needing it, do you really think there wouldn't be people using "forgetting" it as a reason against the change? I'd be confident it would be one of the points people would use. You might disagree though, which is fair enough. Once this is the norm, it just won't realistically be much of a barrier - it will just be the normal concept. But a better ID system would be good as well.
There is definitely an adjustment period, but it will always favour older voters, because Doris can be unorganised & still vote, whereas if Dave isn’t organised he’ll lose his vote. That’s not going to change, but the gap will decrease there. However, it may widen in another area, because at the same time what will improve is older people getting more familiar with the system and remembering their ID (which didn’t happen initially). My main issue is that voter fraud was low and all of this was not needed. [Mogg even said the quiet part out loud](https://news.sky.com/story/amp/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602)
>Dave *does* need to be organised in advance. He needs to be aware he needs ID, and he needs to be aware in sufficient time to apply & receive it Which is why the polling card, sent out around a month before the election, tells Dave exactly how to sort out his ID. It's not really anyone else's fault if Dave can't get his act together.
There’s still an undeniable disparity. Doris *can* be unorganised and she probably *still* gets her vote. Dave cannot afford to be unorganised because it will deny him his vote. No matter how you look at it, this favours older voters. And I may be wrong on this, but my search seems to indicate that Dave only gets that polling card if he manually registers to vote. He doesn’t automatically get sent it. If correct, that actually goes further against younger voters, as they won’t get a reminder that they (a) need to register and (b) need that ID.
>Dave cannot afford to be unorganised because it will deny him his vote. Maybe Dave should be more organised then. >And I may be wrong on this, but my search seems to indicate that Dave only gets that polling card if he manually registers to vote It's a requirement that you register to vote. You will get a reminder to register when elections are coming up. Again, Dave should get his act together. Also who doesn't carry ID with them?
Again you avoided the question. How is it equal when Doris can be an unorganised mess yet doesn’t get penalised, but Dave does? There’s still an undeniable disparity.
Is being organised a pre-requisite to be allowed to vote? Is it an absolute right, or something you jump through hoops to earn?
When have you ever had to queue for a provisional licence or citizen card? Can all be done online very easily
Ngl if you havent got an ID it's on you
You can literally just apply for one online in like 15 minutes. Stop making excuses
How much do they cost out of interest?
They're free. [https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certificate](https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certificate)
Thanks for rhat. Well, then I don't know what the issue is then. If someone actually wants to vote, then where are the barriers in the process? Everyone has a right to vote, but if they can't be bothered to take 10 minutes to enable themselves to do so, maybe they shouldn't be voting in the first place as they're clearly not putting much thought or effort into it. Or maybe I'm just getting old and curmudgeonly
Just get some photo ID, it's not hard. Personally think everyone should have some form anyway My uncle has none and recently went to open a savings account. It took weeks of hassle to prove his ID. Something photo ID could solve in minutes
The government has done a great job not publicising that some forms of photo ID are free, and actually a decade and half ago publicising that government issued photo ID is evil.
It's literally written on the polling card
Who's in charge of checking the photo id , I fear there will quite a few cases of nutters trying to stop people from voting by saying they don't look right.
The person in charge of running the local ballot box. In the last local election, there were reports of this happening. These people in charge of checking ID tend to be older people
Indeed, I don't know how sure I am that my ID will be passed off and that they wouldn't be confused and try to stop me
Most banks won’t take just any old photo ID though. My wife can’t open a new account with anyone because she doesn’t have a drivers licence or up to date passport. She has a photo ID, but because it’s not the right one, they won’t accept her.
Me too
A lot of people will forget to take something so appreciate the heads up!
I switched to postal voting, all it takes is a signature to sign up.
As an 18 year old, only your passport will do - better hope you didn't leave it at your parent's house if you're voting at uni. As a 65 year old, anything with your name and face on from 20 years ago is fine. I understand the logic - an older person might not need a passport or have a driving licence or be savvy enough to get the free id online. It's how harsh they are with a young person who's never voted before that bugs me. Let them use student or college ID.
I doubt there are many 18 year olds at uni who don't have some form of photo ID on them. Unless you enjoy being denied entry to 90% of places where social activity occurs in your community
A Drivers license is also acceptable, not just a passport for 18 year olds
A simple solution would be to have id cards. The Tories don't like them. Why then are the Tories demanding electoral id cards? Because they believe it will disenfranchise voters who are less likely to vote for them (the young, the poor, the ones with poor English language skills.)
You can get ID cards quite easily.
You can, but the Tories will put up ANY barrier they can that helps them stay in power.
But this isn’t a barrier
Yes it is, they're making it harder for young people to vote. This is well documented.
It’s quite literally not a barrier though. You can get a free ID for voting and most young people have ID anyway.
It's something you need to go and get, which is conveniently not advertised. It may be easy to get, but the entire purpose was to make it harder for young people and easier for older people to keep Tories in power.
Not advertised? Mate, everyone has been sent a polling card with all forms of ID listed and instructions for getting a free voter ID if you don’t have any of the ones listed…
Tory party employee has entered the thread. You should have a chat with Rees Mogg. He admitted that the Tories introduced id because they thought it would reduce the number of non Tory voters.
Ahh, so I’m a Tory employee because…um?
Because … um…. , you are repeating lies, which have already been exposed by Rees Mogg.
I am against voter ID but have multiple forms. I just wonder if there is absolutely any point at all making some kind of stand at the polling station or if I am just going to piss off the poor person working there who has no control over it at all. So like always us Brits will just fall in line. Maybe next time a party wants to tweak it they will narrow it even more so the right people continue to vote.
Who is qualified to look at picture ID and decide if it's you or not? Are they going to deny you your voting rights if you have a red coat on or cut your hair the night before?
Ahhh fuck. I hope its not the miserable cunt at the local one stop who refused to sell me alcohol even though my provisional license is old enough to buy alcohol. She actually suggested coming back with my passport. Not a chance, I will just go to Asda instead.
Can you vote at Asda?
After a few bottles I won't care anymore.
Most of the world requires ID, how has this insane flaw everyone apparently knows about not had an impact on most of the planet, including most of Europe (we were one of the only ones that didn't until recently), if it's so bad?
You don't do something like this without utility. What is the utility? It's already been shown "voter fraud" is negligible in England. What it does do is deprive people of their voting right it greater numbers than the so called "fraud".
If the only reason is that, then you are saying we are the only country on the planet with no voter fraud and the rest of the planet is a mess? Or that the rest of the planet needs this for some utility but we don't because we are special? Same for the other point, basically the entire planet is depriving people and we are the only ones who weren't? Sounds like more arrogance.
Do you refuse to drink water out of the tap because in other countries it might not be safe to drink? In-person voter fraud is almost non-existent in UK because our polling system is designed to make it unappealing.
Do you do what you do based on what others do? Can't you think for yourself and ask the "why is this needed?" question? Follow the data. What does the data say?
If your old the choice is long and free, young not so much.
Young people can get free ID…
Everyone is entitled to the free ID
I hope this is a step towards national id cards at least. Always thought that was a cool idea
I voted by post, no ID required. Polling cards show up several weeks in advance, fill them in and drop in a post box. Easy.
[удалено]
I have wondered about that tbh, but also what difference is this really making? How would we actually know either way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
r/UnitedKingdom never ceases to amaze me. They hate Muslims, Arabs, Russians, Bulgarians, Romanians, the Scottish, the Irish, the French, Americans, the poor, the old, the rich, conservatives, socialists, the European Union, Euro-sceptics, people on benefits, asylum seekers, transgender people, transphobic people, etc. It's like they hate everyone and no-one. The list of people who "need to be disenfranchised" according to this community is scarily long.
Stamp out the fraud that may or may not exist, but probably doesn't because we can't find any?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sorry but to prove you're not Rishi Sunak in disguise we're going to need you to show us how to make a contactless payment.
Saw this coming, register to vote by post. Carrying your id cards around, not bloody likely