I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
...That doesn't make any sense. If the requirements are less onerous than needing a bank account, then how is the number of people finding it difficult going to be orders of magnitude more than those who would struggle with the bank account option? It is easier than needing to have a bank account, therefore the number struggling with that will be higher than those who cannot prove a bank account?
I'm still not sold on the necessity, and therefore proportionality of these trialed options, but the hyperbolic reactions around 'millions' are not helping the alternate case.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.
For those who are interested, we have done a long and pretty technical follow-up piece on the UK joining the Unified Patent Court system and why a role for the CJEU does not cross the government red lines. The last question and answer will be of most interest, I imagine.
Put simply, the UPC is an international agreement, not an EU one. A UPC court is not an EU court or a national court, but it can ask the CJEU to clarify issues of EU law which may be relevant. However, they are relevant only within the context of an international agreement, not an EU one.
To quote from the Q&A: "Hence CJEU jurisdiction over the UK (if you want to call it that) is indirect, as our existing first instance and appellate courts themselves are neither referring questions nor being given the answers and hence being told what to do."
The UPC courts are not UK, German, French etc, they are international. And the CJEU is not an appellate court within the UPC system. Hope that is clear!
I am not expressing it very well, but I hope you get the gist.
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
...That doesn't make any sense. If the requirements are less onerous than needing a bank account, then how is the number of people finding it difficult going to be orders of magnitude more than those who would struggle with the bank account option? It is easier than needing to have a bank account, therefore the number struggling with that will be higher than those who cannot prove a bank account?
I'm still not sold on the necessity, and therefore proportionality of these trialed options, but the hyperbolic reactions around 'millions' are not helping the alternate case.
Sorry I missed out the rest - orders of magnitude higher than the number of personation cases.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.
I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'. The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.
So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....
How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?
Very few people would not have any ID on them, an even smaller number would have read or not read the letter and then gone to vote with no ID on them. Those that can't be bothered to then come back to their polling station 10 minutes away have made a personal choice about how much they value their vote. If I turn up to a football match without a ticket, a cash machine without a bank card or an airport without a passport then it's entirely my fault. The point is everyone who can vote still qualifies to vote it's just a minimal amount of extra effort to make everyone's vote more secure.
Blimey, talk about low hurdles. We are surely heading into an end zone with Bercow.
When can we vote on his successor as Speaker? I'd be looking hard at Jacob Rees-Mogg if the odds were favourable. He does not seem to be going anywhere near the front bench.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
I've just gone through Richmond ward by ward. I was thinking of laying the Lib Dems at 1.4 but the tough looking headline councillor numbers actually give way surprisingly easily to a Lib Dem majority particularly if you consider the Hampton Wick by-election, parliamentary by-election and general election results as leading indicators.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.
I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'. The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.
So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....
How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?
I think that's the point, it will be enough to deter some people which is not what we want. It also smacks of the kind of tricks that the Republicans get up to in the US.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.
The passport would work by itself without any address. Or you could have used the polling card (which shows your address) plus any one of a bank card, credit card, cheque book, or bank statement, which don't need to show your address.
People are just making a fuss for the sake of it, or for party-political reasons (well what a surprise). There's a case for saying that it's not worth the hassle, but it's absurd to claim that anyone will be disenfranchised, or that it's an onerous requirement.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.
I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'. The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.
So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....
How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?
Then it is their own fault. Sorry - but they are very easy rules to follow.
I've just gone through Richmond ward by ward. I was thinking of laying the Lib Dems at 1.4 but the tough looking headline councillor numbers actually give way surprisingly easily to a Lib Dem majority particularly if you consider the Hampton Wick by-election, parliamentary by-election and general election results as leading indicators.
Yes, I think it'll be a fairly easy LibDem gain:
1. The LDs were 10,000 votes ahead in Richmond Park plus Twickenham at the General Election. (And would likely be more ahead if you remember that Richmond Park loses its most Conservative areas to Kingston Borough Council.)
2. There are lots of EU citizens able to cast protest votes, who've never bothered in the past.
3. It's the heart of Remainia.
4. The local council has not had a good four years.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.
A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).
The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.
And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
It is still completely unnecessary. I agree entirely with your dad. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Moreover I think that one of the reasons May is encouraging it is because it provides a perfect excuse to claim that we need to have a national identity card scheme. Something May has been keen on for years and again is completely unnecessary.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.
Your passport doesn't have your address on it
Really? I thought it did...
You can write it in the back, I think.
A passport is a bloody useful form of ID to keep around when you move house in the UK precisely because it DOESN'T have your old address.
Some form of ID seems entirely reasonable to me. I play cricket with a bunch of people most of whom don't vote (this was discussed at the GE). I know where most of them live and it's mostly the same ward as me but different polling stations.
It would be trivial to impersonate them and thereby vote 8-10 times myself. The only risk would be the tellers or another voter spotting that i was giving a false name. But tellers are usually not THAT local and especially at local elections turnout is low enough for it to be easy to pick a quiet time of day with an empty polling station. Local elections are also more likely to be ones where small numbers of votes matter.
So we cannot know how much impersonation goes on. Probably it is low, but the bar proposed to solve the problem is not a high one surely?
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.
I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'. The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.
So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....
How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?
Then it is their own fault. Sorry - but they are very easy rules to follow.
You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Hmmmm.
Cost of supplying camera and fingerprinting equipment (+ backup) to every polling station?
Security of images so can be used for prosecution later?
Invasion of privacy issue, so people with no ID are stigmatised instead?
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
"we fingerprint people now for their driving license"
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
No we don't. You do not have to provide fingerprints for your driving licence.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
"we fingerprint people now for their driving license"
Do we?
I renewed mine 6 months ago and there were no finger prints needed
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
res1000,
Yes I can see that could work, (while I reserve the right to change my mind after it has been piloted)
I also think that ALL voters getting a dab of red permanent ink on their finger when they vote, so that it can be checked if voters have already voted, would/could also reduse voter frord without disenfranchising legitimate voters.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
I guess you have an interest in fingerprint scanners......
Some form of ID seems entirely reasonable to me. I play cricket with a bunch of people most of whom don't vote (this was discussed at the GE). I know where most of them live and it's mostly the same ward as me but different polling stations.
It would be trivial to impersonate them and thereby vote 8-10 times myself. The only risk would be the tellers or another voter spotting that i was giving a false name. But tellers are usually not THAT local and especially at local elections turnout is low enough for it to be easy to pick a quiet time of day with an empty polling station. Local elections are also more likely to be ones where small numbers of votes matter.
So we cannot know how much impersonation goes on. Probably it is low, but the bar proposed to solve the problem is not a high one surely?
In my early 20s I lived in a shared house in East London. None of the utilities were in my name, and I didn't have a driving license. I did have a passport, but not all of the seven of us in the house did.
Some of the guys in the house would have needed to have dug out an old bank statement to go with their bank card. Could they have done it? Sure, but it's a non-trivial bar for the disorganised.
To me, the question is: are you disenfranchising more genuine voters than you are putting off potential fraudsters? Given that fraudsters seem to prefer postal voting (in East London, at least), it seems that right now it's likely that we're disenfranchising more than we're preventing.
Hence my solution: you can vote without ID, but only if you consent to having your photo and fingerprints taken. Not many* criminals want to leave a photo and set of prints at the scene.
As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with showing ID to vote, but only if they sort out postal voting. That is, we need to abolish postal voting and bring in early voting whereby you can go to the town hall up to four weeks in advance and cast your vote.
Assume a hypothetical subculture in which the females were routinely disempowered by not permitting them to drive or have their own money; hence no licenses or bank cards. There is a real danger of the ID requirement ruling out their power to carve themselves out a little bit of freedom by casting their own vote, and leave them stuck with a postal vote which might, again hypothetically, be effectively cast on their behalf by the males of the household. Hypothetically.
In my area the polling station usually consists of two elderly women sitting behind a desk. No police, no security, no ID, no nothing, apart from those two ladies. I'd be surprised if there's ever been any fraud at this particular polling station.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
I have often said that bank cards should have your photo on them, then, for point of sale stuff, a lot of fraud could stopped.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
No we don't. You do not have to provide fingerprints for your driving licence.
Errr: I did mine at the Post Office about six months ago, and they took my photo with a special machine and also took my fingerprints. It may have been a trial, but they definitely took them.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
No we don't. You do not have to provide fingerprints for your driving licence.
Errr: I did mine at the Post Office about six months ago, and they took my photo with a special machine and also took my fingerprints. It may have been a trial, but they definitely took them.
I couriered a D1 form to my mum while she was India a few months back (licence expired while she was there) - she didn't need to give fingerprints!
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Hmmmm.
Cost of supplying camera and fingerprinting equipment (+ backup) to every polling station?
Security of images so can be used for prosecution later?
Invasion of privacy issue, so people with no ID are stigmatised instead?
Cost is minimal relative to the costs of the election: say £2m one off for the whole country.
Security of images is something we deal with all the time with passports and the like.
Invasion of privacy is only an issue for those who haven't brought ID, and if they think it's too much, they don't have to vote. The point is that it prevents disenfranchising people. And it prevents fraud.
Assume a hypothetical subculture in which the females were routinely disempowered by not permitting them to drive or have their own money; hence no licenses or bank cards. There is a real danger of the ID requirement ruling out their power to carve themselves out a little bit of freedom by casting their own vote, and leave them stuck with a postal vote which might, again hypothetically, be effectively cast on their behalf by the males of the household. Hypothetically.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
No we don't. You do not have to provide fingerprints for your driving licence.
Errr: I did mine at the Post Office about six months ago, and they took my photo with a special machine and also took my fingerprints. It may have been a trial, but they definitely took them.
That was just because you look shifty. I can understand that.
But no, there is no requirement for fingerprints. Nor can I find any news or information on any trials being run for such. I was involved in the large scale consultation on biometrics a decade ago and still take a close interest in this. There has been no news on it at all.
Are you sure you weren't being taken in for being drunk and disorderly (again!)?
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
No we don't. You do not have to provide fingerprints for your driving licence.
Errr: I did mine at the Post Office about six months ago, and they took my photo with a special machine and also took my fingerprints. It may have been a trial, but they definitely took them.
Maybe you look a bit shifty? You did clear off to L.A. - clearly something dodgy going on
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
I think you're underestimating the costs. You'd need back-up fingerprint scanners, you'd probably have to do some kind of training to use them. You'd also need to price in costs of storing that data, and presumably you'd have to delete it if the voter asked you to under new data protection rules? It's not an awful idea - it just seems a big overreaction to a non-problem.
As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with showing ID to vote, but only if they sort out postal voting. That is, we need to abolish postal voting and bring in early voting whereby you can go to the town hall up to four weeks in advance and cast your vote.
As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with showing ID to vote, but only if they sort out postal voting. That is, we need to abolish postal voting and bring in early voting whereby you can go to the town hall up to four weeks in advance and cast your vote.
What about us ex-pats?
Isn’t four weeks a big enough window in which to plan your return?
Obviously it’s different for those working for the government overseas. For them I’d make an exception.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
Fingerprinting invites rather easy headlines about "I was made to feel like a criminal," and the hypothetical subculture of which I spoke might also have cultural objections to the taking of photographs of human beings. Tackling personation without abolishing or restricting postal voting turns out to be a massive perverse incentive.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
It's a bloody silly idea. Eliminate the fingerprint bit, and it might be quite sensible. You get your photo taken at the self service checkout in many supermarkets - and a photo alone would be quite sufficient to eliminate 99.9% of fraud, wouldn't waste any time (unlike taking fingerprints), and would cost an order of magnitude less.
A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).
The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.
And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!
He definitely won't get a Noble prize.
I don't seriously think he will, and in any case only time can see if peace initiatives are worth the rhetoric, I just think it funny he might.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Perhaps the main bod at the polling station could just automatically let anybody vote who is wearing the tie of a decent school or regiment - and disenfranchise without recourse anybody who they think looks a bit shifty?
As I said earlier, I don’t have a problem with showing ID to vote, but only if they sort out postal voting. That is, we need to abolish postal voting and bring in early voting whereby you can go to the town hall up to four weeks in advance and cast your vote.
What about us ex-pats?
Isn’t four weeks a big enough window in which to plan your return?
Obviously it’s different for those working for the government overseas. For them I’d make an exception.
That's a minimum of around $250, probably rather more as those ultra-cheap fares usually go long before departure time, plus accommodation, although I suppose I probably could persuade my one remaining relative in the UK, a cousin, to put me up for a night or two, plus transport from airport / cousin's to the polling station where I last lived.
That's quite a financial barrier to exercising my franchise! If you want to abolish ex-pat voting rights, that's a fair position, but you should say so!
A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).
The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.
And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!
He definitely won't get a Noble prize.
I don't seriously think he will, and in any case only time can see if peace initiatives are worth the rhetoric, I just think it funny he might.
Obama got the peace prize before he even did anything!
You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...
Because a lot of us don't want to turn into America where you can't even buy a train ticket for a 20 minute journey without showing ID.
Perhaps the main bod at the polling station could just automatically let anybody vote who is wearing the tie of a decent school or regiment - and disenfranchise without recourse anybody who they think looks a bit shifty?
That would be cheap....
I thought such ties cost your parents £30K per year?
Perhaps the main bod at the polling station could just automatically let anybody vote who is wearing the tie of a decent school or regiment - and disenfranchise without recourse anybody who they think looks a bit shifty?
That would be cheap....
I thought such ties cost your parents £30K per year?
You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...
Because a lot of us don't want to turn into America where you can't even buy a train ticket for a 20 minute journey without showing ID.
America is a surprisingly bad analogy to use, Almost all (if not all) of the other EU nations require ID to vote, in much of the US it is like the UK, where you do not.
You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...
Because a lot of us don't want to turn into America where you can't even buy a train ticket for a 20 minute journey without showing ID.
I can't remember the last time I was required to show ID for Amtrak, and you don't even need to notionally show it for commuter rail.
You'd only be required to show ID if you purchase at a staffed Amtrak ticket window, of which there are increasingly few. Everyone in practice buys e-tickets online or paper tickets from kiosks.
You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...
Because a lot of us don't want to turn into America where you can't even buy a train ticket for a 20 minute journey without showing ID.
America is a surprisingly bad analogy to use, Almost all (if not all) of the other EU nations require ID to vote, in much of the US it is like the UK, where you do not.
Actually to vote in a federal election you have to provide proof of identity when registering in person, or at the polling station the first time (only) you vote after registering. Since most local elections coincide with federal elections, except those local elections that occur in odd-numbered years, the effect is to require it.
You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...
Because a lot of us don't want to turn into America where you can't even buy a train ticket for a 20 minute journey without showing ID.
America is a surprisingly bad analogy to use, Almost all (if not all) of the other EU nations require ID to vote, in much of the US it is like the UK, where you do not.
Actually to vote in a federal election you have to provide proof of identity when registering in person, or at the polling station the first time (only) you vote after registering. Since most local elections coincide with federal elections, except those local elections that occur in odd-numbered years, the effect is to require it.
You sound confidant so I will take your word for it.
but I don't understand then why so much fuss when Wisconsin and a few other places introduced the requirements?
Perhaps the main bod at the polling station could just automatically let anybody vote who is wearing the tie of a decent school or regiment - and disenfranchise without recourse anybody who they think looks a bit shifty?
That would be cheap....
I thought such ties cost your parents £30K per year?
Only if you're thick.
You better not be at £30K per year
Anyway - I have to go and do stuff, but voting will not be part of it.
A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).
The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.
And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!
He definitely won't get a Noble prize.
I don't seriously think he will, and in any case only time can see if peace initiatives are worth the rhetoric, I just think it funny he might.
Obama got the peace prize before he even did anything!
You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...
Because a lot of us don't want to turn into America where you can't even buy a train ticket for a 20 minute journey without showing ID.
I can't remember the last time I was required to show ID for Amtrak, and you don't even need to notionally show it for commuter rail.
You'd only be required to show ID if you purchase at a staffed Amtrak ticket window, of which there are increasingly few. Everyone in practice buys e-tickets online or paper tickets from kiosks.
I was only joking. It would be quite an effort for someone to travel around the world to collect postal votes which presumably wouldn’t be going to the same ward/constituency.
That’s said, I’m not that keen on ex-pats voting. I’m not sure what the time limits are but I think they should be quite short.
I was Woking Lib Dem group leader in 2012/13 when one of our candidates was found guilty of electoral fraud. Therefore I fully support voter ID as fraud wasn’t restricted to our party in one particular ward. This is certainly not a Tory plot to take away votes. It is shameful that Labour want to sanction electoral fraud by opposing voter ID.
Actually that's a neat summary in one diagram of the nonsense frequently spoken about the Irish border. For an obvious start, there's already a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. For a marginally less obvious second, no matter how many times people repeat it, it's simply not true that not being in the CU/Single Market automatically implies that a hard border will suddenly appear in Ireland, apparently without any human intervention or political will, and despite the fact that not a single politician, country or the Commission wants to build one.
A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).
The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.
And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!
Off topic - Have soft leather black work shoes completely died out ? I'm looking for a pair (Up to about £80 I guess) and all the leather has a 'rock hard' look about it. My old pair are Riekers but I can't find them on the website. I'd like to buy the same again if possible but can't find ought.
You have to provide ID for lots of things these days. ID for voting is a great idea . I'lll just show my passport or driving licence.. I don't see the problem...
Because a lot of us don't want to turn into America where you can't even buy a train ticket for a 20 minute journey without showing ID.
I can't remember the last time I was required to show ID for Amtrak, and you don't even need to notionally show it for commuter rail.
You'd only be required to show ID if you purchase at a staffed Amtrak ticket window, of which there are increasingly few. Everyone in practice buys e-tickets online or paper tickets from kiosks.
I was only joking. It would be quite an effort for someone to travel around the world to collect postal votes which presumably wouldn’t be going to the same ward/constituency.
That’s said, I’m not that keen on ex-pats voting. I’m not sure what the time limits are but I think they should be quite short.
We get fifteen years from leaving. Tory policy is to extend it to life. Personally I wouldn't have any objection to it being abolished but I will make use of it while I have it.
Actually that's a neat summary in one diagram of the nonsense frequently spoken about the Irish border. For an obvious start, there's already a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. For a marginally less obvious second, no matter how many times people repeat it, it's simply not true that not being in the CU/Single Market automatically implies that a hard border will suddenly appear in Ireland, apparently without any human intervention or political will, and despite the fact that not a single politician, country or the Commission wants to build one.
But it will create an unsustainable political and administrative situation. You are quite right than in practice is is unlikely to resolve itself by the erection of a hard border, but more likely to result in unification.
Off topic - Have soft leather black work shoes completely died out ? I'm looking for a pair (Up to about £80 I guess) and all the leather has a 'rock hard' look about it. My old pair are Riekers but I can't find them on the website. I'd like to buy the same again if possible but can't find ought.
Dunno if they ship to outside the US but I get my shoes from L L Bean and find them very comfortable and very durable.
Actually that's a neat summary in one diagram of the nonsense frequently spoken about the Irish border. For an obvious start, there's already a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. For a marginally less obvious second, no matter how many times people repeat it, it's simply not true that not being in the CU/Single Market automatically implies that a hard border will suddenly appear in Ireland, apparently without any human intervention or political will, and despite the fact that not a single politician, country or the Commission wants to build one.
But it will create an unsustainable political and administrative situation. You are quite right than in practice is is unlikely to resolve itself by the erection of a hard border, but more likely to result in unification.
It will create a fudge, probably, in the noble tradition of EU fudges, although probably not as creative as the one they came up with for the hugely more difficult problem of northern Cyprus.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Perhaps the main bod at the polling station could just automatically let anybody vote who is wearing the tie of a decent school or regiment - and disenfranchise without recourse anybody who they think looks a bit shifty?
That would be cheap....
Ex-public school pupils should get 2 votes. That would be the simplest solution.
I'm posting this again, because it is the perfect solution, which avoids disenfrachisement and voting fraud.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result 2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever 3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
Data protection issues I'd imagine would be an issue. Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step. Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Fingerprint scanners are cheap. They cost about £40 each. That's £2m in total, as a one off expense.
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
Fingerprinting invites rather easy headlines about "I was made to feel like a criminal," and the hypothetical subculture of which I spoke might also have cultural objections to the taking of photographs of human beings. Tackling personation without abolishing or restricting postal voting turns out to be a massive perverse incentive.
I quite like early voting. You can turn up at the council offices at any point in the previous four weeks.
Comments
I'm still not sold on the necessity, and therefore proportionality of these trialed options, but the hyperbolic reactions around 'millions' are not helping the alternate case.
http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=ff1a1e48-63cf-4424-a4b7-d1de442d50a9
Put simply, the UPC is an international agreement, not an EU one. A UPC court is not an EU court or a national court, but it can ask the CJEU to clarify issues of EU law which may be relevant. However, they are relevant only within the context of an international agreement, not an EU one.
To quote from the Q&A: "Hence CJEU jurisdiction over the UK (if you want to call it that) is indirect, as our existing first instance and appellate courts themselves are neither referring questions nor being given the answers and hence being told what to do."
The UPC courts are not UK, German, French etc, they are international. And the CJEU is not an appellate court within the UPC system. Hope that is clear!
I am not expressing it very well, but I hope you get the gist.
The point is everyone who can vote still qualifies to vote it's just a minimal amount of extra effort to make everyone's vote more secure.
Anybody without ID gets their fingerprints and photo taken.
This enables:
1. Checks in the event of a close result
2. Nobody to ever vote as two different people ever
3. A massive deterrent, because it's pretty fucking obvious if you appear with a different ID in the future (i.e. if you commit another criminal act or apply for a driving license)
It means the disorganised are not disenfranchised. And it cuts voter fraud to basically zero.
So, can everyone please agree with my solution and then we can get back to arguing about Brexit please.
It also smacks of the kind of tricks that the Republicans get up to in the US.
But I'd rather educate Mr. Eagles about the excellence of Hannibal, although he appears impervious to learning.
People are just making a fuss for the sake of it, or for party-political reasons (well what a surprise). There's a case for saying that it's not worth the hassle, but it's absurd to claim that anyone will be disenfranchised, or that it's an onerous requirement.
1. The LDs were 10,000 votes ahead in Richmond Park plus Twickenham at the General Election. (And would likely be more ahead if you remember that Richmond Park loses its most Conservative areas to Kingston Borough Council.)
2. There are lots of EU citizens able to cast protest votes, who've never bothered in the past.
3. It's the heart of Remainia.
4. The local council has not had a good four years.
When I cull the PB ranks of all the posters who've failed to either:
a. Agree with my solution
or
b. Cogently explain why it's not a good solution
You and I will be the only posters left.
Also I think the police have the right to fingerprint you only if you are reasonably suspected of a crime. Extending that to voting without an ID is a big step.
Plus I suppose 50k polling stations all having finger print scanners isn't the cheapest way of running an election.
Some form of ID seems entirely reasonable to me. I play cricket with a bunch of people most of whom don't vote (this was discussed at the GE). I know where most of them live and it's mostly the same ward as me but different polling stations.
It would be trivial to impersonate them and thereby vote 8-10 times myself. The only risk would be the tellers or another voter spotting that i was giving a false name. But tellers are usually not THAT local and especially at local elections turnout is low enough for it to be easy to pick a quiet time of day with an empty polling station. Local elections are also more likely to be ones where small numbers of votes matter.
So we cannot know how much impersonation goes on. Probably it is low, but the bar proposed to solve the problem is not a high one surely?
Cost of supplying camera and fingerprinting equipment (+ backup) to every polling station?
Security of images so can be used for prosecution later?
Invasion of privacy issue, so people with no ID are stigmatised instead?
Data protection: sure, but we fingerprint people now for their driving license, so it's not like it's something we don't already deal with.
This solution eliminates 99.999% of voting fraud, while not disenfranchising people.
"we fingerprint people now for their driving license"
Do we?
Yes I can see that could work, (while I reserve the right to change my mind after it has been piloted)
I also think that ALL voters getting a dab of red permanent ink on their finger when they vote, so that it can be checked if voters have already voted, would/could also reduse voter frord without disenfranchising legitimate voters.
Some of the guys in the house would have needed to have dug out an old bank statement to go with their bank card. Could they have done it? Sure, but it's a non-trivial bar for the disorganised.
To me, the question is: are you disenfranchising more genuine voters than you are putting off potential fraudsters? Given that fraudsters seem to prefer postal voting (in East London, at least), it seems that right now it's likely that we're disenfranchising more than we're preventing.
Hence my solution: you can vote without ID, but only if you consent to having your photo and fingerprints taken. Not many* criminals want to leave a photo and set of prints at the scene.
* Not many probably means close to zero.
What argument? Our political masters
Security of images is something we deal with all the time with passports and the like.
Invasion of privacy is only an issue for those who haven't brought ID, and if they think it's too much, they don't have to vote. The point is that it prevents disenfranchising people. And it prevents fraud.
But no, there is no requirement for fingerprints. Nor can I find any news or information on any trials being run for such. I was involved in the large scale consultation on biometrics a decade ago and still take a close interest in this. There has been no news on it at all.
Are you sure you weren't being taken in for being drunk and disorderly (again!)?
It's not an awful idea - it just seems a big overreaction to a non-problem.
https://www.woking.gov.uk/council/voterID
Obviously it’s different for those working for the government overseas. For them I’d make an exception.
a) It is a bit 'un British'
b) It probably violates a whole bunch of GDPR.
Eliminate the fingerprint bit, and it might be quite sensible. You get your photo taken at the self service checkout in many supermarkets - and a photo alone would be quite sufficient to eliminate 99.9% of fraud, wouldn't waste any time (unlike taking fingerprints), and would cost an order of magnitude less.
That would be cheap....
That's quite a financial barrier to exercising my franchise! If you want to abolish ex-pat voting rights, that's a fair position, but you should say so!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991995845120753664
You'd only be required to show ID if you purchase at a staffed Amtrak ticket window, of which there are increasingly few. Everyone in practice buys e-tickets online or paper tickets from kiosks.
https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/992044307904389120
but I don't understand then why so much fuss when Wisconsin and a few other places introduced the requirements?
Anyway - I have to go and do stuff, but voting will not be part of it.
Byeee!
None of the three options is an absolute yes/no. There are degrees of freedom.
That’s said, I’m not that keen on ex-pats voting. I’m not sure what the time limits are but I think they should be quite short.
Just as the EU (countries) are not of one mind - their differing positions are hypothetical too.
Dynamite misspelling.
I'd like to buy the same again if possible but can't find ought.
Male support dubbing from 11% to 22%
and female up from 7% to 11%
Presumably, this is largely driven by Kenya Wests stream of tweets.
Will it last? Maybe
http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/02/reuters-poll-black-male-approval-for-trump-doubles-in-one-week/